Gun ownership poll

[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 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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.