Gun ownership poll

[irv]

How many instances of defensive gun use are there each year?
The number of DGUs, as these incidents are commonly known, is hard to pin down. Law enforcement agencies don’t typically classify DGUs as a standalone category. The FBI tracks justifiable homicides, but states aren’t required to submit those figures, so the data is incomplete. And the FBI figures omit defensive assaults, in which someone fights off an attack, and brandishing's.

According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year.

Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/def...uys-with-guns/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

How many instances of defensive gun use are there each year?
The number of DGUs, as these incidents are commonly known, is hard to pin down. Law enforcement agencies don’t typically classify DGUs as a standalone category. The FBI tracks justifiable homicides, but states aren’t required to submit those figures, so the data is incomplete. And the FBI figures omit defensive assaults, in which someone fights off an attack, and brandishing's.

According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year.

Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/def...uys-with-guns/

And many never make it into the stats, as many such incidents are never reported. Most legal drawings of a gun do not require it’s discharge. Home intruders tend to just stop and leave when confronted with a gun.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

They are tools. Saying the gun alone is not the problem is a straw man argument. Literally no one thinks guns are inherently evil and will do damage on their own. I’ll take my chances against someone with a hammer, a bat, etc. The guy in Vegas was not chucking those things out of the window and if he was that wouldn’t be such a big deal.

If you’re against giving anything up, I guess we need to do what we can always do. Impose a tax and make guns or bullets prohibitively expensive. Chris Rock said $5k a bullet would ensure they are used more wisely. Starting to agree.

I’m at least on board with a training commitment from gun purchasers. As soon as I have faith that a gun owner is responsible I’d be more comfortable with them out there. As it stands, the bad guys with a gun seem to be winning against the good guys with a gun.

Yet all of the proposed bans are acting as if the tool is sentient and punish normal people, not actual perpetrators of crime.

Whoever has a majority block should just tax at 10000% anything the other side does that they don’t like. Great idea. Anyone support a 10000% tax rate on any tool that be used to communicate your first amendment rights?

Even left-wing courts are not going to uphold an effective 10000% tax on constitutional rights. This is lunacy.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yet all of the proposed bans are acting as if the tool is sentient and punish normal people, not actual perpetrators of crime.

Whoever has a majority block should just tax at 10000% anything the other side does that they don’t like. Great idea. Anyone support a 10000% tax rate on any tool that be used to communicate your first amendment rights?

Even left-wing courts are not going to uphold an effective 10000% tax on constitutional rights. This is lunacy.

Speech is free. Guns and bullets are bought and sold. They can and are taxed all the time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Speech is free. Guns and bullets are bought and sold. They can and are taxed all the time.

There is not a federal tax when you buy a box of ammo Good luck with a special 10000% tax on it. I’m sure the courts will uphold it.

[irv]

Its amazing how little media coverage this story got.
Why is that, I wonder? Does it not fit a certain narrative and fall in line with their virtue signaling about gun control?

Alabama school resource officer kills man trying to enter school
Man tried to break into elementary school, police said.

https://torontosun.com/news/world/al...o-enter-school

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Its amazing how little media coverage this story got.
Why is that, I wonder? Does it not fit a certain narrative and fall in line with their virtue signaling about gun control?

Alabama school resource officer kills man trying to enter school
Man tried to break into elementary school, police said.

https://torontosun.com/news/world/al...o-enter-school

Link doesn’t work. Neither does a retiree with a gun against a whacko with a semi for the most part.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Link doesn’t work. Neither does a retiree with a gun against a whacko with a semi for the most part.

There are many such incidents of citizens using their guns to stop criminals. This is just be. How about Stephen Willeford for one?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Link doesn’t work. Neither does a retiree with a gun against a whacko with a semi for the most part.

Something went right in this case, didn't it?
Fixed: https://torontosun.com/news/world/al...o-enter-school

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

And many never make it into the stats, as many such incidents are never reported. Most legal drawings of a gun do not require it’s discharge. Home intruders tend to just stop and leave when confronted with a gun.

Originally Posted by G1911

There are many such incidents of citizens using their guns to stop criminals. This is just be. How about Stephen Willeford for one?

https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...ves-and-others

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

There are many such incidents of citizens using their guns to stop criminals. This is just be. How about Stephen Willeford for one?

So the solution to whackos with guns is just to have more good guys with guns? I think making that your position with no room to bend is going to result in what you fear - legislation taking away a lot of your rights and criminalizing things you already own.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...ves-and-others

The very first one in this article happened very close to me, in a far left state. Even here there are many of us who have used a firearm, legally, to defend ourselves or families. Usually it doesn’t need to be fired.

I bet he’s glad he wasn’t restricted to having a 5 shot or less single action revolver from 1873.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

The very first one in this article happened very close to me, in a far left state. Even here there are many of us who have used a firearm, legally, to defend ourselves or families. Usually it doesn’t need to be fired.

I bet he’s glad he wasn’t restricted to having a 5 shot or less single action revolver from 1873.

I bet he wish he didn’t have to confront a bad guy with a gun in the first place.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So the solution to whackos with guns is just to have more good guys with guns? I think making that your position with no room to bend is going to result in what you fear - legislation taking away a lot of your rights and criminalizing things you already own.

The gun control demands of late in this thread are to ban pretty much all post-civil war technology. “No room to bend” is not exactly inaccurate for me, but be fair. The gun control advocates here are proposing things that are not bends but huge bans of almost all common firearms (or in your case, taxing them so heavily 99.999% can’t afford it to be a de facto ban). This isn’t a bend. You know that.

But okay. Let’s say we ban guns and there are not good guys with guns anymore.

When a criminal who doesn’t care about the law stages a massacre, how will they possibly be stopped? There’s no good guy with a gun to shoot them, as these normally end now. So what happens?

The next time I experience an attempted home invasion from multiple men, what am I supposed to do? Fight them with a knife? Call the cops to show up and clean up my corpse in 15 minutes? Shrug and go back to bed and hope my family is still alive in the morning?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I bet he wish he didn’t have to confront a bad guy with a gun in the first place.

No shit. But he didn’t make that choice, it was made for him by his assailants. He didn’t pick the fight.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

The gun control demands of late in this thread are to ban pretty much all post-civil war technology. “No room to bend” is not exactly inaccurate for me, but be fair. The gun control advocates here are proposing things that are not bends but huge bans of almost all common firearms (or in your case, taxing them so heavily 99.999% can’t afford it to be a de facto ban). This isn’t a bend. You know that.

But okay. Let’s say we ban guns and there are not good guys with guns anymore.

When a criminal who doesn’t care about the law stages a massacre, how will they possibly be stopped? There’s no good guy with a gun to shoot them, as these normally end now. So what happens?

The next time I experience an attempted home invasion from multiple men, what am I supposed to do? Fight them with a knife? Call the cops to show up and clean up my corpse in 15 minutes? Shrug and go back to bed and hope my family is still alive in the morning?

You defending your family at home given the number of guns out that there can be acquired by bad folks is 1 million percent something that has to be taken into consideration. I don’t want to take that away from you. I want to change something because what we’re doing is not working. What the exact changes are I don’t know and I’ve said before I think it has to come from smart gun owners to come up with a better path forward. The better path being more guns is not workable for me or many likeminded folks.

The main issue with trying to advance this forward seems to be but that’s not perfect because what about this or that. Well, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I bet he wish he didn’t have to confront a bad guy with a gun in the first place.

You are living in a fantasy existence if you think eliminating bad guys with guns from society is possible.

So, the next best thing is to figure out how to deal with them (capture and incarcerate, or kill them.) One usually needs a gun to do this.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by irv

https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...ves-and-others

I'm sorry, but you just produced a list showing 12 times gun owners did something with a gun to thwart a crime. That's not a lot.

May I refer you to the FBI report studying active shooters from 2000-2013 that showed that of the 160 active shooter incidents:https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi...oter-incidents

In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms
permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally
managed museum, and a school board meeting.

In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat.

Again, not good odds.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You are living in a fantasy existence if you think eliminating bad guys with guns from society is possible.

So, the next best thing is to figure out how to deal with them (capture and incarcerate, or kill them.) One usually needs a gun to do this.

You are living in a fantasy if you think anyone thinks it is possible to ELIMINATE bad guys with guns.

We are just trying to find ways to REDUCE gun crimes.

And the idea that laws will be broken by bad guys so we shouldn't have stricter laws is maybe the weakest argument of all. With that reasoning why have laws at all?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are living in a fantasy if you think anyone thinks it is possible to ELIMINATE bad guys with guns.

We are just trying to find ways to REDUCE gun crimes.

And the idea that laws will be broken by bad guys so we shouldn't have stricter laws is maybe the weakest argument of all. With that reasoning why have laws at all?

Agree

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

You defending your family at home given the number of guns out that there can be acquired by bad folks is 1 million percent something that has to be taken into consideration. I don’t want to take that away from you. I want to change something because what we’re doing is not working. What the exact changes are I don’t know and I’ve said before I think it has to come from smart gun owners to come up with a better path forward. The better path being more guns is not workable for me or many likeminded folks.

Charging me $5,000 a bullet quite literally does take it away from me though. Only billionaires can possibly train responsibly following your tax plan. Banning pretty much everything from post-Civil War technology does take it away from me. That is exactly what is being proposed. Taking them away from normal citizens does not remove them from criminals (it is already another felony for them to possess arms, to use them in the commission of a crime, and to murder people with any tool).

Originally Posted by Carter08

The main issue with trying to advance this forward seems to be but that’s not perfect because what about this or that. Well, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Criticizing these huge bans is not highlighting an imperfection. We aren't nitpicking on little details; the last sequence of demands in this thread are rolling technology back over a century and either criminalizing pretty much all gun owners or instituting a tax that is a de facto ban on private arms ownership entirely. These aren't imperfections or nitpicking. Of course gun owners are not going to support criminalizing half the nation and stripping the Bill of Rights away. I'm not looking for perfect; I'm pro-gun because I don't believe perfect is an achievable goal. There are always going to be psycho's and criminals; 100% of humanity is not going to gather around the campfire and sing kumbaya together. I wish I didn't need a gun for anything besides sport use. However, I live in the real world, not a fantasy land, and in the real world people do (and have) attempted to invade my home (and millions of others), or try to massacre innocent children. Criminalizing half of us doesn't address this at all. These people are criminals because they don't care about the law and will break it. Huge bans like this don't address the problem.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Charging me $5,000 a bullet quite literally does take it away from me though. Only billionaires can possibly train responsibly following your tax plan. Banning pretty much everything from post-Civil War technology does take it away from me. That is exactly what is being proposed. Taking them away from normal citizens does not remove them from criminals (it is already another felony for them to possess arms, to use them in the commission of a crime, and to murder people with any tool).



Criticizing these huge bans is not highlighting an imperfection. We aren't nitpicking on little details; the last sequence of demands in this thread are rolling technology back over a century and either criminalizing pretty much all gun owners or instituting a tax that is a de facto ban on private arms ownership entirely. These aren't imperfections or nitpicking. Of course gun owners are not going to support criminalizing half the nation and stripping the Bill of Rights away. I'm not looking for perfect; I'm pro-gun because I don't believe perfect is an achievable goal. There are always going to be psycho's and criminals; 100% of humanity is not going to gather around the campfire and sing kumbaya together. I wish I didn't need a gun for anything besides sport use. However, I live in the real world, not a fantasy land, and in the real world people do (and have) attempted to invade my home (and millions of others), or try to massacre innocent children. Criminalizing half of us doesn't address this at all. These people are criminals because they don't care about the law and will break it. Huge bans like this don't address the problem.

Ok, so what do you think would be good? Goal is to reduce mass shootings. Give me something. Again, besides good guy with a gun theory…

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are living in a fantasy if you think anyone thinks it is possible to ELIMINATE bad guys with guns.

We are just trying to find ways to REDUCE gun crimes.

And the idea that laws will be broken by bad guys so we shouldn't have stricter laws is maybe the weakest argument of all. With that reasoning why have laws at all?

There is a colossal difference between:

1) Laws that punish the perpetrator of a specific, wrong act, rooted in tradition (like theft, murder, assault, etc.).

and

2) Laws that punish half of the country and seize commonly owned items or overturn long-standing traditional rights.

No serious person objects to 1. Almost everyone objects to 2, when it is being weaponized against them instead of them doing the weaponizing of the law.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are living in a fantasy if you think anyone thinks it is possible to ELIMINATE bad guys with guns.

We are just trying to find ways to REDUCE gun crimes.

And the idea that laws will be broken by bad guys so we shouldn't have stricter laws is maybe the weakest argument of all. With that reasoning why have laws at all?

Same reason there is a lock in the door knob on the front of your house. They keep honest people honest.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Ok, so what do you think would be good? Goal is to reduce mass shootings. Give me something. Again, besides good guy with a gun theory…

I have several times already discussed mental health measures.

You are asking to me propose only some kind of gun ban and removing any pro-gun or non-gun control option. Criminals do not follow the law. No gun ban disarms psycho's, gang members, and other violent criminals. No law that is passed is going to disarm them to then reduce mass shootings.

I do not support a ban. I do not think there is any rational reason to believe criminals will follow this gun ban for some magical reason.

Address the actually guilty. Address why people do this. Stop blaming 50% of America.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You are living in a fantasy if you think anyone thinks it is possible to ELIMINATE bad guys with guns.

We are just trying to find ways to REDUCE gun crimes.

And the idea that laws will be broken by bad guys so we shouldn't have stricter laws is maybe the weakest argument of all. With that reasoning why have laws at all?

Laws should not be based in stupidity. Reducing the ability of people to be able to defend themselves is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Reality:
If you're a gang member, or other violent criminal, sitting there with your weapons of choice and large capacity magazines, you would LOVE to have stricter gun control laws that your law abiding victims will have to follow.

Fantasy you seem to be living in:
Gang Member #1: Whatcha doing?

Gang Member #2: Loading up so I can jack a car and knock off a gas station. Getting a little low on funds.

Gang Member #1: Yeah, that's cool, but don't you know, that magazine you're still using is now illegal.

Gang Member #2: Oh, man, thanks for reminding me! I'll stop by the police station to turn it in on my way, and use a compliant magazine.

Gang Member #1: It'll save me a trip if you'll turn in my clips too.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have several times already discussed mental health measures.

You are asking to me propose only some kind of gun ban and removing any pro-gun or non-gun control option. Criminals do not follow the law. No gun ban disarms psycho's, gang members, and other violent criminals. No law that is passed is going to disarm them to then reduce mass shootings.

I do not support a ban. I do not think there is any rational reason to believe criminals will follow this gun ban for some magical reason.

Address the actually guilty. Address why people do this. Stop blaming 50% of America.

Right, this is just our impasse and that’s ok. I want some types of guns to be banned or harder to buy. I don’t think fixing mental health is the answer, although it’s obviously a goal.

[irv]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I'm sorry, but you just produced a list showing 12 times gun owners did something with a gun to thwart a crime. That's not a lot.

May I refer you to the FBI report studying active shooters from 2000-2013 that showed that of the 160 active shooter incidents:https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi...oter-incidents

In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms
permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally
managed museum, and a school board meeting.

In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat.

Again, not good odds.

I assume you missed bullet number #1 and bullet number #3?
According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.
The first month of 2020 provided still more examples of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves and others.
we highlighted some of the stories of average, everyday Americans who used their guns to protect their lives and livelihoods from criminals.

The first month of 2020 provided still more examples of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves and others. Here are 12:

I also assume you didn't read the first story I linked?
The FBI tracks justifiable homicides, but states aren’t required to submit those figures, so the data is incomplete. And the FBI figures omit defensive assaults, in which someone fights off an attack, and brandishings.

It doesn't matter what you wish for or how you try to spin it, criminals will always have weapons and will always disobey the law no matter what laws are implemented. To think otherwise is foolish, plain and simple.

Mental health is the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge or address.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

I assume you missed bullet number #1 and bullet number #3?
According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.
The first month of 2020 provided still more examples of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves and others.
we highlighted some of the stories of average, everyday Americans who used their guns to protect their lives and livelihoods from criminals.

The first month of 2020 provided still more examples of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves and others. Here are 12:

I also assume you didn't read the first story I linked?
The FBI tracks justifiable homicides, but states aren’t required to submit those figures, so the data is incomplete. And the FBI figures omit defensive assaults, in which someone fights off an attack, and brandishings.

It doesn't matter what you wish for or how you try to spin it, criminals will always have weapons and will always disobey the law no matter what laws are implemented. To think otherwise is foolish, plain and simple.

Mental health is the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge or address.

Saying no one wants to acknowledge or address mental health is where people tune out. Do you really think that? You wrote it so I guess so.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Saying no one wants to acknowledge or address mental health is where people tune out. Do you really think that? You wrote it so I guess so.

Show me where in any of these protests they are talking about mental illness?
Post an article from the left leaning MSM where they discuss mental health issues instead of guns primarily?
The virtue signaling is over the top, and guess what is going to be used the most this coming fall? They are rallying the troops already and, just like usual, they will say things like the other side doesn't care about your children, gramma or any other thing they can use to make them look like they care, guaranteed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0iCBLhO7rs

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sts-washington
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/11/u...-protests.html

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Show me where in any of these protests they are talking about mental illness?
Post an article from the left leaning MSM where they discuss mental health issues instead of guns primarily?
The virtue signaling is over the top, and guess what is going to be used the most this coming fall? They are rallying the troops already and, just like usual, they will say things like the other side doesn't care about your children, gramma or any other thing they can use to make them look like they care, guaranteed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0iCBLhO7rs

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sts-washington
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/11/u...-protests.html

Just like you will say the protestors don’t care about mental health. Maybe say more attention should be paid there or something but to say no one cares seems hyperbolic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Saying no one wants to acknowledge or address mental health is where people tune out. Do you really think that? You wrote it so I guess so.

You just said, only 2 posts before this, “I don’t think fixing mental health is the answer”.

His point that people want to only spend time banning guns and eroding the Bill of Rights instead of addressing mental health seems in accord with your own platform.

[BobbyStrawberry]

America has many problems. Mental health is one. Mass execution of schoolchildren via guns is another. These two things intersect but are not the same. If America is going to survive as a country much longer, we need to deal with both of these things–not deflect, not blame the bogeyman of "the other side", not defend our positions as "it's just common sense", and most of all, not talk about one of these intersecting issues while dancing around the other.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

You just said, only 2 posts before this, “I don’t think fixing mental health is the answer”.

His point that people want to only spend time banning guns and eroding the Bill of Rights instead of addressing mental health seems in accord with your own platform.

Solely focusing on mental health and doing nothing about guns is not the answer to lessening mass shootings. Saying I don’t care about mental health from that would be a wrong conclusion. Starting to think the right demonizes the left more than the other way around. It’s not productive.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Solely focusing on mental health and doing nothing about guns is not the answer to lessening mass shootings. Saying I don’t care about mental health from that would be a wrong conclusion. Starting to think the right demonizes the left more than the other way around. It’s not productive.

Only one side (I’m not on the right on many issues) is trying to criminalize the other half.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

America has many problems. Mental health is one. Mass execution of schoolchildren via guns is another. These two things intersect but are not the same. If America is going to survive as a country much longer, we need to deal with both of these things–not deflect, not blame the bogeyman of "the other side", not defend our positions as "it's just common sense", and most of all, not talk about one of these intersecting issues while dancing around the other.

Show me a gun that shoots people without someone pulling the trigger, and I'll start believing that guns are the problem. Otherwise, you've identified the singular issue that is multi-faceted and nobody really wants to talk about - mental health. This encompasses how we raise our kids, how we treat others, how we deal with stress (all of which are basically accountability) and Big Pharma. In the meantime, let's put more guns in schools in the hands of trained, combat veterans, and protect our kids.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Show me a gun that shoots people without someone pulling the trigger, and I'll start believing that guns are the problem. Otherwise, you've identified the singular issue that is multi-faceted and nobody really wants to talk about - mental health. This encompasses how we raise our kids, how we treat others, how we deal with stress (all of which are basically accountability) and Big Pharma. In the meantime, let's put more guns in schools in the hands of trained, combat veterans, and protect our kids.

The argument that someone needs to pull the trigger somehow proves that guns aren't the problem, is weak. You could say the same about thing anything dangerous.

Cars don't typically run people over without someone driving them. But there are driver's tests, speed limits, etc.

Drugs don't typically snort themselves, but its probably not a great idea to make fentanyl easily accessible.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

The argument that someone needs to pull the trigger somehow proves that guns aren't the problem, is weak. You could say the same thing anything dangerous.

Cars don't typically run people over without someone driving them. But there are driver's tests, speed limits, etc.

Drugs don't typically snort themselves, but its probably not a great idea to make fentanyl easily accessible.

The argument that you think guns are evil without a whacko behind it is a talking point and straw man. It’s a silly argument. We know there are whackos out there. I’m not going to ban the sale of hammers because of that fact. Hammers are important and do a net positive, despite being used for bad purposes from time to time. A semi automatic rifle, not so sure.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Show me a gun that shoots people without someone pulling the trigger, and I'll start believing that guns are the problem.

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

Plus one emphatically. The gun side can make many good arguments but they choose some weird talking points that don’t go anywhere. Guns don’t kill people, people do bad things and break the law. Yeah, I think we’re operating at that level.

[G1911]

The proposition to criminalize half the country for possessing post civil war common-use technology or to effectively eradicate the 2nd for non-billionaires by instituting a tax 10,000 times the cost of the item, which are the last proposals presented, is extreme.

I’d still love to hear why some think criminals (I understand not all, but apparently the belief is many of them) will simply not use illegal items that are common place. There’s many magazines-over-5 for every person. They are everywhere.

What am I supposed to do if I am restricted to pre-Civil War firearms technology (or none at all, due to a 10,000x tax) if I have a home invasion, as absolutely happens, again? This ban is going to make the criminal just give up his gun and we’re back to an even footing? I sure hope the guy(s) breaking in mean no harm, as it’s going to take me a few minutes to remove my Flintlock from the safe and push a ball down the muzzle.

How does criminalizing half the country actually make anyone safer? I see the obvious political gain of doing so. Guns exist. No law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400,000,000 guns. How do we think they are going to just disappear?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

How does criminalizing half the country actually make anyone safer? I see the obvious political gain of doing so. Guns exist. No law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400,000,000 guns. How do we think they are going to just disappear?

You've repeated the claim that half the country is going to be criminalized half a dozen times. Are there actually any legislative proposals that would do this?
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons.

While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it.

You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear.

I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You've repeated the claim that half the country is going to be criminalized half a dozen times. Are there actually any legislative proposals that would do this?
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons.

While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it.

You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear.

I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider.

I am speaking of your proposal you made. What do you think banning a magazine over 5 does? Basically every gun owner in America becomes a felon.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am speaking of your proposal you made. What do you think banning a magazine over 5 does? Basically every gun owner in America becomes a felon.

There is proposed legislation that is considering banning FUTURE sales of magazines with over 5 rounds.

This would not make it illegal for people that already own these guns/magazines to continue to own them. Do you actually think someone has proposed a law that requires people to give up their pistols that have 5 rounds?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

The weapon has been discussed as nauseum in this thread. One bullet per trigger pull. That's the weapon - AR, handgun - they're all the same. You can't touch one without touching them all, and you can't touch them all without infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

You can keep trying to solve the problem by fitting a square peg into a triangular hole, but it's not going to work. There is all sorts of legislation and law out there to prevent stuff that STILL HAPPENS. Drugs, for example. We have a massive drug problem in this country, despite laws that ban those drugs. Drunk Driving, despite laws that make drunk driving illegal. It's been said before, but murder is illegal, yet no matter the weapon, it's still committed - car, knife, rope, plane, firearm, fire, hands, etc.

I'm ready to have the discussion about the threat of Big Pharma, our public education system, the media, our politicians (both sides), our work life balance, our broken homes, the lack of accountability in society anymore, etc. I'm ready for that conversation. Solving those issues, figuring out how to be better people, that's the long term solution. Then, when the inevitable trigger is pulled and one bullet comes out, it'll be at a paper target like 99% of gun owners shoot at. Look at that, the weapon isn't the problem.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

I do not know how you can expect me to read your mind. I can only read your actual words.

I specified quite explicitly in 491 that I am talking about the gun control proposals in this thread. People are discussing here what they think, not solely or even mostly pending legislation. Almost nothing has been said about the vague 'framework' in the Senate or the House bill.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not know how you can expect me to read your mind. I can only read your actual words.

I specified quite explicitly in 491 that I am talking about the gun control proposals in this thread. People are discussing here what they think, not solely or even mostly pending legislation. Almost nothing has been said about the vague 'framework' in the Senate or the House bill.

Well now you know. And you can stop repeating yourself about half the country being criminalized.

By the way, typically, legislative "Bans" are not retroactive.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well now you know. And you can stop repeating yourself about half the country being criminalized.

I'm glad you've walked it back to only eradicating constitutional liberties for the next generation.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm glad you've walked it back to only eradicating constitutional liberties for the next generation.

Well, fortunately, the Bill of Rights is fluid. Its changed for the better in the past. Let's hope it changes for the better in the future.

And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well, fortunately, the Bill of Rights is fluid. Its changed for the better in the past. Let's hope it changes for the better in the future.

And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence.

Let’s hope our rights continue to remain rights instead of temporal privileges to be voided anytime people find it politically convenient.