Well Trump is pretty tyrannical, right? So why haven't they shot him yet?
As far as personal freedom goes, so far he has been less tyrannical than Obama or what Clinton would have been.
One can buy a gun without any 'tests', legal or of course illegal.
You cannot buy guns in an american gunstore without first going through a background check (and depending on the state a waiting period).
And one can conceal carry without any 'licence' to do so. So...yea.
You cannot legally conceal carry without a CC permit.
Btw NRA isn't a 'national' organisation, it's a the lobbying and propaganda office of the US gun industry.
National doesn't mean "owned/run by the government". Seriously. Use a dictionary some time.
Also this isn't a 'game', tens of thousands of people die every year in US alone because of a 'hobby'.
And?
In our society we weigh things based on their perceived value & cost. How many times do I have to repeat that gun owners have made this value judgement and found it acceptable.
If you want to talk about meaningless deaths, why don't you advocate outlawing of smoking, alcohol and so on?
You're a Finn. So let's ban rally. It offers no benefit other than entertainment and it kills & maims people as well as animals.
Because they are cops and not civilians. They have to put themselves in harm's way when they raid gangs and other criminal/organized crime houses or "bases", their job is to risk their lives each day because they target dangerous individuals that can attack them with knives or guns too. Civilians do not have to deal with these dangers because usually they stay away from criminal houses/organized crime.
And yet rich people and politicians get protected by cops and private bodyguards, and you are left to fend for yourself. As said above, the US Supreme Court ruled that the police has NO duty to protect you. There is no guarantee at all that they will show up, let alone show up on time to help you if you need help.
Also notice how you say they have both. Which means that they only use the lethal weapons when they really have to, for most of the time they use the non lethal.
When a civilian is threatened, it tends to be with serious bodily harm. A firearm is proportional to that threat.
Also cops tend to be paired for a reason. There's no guarantee that you won't be alone when attacked.
In some countries including the Republic of Ireland, the UK (except Northern Ireland), Norway, Iceland, and New Zealand police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to involve gunfire from the opposing force. So there are some countries that have police forces without guns unless they expect enemy fire.
You realize that the amount of armed police in the UK has literally exploded over the past decade, and that that is in a country where handguns are illegal to own and where semi-automatic rifles are only legal in rimfire cartridges?
I have never felt the need to conceal carry myself, but I do not have the audacity to claim that I can decide for other people that they do not need it. In my country, concealed carry firearms, pepper spray, tasers, and so on are all illegal, but if I had a daughter that lived in a troubled neighborhood of a major city, I'd support my daughter if she wanted to carry a weapon (if it were legal).
I don't see what you mean with your question, by that logic, since in the USA people can legally own guns there shouldn't be police forces. Because everyone can protect themselves if they want.
Police does not just protect, it enforces.
Besides, after a concealed carry incident, the police is still needed to help determine if the action was justified or not.
It's their right to do so, so why does police officers have to risk their lives to protect people that can protect themselves? It's nonsense.
Because carrying a gun doesn't magically make you invulnerable and infallible?
You're the one spouting nonsense here.
I hate to play that cuard, but in the wake of 59 dead people and more than 500 wounded, I think you have a very hard stance on defending 'firearms' as defensive weapons.
The shooting has had absolutely no effect on my stance whatsoever, because my stance has been formed with the knowledge that such a thing might happen. And I have found that the cost of these rights is outweighed by the benefits it brings to individuals.
I am sorry, I am just not buying that reasoning, when you consider the lethality of them. This is what weapons are made for, this is their design. To shoot at something.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion, merely to recognize that there is a valid argument to be made for my point of view.
And I find this atitude of "naw, guns are every day objects you can do soooooooo much more than just shooting!" very worrysome.
And I find it worrisome that you are afraid of inanimate objects.
It's not like violence & crime will suddenly disappear if we ban all firearms.
I mean can you at least admitt that the US has a very problematic gun culture?
Sure, there are things I would want to change if I lived there.
But overall, I think that the US mental health culture, the self-medication culture, the education system, the entitlement culture and so on are far more troubling than its gun culture.
Most of this shit could have been prevented if there were metal detectors all over the fucking place.
The surveillance state is a problem on its own. But the more freedoms you are willing to put on the chopping block of "safety", the closer we inch towards it.
I haven't followed the story closely (the next shooting will roll around too quickly to bother) but how did he get so many guns into the hotel? Seems it wasn't how easy he got the guns, but how easy it was to set up camp and pick off targets.
What's special about it? He was a high profile gambler which stayed in hotels for most of his time. So he had a great many bags. He just had the bellhop bring the bags up and gave him 100 bucks probably?
