From what I remember about James Bond, we're talking pistols, right? Pull trigger, Bang, pull trigger, Bang?
Pretty sure nobody is interested in taking those, unless there are a few grandstanding politicians out there. Maybe it's my middle-America upbringing, but I have never heard a single person say to get rid of all the guns. (Not counting a fringe politician or two.)

What about people who have worked with guns, like ex-military? If someone can become a policeman whom people trust to bring help in the form of gun expertise, why can't someone who's primary job is a teacher, custodian, or administrator go through similar training? In fact, why not specifically look for guys coming out of military service with honorable discharge, and train them to be admins?

I don't care how fat your administrators are, they will still be faster to and from their office than the response time of police.

Obviously, you, and most, teachers wouldn't want to carry. I'm not saying every single adult in a school needs to. Just a few. And some people would put up with a little discomfort in exchange for protecting the kids.

You seemed upset when you objected to me asking what you are proposing, before asking what I am proposing and then started dropping F bombs in 372.

See posts 180, 385, 388, and several others through this thread. Copying in one of the old ones:

I am out of here for the evening. I have enjoyed the posts today and wish all of you a great evening.

Then what are we proposing to ban, as automatics are already de facto illegal and cost tens of thousands of dollars for a legal one as a toy for the super rich? Every AR-15 sold in every gun store in America is pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang.

See 180, 385, 388, 403, and several others in this thread.

I said, and I quote, "I have not been able to find any evidence that a waiting period works to reduce violence, but it is something that might reasonably be expected to maybe have an impact - reducing a moment of hotheaded anger and letting tempers cool. It doesn't seem to have produced results in states that have it, but I see the logic behind it." See post 369.

Go through the same background checks and training that a military recruit goes through.

What an absolute slap? That’s the rhetoric that is just silly. I could stand on the same high horse and talk about why you’re not thinking about all of the kids that have died in mass shootings.

Spare me the BS propaganda. The whole “I give a damn about our law enforcement and military” is nothing more than political talking points and/or virtue signaling.

As someone who has worked as a corrections officer (no weapon on duty), served in the Army conducting ~75 combat missions, gone through extensive training on/with an M4 rifle and an M9 pistol, and know what the weapons can do, go pound sand.

So sick and tired of people using veterans/law enforcement as a talking point.

I was not upset with you at all for asking. I dropped one f bomb, Greg, and it was not directed at you to instigate an argument. It was for emphasis because I figured you would not care if your wait time for your 31st gun was 45 days or 10 days.

Will go back and read your posts closer.

Please refer to all of my posts. I've been very focused on how to protect our children. My "silly rhetoric" you're referencing was to make a point; calling these people pansies, while you're not doing a damn thing yourself besides clambering for law abiding citizens to have their rights stripped. Pathetic.

Thank you for not responding to the rest of my points, which were discussion points I thought we were engaging in. Again, further proof you're not actually willing to have a conversation and hear the other side.

I give a damn about people who put others and their country first. If you want to call that BS propaganda, that's your choice. I was talking about their willingness to make sacrifices to potentially protect our kids. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your service. I believe you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.

Once people start throwing around phrases and words like slap in the face and pathetic, yeah you’re not going to sway people with your misguided views. Most people want to reach a solution that benefits everyone given what seems to be a serious problem. Some do not. I’ll place you in the latter camp but hope you prove me wrong.

Put me in whatever camp you want to. There is a time and a place for compromise, and excuse me for thinking protecting our children & our rights as citizens in this country are not the place. And let's be honest, I was pre-determined to be in whatever camp you're referencing simply based on my previous posts in this thread. Again, based on your lack of a response to my other discussion points, you're not coming off as a person who really wants to hear the "other side" and have a productive conversation.

Not one anti-gun proposal in this thread or really in politics would ever prevent all murders/mass shootings/mass killings. That is a fact. I'm not in the business of using my kids as an experiment, nor am I in the business of giving up my God-given rights as an American born citizen so that you and others can "feel" better.

Yeah, I’ll keep you in that camp. Thankfully there are others that are better that will keep their rights and also realize we can do better.

Joe Biden, the President of the United States, just said a few days ago, that there is no reason a person should need a 9mm weapon. What is the most popular, most common pistol caliber in the United States? Why, it's the 9mm. The 9mm cartridge is also the NATO standard caliber for pistols; making it probably the most common caliber on the planet! And the President of the United States wants to ban it!

Every one on the left constantly says they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons.

The Walther PPK (James Bond's pistol), is a semi-automatic weapon.

Beretta pistols (used by James Bond), are semi-automatic weapons.

The Colt M1911 .45 caliber pistol (1911 is the year it first came out), is a semi-automatic weapon.

The left also wants to ban all magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Most semi-automatic pistols hold between ten, and 19 rounds in their magazines. The Glock 17 holds 17 rounds, and the Glock 19 holds 15 rounds. The Glock 19 is the most popular pistol in the country. The Glock 17 had been the most popular until the 19 came out. The 19 is more popular, simply because it is, due to its smaller size, easier to conceal. What caliber bullet do the Glock 17 and 19 fire? The 9mm; I refer you back to Joe Biden's comment about it.

So, they admit almost-unanimously, that they want to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, which includes pistols.

Steve

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?

No and no.

1) You're limiting an 18-20 year old's ability to defend himself/his family.

2) What does this prevent? A shooter could simply carry a bunch of pre-loaded magazines.

Both of these measures would reduce mass shootings in schools. I think that is pretty obvious. Having to reload a weapon increases the chance that the mass shooter can be taken out before they start shooting again.

Some people are under the illusion that criminals obey laws and that illegal importation of weapons/magazines and other hardware doesn't exist.

Some likely believe a simple sign like this would also help in our countries because criminals/nut cases obey signs too.

We just had a mass shooting in a school where an 18 year old legally bought an AR-15. And you are deflecting the issue and talking about how criminals break laws?

What is your point? That we shouldn't have laws? Give me a break.

I will try to do a baseball related example so people can see how banning or adding more gun laws are seen by many gun owners.

I have a life long friend doing life for taking a baseball bat to someones head till he was no longer alive. I am serious this really happened. Sadly it has happened many many times in the history of baseball bats.

Since we are blaming the tool. I think banning baseball bats would be a great idea. They also need to remove ALL baseball bats from the public so they can be destroyed to save people from these awful baseball bats.

Then maybe we can take it a one step better. We could just ban everything baseball and remove all things associated with this horrible weapon and the history of baseball. Don't worry about all the people that work in baseball as long as we can get rid of those horrible baseball bats that go out and murder people. Aslo who cares about the collectors if we can save lives.

No one is calling to ban or take away all guns.

One whacko with a baseball bat is rather limited in how much damage he or she can do. Mass baseball bat murders are not currently a problem in this country. Mass shootings are. Some people would like to try to make them less of an issue.

False. Reloading pre-loaded magazines would only take 2 seconds to accomplish. It also would not have prevented Uvalde, as the police did not engage for over an hour.

You also failed to discuss the inevitable increase in burglary attempts/in-home crimes/murders. Those lives matter, too, right?

Reloading may not have done anything for Uvalde, but could potentially help in future mass shootings.

As far your theory that preventing 18 to 20 year olds from buying semi-automatic weapons will lead to increased burglary attempts/crimes/murders, I think that is an unfounded claim. Why do they need a semi-automatic weapon to prevent a burglary/murder?

If it wouldn't have prevented one of the largest school mass shootings, how will it prevent future mass shootings? In addition, even preventing him from buying the rifle in the first place would just force him or any future POS to look at other means of obtaining a firearm. There are 300-400 million firearms in this country. Even if you wanted to be a totalitarian and remove all firearms, it's not feasible. There are illegal drugs that run rampant in our streets; firearms would be no different. You would simply be disarming the law abiding population.

Why do government buildings & prominent businesses need security if their buildings have signs that say, "No Firearms/Weapons"? Gun Free Zones are personal invitations for criminals, and they'll have semi-automatic firearms because by definition they don't follow the laws. It's not an unfounded claim; it's common sense.

Pull trigger, bang, pull trigger again, bang again has been normal since the Double Action Revolver rose in the post Civil War period. Magazine fed handguns with a capacity over 5 that work as pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang have been common place since the turn of the 20th century. Rifles followed not long after.

Magazines over 5 rounds have been normal since the very first detachable box magazine fed weapons in the 19th century. A ban that bans a Borchardt is probably a clue it’s extreme.

Semi-automatic rifles have been normal for about a century.

Magazines are a box with a spring and a follower to keep the rounds stacked together. Many guns do not have one made that holds 5 or less. Many guns cannot really fit one so tiny, and the magazine would have to be extended to mechanically function properly. Which means one could just open it and cut down the internal block preventing the spring from going down. Or just making one. Or using the one of tens or hundreds of millions that already exist in the US.

The data (though I am a “form authoritarian” when it comes to data, whatever this means) suggests that 0% of people who stage a massacre care about the law and have a propensity to consult it and follow it.

I am sure it will end well for me and my family should I have another attempted home invasion. If the intruder cannot be reasoned with or scared off, using the best technology of 1888 will, I am sure, put me on an even footing.

There may be some things gun owners will budge a little on, for the tenth or twentieth time since 1934. Banning pretty much any design using advancements since 1900 is not one of them. This is a big part of why gun owners are against most laws proposed; we all know what the end game is. It always starts as framed as a ‘compromise’ or ‘reaching across the aisle’, and then it quickly becomes an extensive ban that tries to take away any technology from our own lifetimes. Nothing is ever given in return, it’s never an actual compromise.

Umm, what does the age of the technology have to do with anything? Gatling guns are pretty old too.

Also, your slippery slope argument is weak. At least come up with a historical example to back your claims.

I think we all agree citizens do not have the right to personally own and operate a nuclear weapon. That is technology from many people’s lifetime or older. It’s a matter of determining what is allowed under the second amendment. Unfettered access to any and all arms is not what is provided.

Common use standard. Read Heller. Banning common use items since my great-grandfathers life pretty clearly violates the common use standard precedent.

Like 1934? Like 1968? Like 1986? Like 1994?

Note what was actually written. “Normal”, “common place”, etc. see Heller and the common use standard.

Yep, Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which was decided 5-4). Hopefully some laws will get passed that are deemed constitutional and allow our country to reduce gun violence.

Obviously, with the current makeup of the Court, its hard to see how Heller gets struck down any time soon.

What a shame.

A crying shame that your half of the country isn’t able to criminalize my half of the country quite so easily.

You seem to think that bad guys obey laws. They don't. The bad guys will get illegal guns with illegal clips and only the good guys will be hampered in their effort to defend themselves and others. Why can't some people understand this?

Cocaine is illegal everywhere. It is also available everywhere. Can you understand, bad guys don't obey laws? If they are breaking laws against murder, what do they care about breaking laws about obtaining and using illegal weapons?

No, it’s generally a good thing that these processes are difficult and littered with checks and balances. Fast change is scarier. But we can and should do better. Too many kids are getting murdered.

Well you see, the next perpetrator of a massacre will dispose of his 30 round magazines and not acquire one of the hundreds of millions of them in the country because… Well there’s a narrative. Anyways, we need to criminalize the other half of the country and if you don’t agree with it, you’re okay with the deaths of these innocent children.

Yes! It's worth it if it will save just one life!

The amount of straw men on this thread is dizzying.

Gun in the hands of a bad guy kill kids.
Gun in the hands of a good guy stops the bad guy and saves kids.

Simpletons think the gun is the problem when guns are the problem AND the solution. More accurately, guns themselves are neither good nor bad; they are tools.

Going by the same standards use to qualify something as a mass shooting...

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...hammer-attack/

https://www.liherald.com/hempstead/s...-mother,138650

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/09/n...buildings.html


https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...at-strip-club/

Has anyone changed their opinion? If so please post what has changed.

My opinion has been the same for decades. The only change I would be open to is also one I have had for decades. Require gun safety classes to purchase your first gun. I would even be all for needing to take refresher classes every 5 years to continue to own guns.

Banning guns and more gun laws criminals don't obey are as silly to me as my baseball bat banning example.

I have been avoiding this thread as it predictably devolved into a complete mess as expected.

I just was wondering as with even the prevalence of requests for sub 10 round magazines, where did this call for 5 come from? It is new to me as even a simple cowboy revolver cylinder would exceed this 5 idea. The Lone Ranger had a pistol that breaks the law on this premise.

Also, I can tell you have unfamiliarity with firearms, nothing wrong with that, it is commonplace. In your posts you state it is logical that reloading would provide time to stop a shooter. As I can very easily eject and reload a fresh magazine in sub 2 seconds with a blowback slide locking pistol or rifle (standard feature), do you believe that time is adequate?

Please, not fighting here that is pointless...only general curiosity on others thoughts.

I'm a little confused as to why multiple people have found it necessary to point out that it takes only 2 seconds to reload a magazine. Yet others keep pounding home the point that only a "good guy with a gun" can prevent these mass shootings. I guess a good guy with a gun couldn't shoot someone during a reload? Not sure what the point of the good guy with a gun is then.

As for the 5 rounds. That wasn't my idea, that was part of recently proposed legislation, so I thought I'd see what people think about it. Clearly people that are pro gun rights are not open to this idea.

Are to talking Police?

Normal good guys with guns are going target shooting or hunting they are not out trying to stop some moron from killing others.

A bad guy with a gun won’t follow mag restrictions.

Even pretending they will and that a magazine over 5 no longer even exists:

A bad guy with a gun is coming loaded to do damage, they don’t have to conceal their stuff at the scene. They will bring lots of magazines. Having to reload more when they are up against a room of unarmed people does not really slow them.

The good guy with the gun (unless the gun control crowd would like to suggest it’s fine for me to carry my M4 openly, which is legal in some states but uncommonly done even there as a course of normal life for the obvious reason that citizens don’t expect to need to use heavy gear) is generally concealing a light handgun, and aren’t carrying 10 pounds of gear. It’s a pistol, and maybe an extra mag or two.

The good guy having 17 rounds instead of 5 that won’t even fit in the magazine well because it’s too short sounds a lot better.

Forcing pre-Civil War capacities is extreme, even if it wasn’t blatantly illegal by the most clear violation of the common use standard there could be.

1. No. A Federal Appeals Court has already ruled earlier this year that this is Unconstitutional.

2. No. A standard revolver holds six rounds. There are revolvers now, that actually hold more; some even hold 10 rounds. Banning magazines that hold more than five rounds would effectively make every semi-automatic pistol illegal, as very, very, few magazines hold only five rounds. Think about it.....magazines fit in the grip of the pistol, so how many rounds can you hold in your hand?

Steve

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.

Just catching up without reading the last several pages. I was genuinely interested in your thoughts. Thank you for responding, I did not see any information recently on the proposed 5 rounds.

This is again, a subject that I think much like religion, finding a middle ground is impossible as minds are concreted. However, I do like to actually hear people's thoughts and the reasoning.

As to the "good guy with a gun" statement, as 95%+ historically of these incidents other than the supermarket were "soft targets" (IE: areas where guns are illegal to carry and or possess for non-criminal elements) I would think without change to the carry laws that only police whom are the current solution would be the available responders. I personally do not see a possibility of a civilian response to a school, church, or government building currently a viable thought. Even if successful in stopping an attack, a zealous prosecutor could provide a minimum 5 year stint to the "good guy" with little effort. I think this issue is the structure toward the difficulty of solution on these incidents (for any side).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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