Gun ownership poll

[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?

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[Deertick]

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.

One would think if that were true, that I would know at least ONE person who knew ONE? Figuring in for my clueless youth, 50 x 500000 = 25,000,000. 50 x 3000000 = 150,000,000. Isn't the high estimate nearly 3% of every gun owner in the US every year?? That suggests either some people finding reasons to "defend", the need for training, or grandiose self reporting.

I'm only 3 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon, for chrissakes.

I own a handgun. Not 10, or 20, or 46. My FIL owns over 200. He thinks every time Amazon comes up his driveway, the only reason they didn't rape him is because he carries his gun. Probably reports every interaction as "Using his firearm for a defensive purpose".

I am a competitive person who has tried to, if not be the best at whatever he attempts, try to the best of my ability. Baseball, fishing, poker, driving, and father, son, friend. They haven't all been successes, but currently, my gunplay ranks pretty high. It might work it might not. I did what I could.

BTW, those that lobby against magazine limitations, claim that the time to swap in a live fire situation and MOST importantly, the added hassle and cost of purchasing extra equipment
, are the biggest objections of magazine limitations. 80% of those who are upset about it are "recreational users". Understandably, just as if you went to a bowling alley and the didn't have enough 16lb balls. Pretty Disappointing. 3rd bullet point is slippery slope argument.

And finally, by definition, all amendments are up for revue. Part of the old process and all. By declaring that any current ruling represents the majority, is a fallacy., 40% gun owners are out voted by 210,000,000 citizens. Whwt happens next? Billions to convince that you next encounter WILL result in your sexual domination unless you support 50 round magazines.