Gun ownership poll

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

Good guys with guns can only do so much.

Good guys with guns is how these things always, finally, end. Solution: Let's have more good guys with guns. Let's have the bad guys out-armed 1000 to one.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Good guys with guns is how these things always, finally, end. Solution: Let's have more good guys with guns. Let's have the bad guys out-armed 1000 to one.

This.

These shootings are incredibly rare, but if one happened around you (the colloquial you, not any specific person) wouldn’t you want the other innocents nearby to be armed and able to effectively fight back? The quicker a good guy with a gun takes down the psycho, the less bloodshed there is. You’re more likely to live if others are armed too, than if only the criminals have them. There’s a reason these things tend to happen, in the very rare cases that they do, in crowds of unarmed people and in places where people are less likely to be armed. Nobody stages a massacre at a sportsman’s club.

[cannonballsun]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Good guys with guns is how these things always, finally, end. Solution: Let's have more good guys with guns. Let's have the bad guys out-armed 1000 to one.

In that scenario, how many of the 1000 good guys will accidentally shoot another good guy ? There'd be bullets flying all over the place. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Cops already worry about dealing with armed good guys at a live shooter scene. You've got a gun, how do the cops know you're a good guy ?
Anyway, the cops shot and killed the shooter in Dayton in 30 seconds. 9 people were already dead.
In Buffalo, at the grocery store, there was a good guy with a gun on the scene. He was a retired ex-cop. He was out gunned and killed.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

In that scenario, how many of the 1000 good guys will accidentally shoot another good guy ? There'd be bullets flying all over the place. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Cops already worry about dealing with armed good guys at a live shooter scene. You've got a gun, how do the cops know you're a good guy ?
Anyway, the cops shot and killed the shooter in Dayton in 30 seconds. 9 people were already dead.
In Buffalo, at the grocery store, there was a good guy with a gun on the scene. He was a retired ex-cop. He was out gunned and killed.

Agreed. More guns is not the solution that makes sense to me. I realize it does for others.

No one ever makes the point that guns do the killing so I don’t know why the argument is always repeated that it’s the person behind the gun that is the real problem. I think everyone understands that and wishes we could cure all deranged individuals. Since we probably can’t, it’s just that if it were harder to get a gun that could do so much rapid shooting or harder to get a gun at all, maybe we’d have a few more stabbings on our hands as opposed to mass shootings.

On the second amendment, similar to the first amendment, the freedom is always subject to reasonable restrictions. We have freedom of speech, but we can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. We have the right to bear arms, but we can’t walk around with bazookas.

[G1911]

This loops back to an earlier main point. If we know it is the person, not the tool, what legislation on the tool are we proposing that is not taking peoples guns or banning guns that will reduce homicides and shootings?

Is there a compromise proposition that could be reached?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

This loops back to an earlier main point. If we know it is the person, not the tool, what legislation on the tool are we proposing that is not taking peoples guns or banning guns that will reduce homicides and shootings?

Is there a compromise proposition that could be reached?

Obviously a tough call because what’s already out there is out there and what’s restricted tomorrow can still be obtained. It seems like trying to restrict access, especially younger person access, to rapid fire, large count magazines would do some good. Not even positive that would be a net benefit. I think both sides want less mass shootings. Wish there was a technological solution.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Obviously a tough call because what’s already out there is out there and what’s restricted tomorrow can still be obtained. It seems like trying to restrict access, especially younger person access, to rapid fire, large count magazines would do some good.

Does this mean a ban on magazine possession of magazines holding over X number of rounds, and a ban on semi-automatic firearms for under Y age(21?)?

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think both sides want less mass shootings.

Amen.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Does this mean a ban on magazine possession of magazines holding over X number of rounds, and a ban on semi-automatic firearms for under Y age(21?)?



Amen.

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it’s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.