Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The CDC provides studies in many different areas but suddenly they attempt to study the details of gun deaths and it's politics. CDC has analyzed deaths due to cars, appliances and many other areas why not guns.
It's because guns are inherently political.... Give you an example.... You read the news over the weekend about the mentally ill woman who plowed her car in to a parade, killing, what, four? Injuring many others.... Nary a word was mentioned about """Keeping cars out of the wrong hands""" or the """need for more car laws"""... This tragedy will not lead to Democrats fighting over which one of them Ford hates the most. No one will attempt to argue that the manufacturer of the vehicle used is somehow, in some way responsible, and that the families of the victims should be able to sue.
Now, swap out the car for a gun, and suddenly it becomes political and you'd have politicians exploiting the incident to call for more gun controls....
Why such a massive difference in response based on the weapon used? No one is blaming cars or the "car lobby" for what happened. No one is exploiting this tragedy, and everyone recognizes it for what it is... something very bad that happened as a result of a mentally ill person. In other words, the response has been sane. Why? Because cars aren't political, but guns are.
Most gun violence is the result of gangs not law abiding citizens. Just because children are in a home with guns doesn't mean new legislation will come along. Smart gun owners keep there guns on there person or in a gun safe to prevent children from getting to them. A good idea would also be to teach your children gun safety and if anything not to mess with them without there mom or dad. The think of the children mentally doesn't work for most.
My child has had her own firearm since she was 6.
When she was 12, I get a call to bring the ice chest and the skinning knife. She already had bambi hanging, ready to skin.
Today at 18, my daughter has 4 firearms of her own. Her .410 pump shotgun. Mini-14(223 semi-auto) a .38 police issue revolver and a .45 muzzle loader. She also has a Matthews Bow, and a Barrett crossbow
It's because guns are inherently political.... Give you an example.... You read the news over the weekend about the mentally ill woman who plowed her car in to a parade, killing, what, four? Injuring many others.... Nary a word was mentioned about """Keeping cars out of the wrong hands""" or the """need for more car laws"""... This tragedy will not lead to Democrats fighting over which one of them Ford hates the most. No one will attempt to argue that the manufacturer of the vehicle used is somehow, in some way responsible, and that the families of the victims should be able to sue.
Now, swap out the car for a gun, and suddenly it becomes political and you'd have politicians exploiting the incident to call for more gun controls....
Why such a massive difference in response based on the weapon used? No one is blaming cars or the "car lobby" for what happened. No one is exploiting this tragedy, and everyone recognizes it for what it is... something very bad that happened as a result of a mentally ill person. In other words, the response has been sane. Why? Because cars aren't political, but guns are.
Even trained police officers have an issue, why do some gun owners view concealed carry as a solution to anything. We have had mass shootings where there were gun owners carrying but chose not to do anything because of the risk, good judgment.
Quote:
The more that sensational gun violence afflicts the nation, the more that the
myth of the vigilant citizen packing a legally permitted concealed weapon, fully prepared to stop the next mass shooter in his tracks, is promoted.This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed i
The writer of the article has some misguided notion that we are all going to step up and stop the shooter. If I am ever faced with that situation, my first priority is the safety of the people entrusted to my care - family and friends that I am there with.
Same with the second sentence in the quote. You can tell the writer hasn't talked with any firearms trainers. No one wants to get into an "OK Corral" shootout. If I were to fight back, I would take cover and wait for an opportunity to take out the shooter(s). But if forced, I would whatever it takes to protect my family including giving my own life in the process.
Opposite sides of the same coin. If you won't/don't trust the NRA to provide an objective view on guns, then you shouldn't trust the VPC, either. Doing so is ignorant and hypocritical.
Even trained police officers have an issue, why do some gun owners view concealed carry as a solution to anything. We have had mass shootings where there were gun owners carrying but chose not to do anything because of the risk, good judgment.
Everyday there are stories of successful defensive gun uses.
BTW, concealed carry licenses do not make you law enforcement. It only gives you a chance against a criminal that has intent on doing great bodily harm or death to you.
There are also many of them that were never classified as mass shootings because they were stopped before they killed enough people to be declared a mass shooting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.