Gun ownership poll

[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.

[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.

[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.

[steve B]

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.

Of course it wouldn't.

While pool cues are readily available, as far as I know the Mk47 is not publicly available. Even if it was it would be subject to the same rules and background checks as a real machine gun.


What would have made a big difference would be if even so much as the reporting of mental health issues which the Uvalde shooter apparently had was done in a way that would turn up on a background check.

As far as I know nearly all the mass shooters have had issues with mental health and either passed background checks or been abetted by relatives. And nearly all made public statements before acting that made their intentions clear.
How to make those red flags into something that will turn up in a background check without falling foul of the first amendment, and a variety of privacy laws and protections for people with problems is another discussion that needs to be had. And one that both sides have even more difficulty approaching. Nobody wants to return to locking people with mental problems away the way we did into the early 80's. (I think, but could be wrong there)
But i believe it's also true that getting them actual help is expensive and hard to convince people to pay for.

[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.