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.
This list only goes to 2012, but if you look at the list of mass shootings, many have happened in countries that have very restrictive gun control laws. So your argument falls on its face from the beginning.
How do you figure? In a list of 11 years of mass shootings around the world outside the US, which for some reason also included stabbings, fewer than 200 people were killed in all of them added together. That's fewer than die in a week in the US by gun homicide, and fewer than die in mass shootings in any given year in the US. That's 11 years of the rest of the world vs. a fraction of the time in the US.
I don't know how you see that as an argument "falling flat on its face". No one, anywhere, has said that any measure taken will stop any and all shootings everywhere forever. If that's the only thing you can get from these debates, then I don't think you are capable of understanding even the broadest of points.
If anything, this absolutely proves the point. In countries with very restrictive gun laws, they have a minuscule fraction of gun deaths compared to the US, to the tune of numerous countries added together not even coming close to the US.
No there isn't. I have owned guns for over 40 years, and have belonged to several gun clubs, and involved in competitive shooting sports, and I have NEVER seen that attitude. You characterization of law abiding gun owners is not only wrong, but purposely insulting, and lame.
Nor have I, thirty years in shooting sports, several clubs including Friday night IDPA league and occasional rifle range. The worst I've seen is the *rare* yahoo at open pistol ranges who is a little loose with his barrel sweeps and/or where he moves the weapon from place to place. An attentive range officer will see that give the person a good talking to; I've seen that, too.
This is a no joking around sport, no margin for error, and in my observation "very" American. I like that just fine. They'll take that away from me and thirty million friends under rather ugly protest, I do suspect.
I think, as an aside, I may be more for "more regulation" than many 2nd Amendment supporters. On one end, some say by-definition there is no regulation, you don't need rules to practice a Right. On the other argue those who say a Right that annihilates greater public good is no such thing. I must, with some reluctance, for my part suggest that "competency regulation" of military weapons might not be a bad idea, if nationally and uniformly enforced. I'd have to see it, noodle on it, and vote for it first. Not have it imposed by some pinhead 18 year old or Marxist from the California State Assembly, however.
The "assault weapons ban" from 1994 that expired in 2004 was some of the dumbest crap I've seen in my life, though, merely inhibiting people like me from enjoying the sport: I bought an AR-15 A1 knock-off during that period that was fully legal, and learned to shoot and handle it safely (and decided I had little use for the platform, so sold all of it). What was "banned" didn't solve anything I could see. Y'know, like 99.99% of AR-15 knock-off owners.
This entire argument about "military style" weapons doesn't convince, considering what one determined deranged bastard could accomplish with, say, a Steyr Scout (bolt 308) w/good optic at 200 yards and determination to stay mobile. Last mad sniper I heard of was those WA DC guys back c. 2002, fortunately, but just saying. What's next, propose banning those too? N'gonna happen, folks.
we have dogs.
not little ones either.
at the very least they are distracting and buy you time - I also have a baseball bat and partner has some swords.
(of course, the possibility of this I think is very very low. I would also call the cops, and send an urgent alert via my phone app to the community, we have a serious neighborhood watch group and a lot of good neighbors.) But honestly most of this "what would you do faced with an armed intruder stuff is fantasy- and if I had been that armed sheriff- sorry I would have gone in- I could not have lived with myself if I hadn't)...
If you are a responsible gun owner living in a family home, you will still die. By the time you get to your gun, unlock it, and go to the separate place where your ammo is stored, then load the weapon, that intruder has already done you in. Joe Criminal is not going to wait while you ascertain the threat is REAL and prepare. Now if you take the riskier path and leave your loaded weapon laying around there is a chance Junior or one of the other kids will find it and that almost never ends up well. That top shelf in the coat closet isn't safe after Junior learns to use a step stool.
We need to stop lying to ourselves. Putting a gun in my hand does not make me Rambo. It does not put me in control of the situation. I am not bulletproof and I will be scared ****less. Will my hand shake? Yeah it's easy to talk about how brave I am and how I would just take them out. Am I that brave? Would I actually be willing to kill another human being? We will never know for sure till we are put in that position. There is a big difference between shooting up targets and firing at real people. Talk is cheap.
The common misconception here is the term "gun grabber".
Not all of the folks who want some additional restrictions are looking to take away the guns.
A short term approach to gun legislation in the past is causing trouble for us in the present. If restrictions on guns were put in place back when suppressors became restricted we would probably still have automatic weapons today and not be talking about restrictions on assault "style" weapons because the shootings would have been greatly reduced.
I'm a concealed carry holder, I own a handgun and semi-automatic rifles as well as a suppressor and I think the NRA is doing gun owners a dis-service by attempting to remove all firearm related legislation.
Responsibility in the form of background checks and permitting will go a long way in keeping our guns well into the future.
This is true. The right thing to do is regulate the rate of fire of legally owned weapons. Just like we did with fully automatic weapons.
Hardly, if anything your list on better supports my point. Of the 25 mass shootings listed around the world from 2001 to 2012, 10 happened in the US. So 4.5 percent of the world's population (the US) accounted for 42 percent of all mass shootings. Coincidentally its the one country will extremely loose gun control. If we had the same gun control measures as most of the civilized world then statistically at 4 percent of the world population we should have only had 1 mass shooting. Not 10.
That list does not include any "mass shootings" from areas like Somalia and the Middle East.
I do not think you can claim the world population for the denominator of your calculation.
And like it or not, having a firearm within reach could very well mean the difference between life and death for some of you one day. I am not saying that you should be prepared for war, and I'm not saying you should live in fear. I am simply saying that there is nothing wrong with being prepared. Don't take your safety for granted just because thus far you haven't found yourself in harm's way.
No one is doubting that bad things happen. And few are doubting that SOME areas are more violence prone than others.
However, the idea of having a firearm within reach at all times is quite a heavy load. Or reach. I'd move long before I'd force myself to change my lifestyle to that degree.
Bears kill some people also. Am I going to stop walking in the woods without a gun which kills bears?
It's all in the odds. You can look them up for your state or county. It would be VERY smart never to enter a car if one wanted the level of safety akin to having a gun within reach at their side. There are also many other behaviors (self-destructive and destructive of others) which have a far greater chance of harming you and your loved ones that someone with a gun.
Most gunplay are suicides and domestic violence. On the other hand, it appears you have violent individuals in your area who are armed and will clean out houses. I understand your concern.
Maybe if guns hadn't proliferated as the NRA wanted, that bad guys wouldn't have as many. When you dig further into this problem you find a lot of gun owners who "lose" their guns and same with gun dealers who are shady. The amount of guns actually stolen from homes compared to the number in the hands of gangs and bad guys is tiny. So where do all those guns come from? They come from lack of proper regulations.
Given our computers and networks we have the ability to track every sale. Yet there are stories about owners who claim to have lost multiple guns....just plain lost them! In many areas you don't have to even report lost guns. How many do you think are sold for profit and wind up in the bad guys hands?
As some say we have a people problems - and the NRA as well as the gun lobby, dealers and certain individuals who make shady private sales are part of it.
This small group has created a situation where now 100's of millions of innocents have to have their children trained in avoiding "active shooters". This is truly amazing that we - as a country - will put up with that. What's next - selling our kids into slavery or as child soldiers?
It affects our children and our society to teach them that they are always in danger of being murdered. What a horrible thing. And even this doesn't change our society.
I am sure glad I raised my children when this was not a possibility. That's an important thing for people to realize - this is generally a new problem caused by the parties named above (among other things).
So we all have to change based on the "rights" of a few.
Nuff said about what. I'm going to bookmark this post for the day that monster rips that kids face off.
And when he's dead or has one of those 18 hour operations to put some cadavers face where his was, I'll come back and remind you of this post.
I'd rather have an unlocked gun in the house than have a pitbull around my kid. At least I know the gun isn't going to flip out and rip my kids face off.
And all the idiot pit owners whose kids have been mauled always say, "The dog was a family pet and has never done anything like this before."
And all the idiot pit owners whose kids have been mauled always say, "The dog was a family pet and has never done anything like this before."
As they are burying their kid without a face.
I'm with you on that topic. But at the same time, it has little to do with the subject at hand. There are plenty of breeds which are proven quite safe to their owners which will still provide some level of protection.
We can't keep saying "but what about this?"....as an answer to the thousands killed and maimed by gun violence. Now we are going to spend 10's of Billion of dollars "educating" innocents about how to duck and cover? This country has gone crazy.
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.
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.
