How do we keep...

TurtleDude said:

you have the right to post stupid things-and you exercise that right constantly. I also have the right to ridicule or criticize your stupid argument. You seem not to understand many things about rights.

Click to expand...

I am well aware I exercise that right.

Once again my opinion is not wrong. That is why it is an opinion.
It is not stupid, that is your opinion in which comes across in a really poor manner.

The amount of times you have utilised the word "stupid" is quite extensive. I would hope that everyone would be past using the words of 8 year olds and critique and criticise each others "opinions" in a more mature and advanced manner.

Calling everything I state "stupid" highlights nothing more than complete and utter denial. At least if you call it "stupid" support your ideas with some sort of response that has material worth

goldkam said:

It has nothing to do with the government. Why does free speech come back to the government in this case.....

Click to expand...

If you're claiming free speech as a right, then in the US you have to realize that free speech as a right protected by the First Amendment only protects your speech from being restricted by the federal government. That's how protected rights work in the US.

You stated "I have no use for anyone who wants to diminish my rights and even less for those who give BS reasons for ding so"

How am I diminishing your rights by simply expressing my right to free speech?
You like to demonise individuals opinions with childish words, your opinion is not wrong I just don't agree with it. A level of maturity and respect should be practised but unfortunately the world bases itself of privilege, disrespect and entitlement not thankfulness, respect and integrity.

Click to expand...

I believe he is referring to efforts to further and continuously reduce the individual protected right to keep and bear arms in the United States. Support of those efforts seems to be the gist of your posts here.

goldkam said:

Home Invasions:

- So you are telling me that you would be ready at all times with a firearm to shoot anyone who is breaking into your home. That is impractical and instilling a false sense of security in your capabilities and others. Why is it nearly every other developed Country can get by without firearms but there is just this one exception??

- There would be cases where it would be used as a mechanism for self-defence that cannot be denied. However the costs of utilising this firearm far outweigh the benefits. You cannot stay away from your home but you could spend your money on a plethora of other mechanisms of defence for your home which are far more effective and expose less of a risk to the entire society


Reports:

- Can you please highlight to me where in the links provided that it shows "60,000 DGUs per year", because I could not find such statistics.

- That is the very problem they are estimates, additionally I just went to that report and didn't find these estimated statistics you were referring to.

That is twice now your statistics cannot be found the credibility and validity of your claims in not holding up. Why may have that older data never been released??

Additionally in the cases of DGU, how many were actually justified? and how many times was the individual actually under threat of injury or death?


Self Defence:

- It doesn't solely depend on statistics, rather they are a point of consideration. Particularly in the current climate.

Click to expand...

The CDC and Kleck study place DGU's annually at a significantly higher number.....

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ii

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:
The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Kal'Stang said:

The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Let me address a couple of the expected responses.

1: Keep guns away from the mentally ill: Ok. Agreed. However, it is already illegal for anyone deemed to have a mental illness to own a gun or to sell a gun to. There is also a process in which this is determined. So, this is already being done. What more can be done in this regard? Note: It HAS to be tailored to where it will not infringe on everyone else's Rights. You know, people that are not mentally ill...

2: Keep guns away from those that are criminal: This too is already done. Anyone that has been charged and convicted with a felony that merits at least 1 year in prison is barred from owning any guns. It is also illegal in pretty much every state to possess a gun while under investigation, have a restraining order due to domestic violence, and other situations. Note about this: The majority of crimes committed while in possession of a gun are crimes committed by people with rap sheets. How do you prevent these people from getting a hold of a gun when they are already legally barred from owning or even possessing a gun? UBC's? The federal government can't implement that, States can, but not the Federal Government as they do not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Plus people have a Right to Privacy. Add to this the fact that most people that illegally possess guns get those guns via theft or straw purchases (which are illegal already) or the black market...you're going to have your work cut out for you on this one. Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not. History of technology shows us this.

Feel free to add to this. The end goal: Keep guns out of the wrong hands. How? What? Where? Why?

Click to expand...

Regarding the end goal. There is only one possible solution and even that solution's percentages of success is minimal and we most likely wouldn't see results for well over a hundred years. And that would be the gun grabber's (I use the term lightly because, well, there really aren't that many of them) solution, to ban guns altogether, and throw them in the bottom of the sea.

I see no logical reason to belabor the debate with ideas and opinions on a topic that is not ever going to arrive at a consensus.

Myself, I wish guns were never invented. I would gladly forego my hunting pleasures to saves lives. BUT.... They WERE invented. You got some. I got some. The playing field is level.

I'm not going to give up mine until the others give up their's. And that ain't NEVER going to happen so.......

In short, my conclusion to this debate is, "Change the things I can, accept the things I can't change, and have the wisdom to know the difference."

No need to create more gun laws that bad people wouldn't abide by anyway. That is a futile endeavor. Laws only work when people obey them.

Guns are here to stay. Better learn to shoot.

Lursa said:

What makes you think that background checks not being law for private sales is a loophole? It's perfectly legitimate that citizens should be able to sell or trade their property.

Background checks have not been stopping the mass shootings we've been seeing. For regular ol' gun crimes and gang crime, it also has zero effect, as most of those guns are stolen and illegally possessed.

And if you buy a gun at Walmart they do a background check.

Click to expand...

So you can purchase a firearm in a licensed firearm store, lets use Bass Pro Shops (which is in a state where background check are mandatory) as an example. You undergo a background check yet at the private firearm shows dealers by pass the vague legislation and inevitably background checks are not conducted

What does this do

- First and foremost the disparity undermines its enforceability and universality
- To analogise the situation at hand its like been able to bypass security screening when entering an airport. Do you agree that individuals should be able to do that?


I don't believe it is legitimate when gun dealers are bypassing legislation to negate background checks. That called evading the system, the system implemented to protect. At a family and friend level tradings can occur, NOT under any circumstances should it occur when it puts the population at risk. PARTICULARLY when Stephen Paddock (Las Vegas Shooter) did exactly that, he was able to dodge the system because someone else (ie the gun dealer) was dodging the system. That is not legitimate.

DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS?

Stolen and Illegal Guns
- I don't know what data there is on about potential mass shooters been stopped by background checks, there is some effectiveness in background checks but with the loopholes in place the true measure of effectiveness has not been recorded

- I agree that criminals bypass the background checks. One of the very problems lies with too many firearms in the market and the very little done to stop this. That is why they need to be reduced because a) criminals are not fearful of the consequences (ie jail, fines etc..) b) criminals are deterred by background checks etc... c) the risks expose by firearms becomes greater with the more that saturate the market

I know that. But in very few countries can you get your food, clothes and guns at the same time in the same store. It is quite wrong and abnormal.

Lursa said:

Those are out of context to any points you were making but I saw enough to know that if a gun is drawn in self-defense and not used, it's not commonly recorded. But it was still a legitimate use 'in self-defense.'

And when it comes to claims of protecting the public, all stats regarding accidents in homes or suicide are not valid, as they pose no harm to the public and are a risk that the gun owner assumed on their own.

Click to expand...

I have been utilising facts and statistics from those sources throughout the whole debate and you never stated they were out of context then, why just now are you doing so?

You state they are out of context because you don't agree with them.

What may the credible statistics be for "legitimate gun use" be?

FINAL CLAIMS

- So your stating that if an individual commits suicide with a firearm that it doesn't impact the greater society ie. neighbourhood, family, friends, the school they attend. That is the general public. Thus the general public is impacted. Poor try at undermining the statistics.

- The premise is they were still utilised with a firearm, that is the very problem and it cannot be denied.

- Finally HOW DARE you state that individual who committed suicide "assumed" the risk "on their own". Typically it is mental health issues, poor education and relationship instability that draws them to utilising a firearm to end their own life.

Your comment is wrong, immoral, poorly constructed and lacks integrity and respect. It is that kind of destructive comment that seeks no solution, rather puts the blame on someone. Go state that to a mother who lost their son, daughter in such a manner, absolutely disgraceful. I don't usually put forth comments on individuals opinions in such as way, but you entirely deserve what is given after that comment.

Just to give you an idea of the lethality of a firearm the most commonly used methods of self-harm, firearms are by far the most lethal, with a fatality rate of approximately 85 percent. Conversely, less than 5 percent of people who attempt suicide using other methods will die.

Anarchon said:

When I said that the rules of logic are universal, and available to everyone, that didn't mean you could make up your own.

Click to expand...

I didn't. I simply alluded to the pitfalls in your arguments. The terming of 'fallacy' doesn't imply I have to follow a structure.

marke said:

Let's start with the Southerland Springs, TX, church shooting, Nov. 5, 2017. 26 dead, 20 injured. No church member had any weapons, apparently, so no additional laws to remove their weapons would have done anything to change the outcome. Murderer was shot by a neighbor with a high-powered assault weapon. Laws designed to remove the weapon from the neighbor would not have been a good idea. The murderer was not allowed to own the firearm but he disobeyed the law so adding more laws for the shooter to break would have changed nothing either.

Click to expand...

How about we go back five steps and took the firearm off the gun man all together. Then the neighbour wouldn't had to even have a weapon nor anyone in church.

Why is everyones response so reactive, rather than proactive. In other words "lets wait for something to happen and then act" not "let act now before something does happen"

goldkam said:

How about we go back five steps and took the firearm off the gun man all together. Then the neighbour wouldn't had to even have a weapon nor anyone in church.

Why is everyones response so reactive, rather than proactive. In other words "lets wait for something to happen and then act" not "let act now before something does happen"

Click to expand...

Are you referring to taking all guns away from all men, or to the fact that the USAF failed to have this man added to the NICS database?

Rucker61 said:

I'm not say what I would do at all. I'm describing the actual criminal activity here in the US. What other country has 1 million home invasions with 260,000 victims of violence related to those invasions?

No, it's your failure to read for comprehension that's at issue here, not my ability to support my claims.

Click to expand...

No, rights do not depend upon statistics. If almost no women chose to have an abortion, could that right be further restricted? If almost no gay people chose to get married, could that right be curtailed?[/QUOTE]


Self Defence

- I know what your stating, but I asked a question. In what world are you constantly ready with a firearm to use at all times?
- The statistics you use are misleading. The US may have the highest raw figure but you have not taken into account the population (per 100,000) it doesn't.

Thus.... when you take into account population the US ranks 11. Denmark ranks first at 808.6 per 100,000 whilst the USA is at 351.1 per 100,000. Quite a difference.

- Other countries may have no choice but those rules seem to be working for them.....It doesn't matter how it is enforced the fact it is in place and functioning
- So if I told a child that "if you had a firearm you would be safe at all times" would you consider that instilling a false sense of security in his own safety? A firearm doesn't make you invincible.... right?


Costs/Benefits

- 1 justified homicide for every 36 unjustified homicide. 36,000 killed by firearms every year. 103,000 casualties by firearms every year. 1.7 million children live with unlocked, loaded guns. 2,824 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,723 were injured in 2015. Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group. Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. Living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%

ALL OF THESE ARE VALID. You seem to be willing to allow this to continue occurring simply to enact "self defence" that isn't proven to be deterring anyone. Cost = Above ---> Benefit= unproven Protection (provide some statistics to show that living in a home with a gun makes you more than 40-170% safer)

Reports on Self Defence
- Of that 284,000 how many people were actually in danger of losing their life or incurring injury. The fact is these are all estimates with no proven credibility. There are more credible sources that contradict the "estimates". Additionally the data drawn from your "estimates" was only only across 15 states and academics underpin it as not a representative sample of the entire USA. The survey used was also found to be ambiguous and poorly constructed with respondents not accurately answering the questions. IT IS FLAWED.

HarvardAccording to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011. David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.

"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

Statistics
- Maybe I can't find them because they are not there. If they were there instead of insulting my intelligence, you could point the out to me or reference the page number.


Rights and Statistics

- You negated what I stated and termed my response in the way that suited your premise.

I stated "It doesn't solely depend on statistics, rather they are a point of consideration". That is one should consider the amount of deaths, injuries induced by firearms.

- On that notion why are you depending upon statistics to support your right to bear arms and protection. On the other you negate statistics and their dependence on rights when it is not in aligned with your opinion and imposes on your rights. It seems you manipulate this to suit your own needs.

Abortion- Statistics would be considered in relation to the risk of adverse effects, injury, success rates etc...which relates to ones right to conduct such a procedure.

goldkam said:

How about we go back five steps and took the firearm off the gun man all together. Then the neighbour wouldn't had to even have a weapon nor anyone in church.

Why is everyones response so reactive, rather than proactive. In other words "lets wait for something to happen and then act" not "let act now before something does happen"

Click to expand...

If lefties cannot figure out how to get guns out of the hands of murderers then tell them to stop trying to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans instead.

marke said:

If lefties cannot figure out how to get guns out of the hands of murderers then tell them to stop trying to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans instead.

Click to expand...

What is your solution to gun violence?

Rucker61 said:

Interestingly, the vast majority of the population uses the 350 million guns lawfully owned in the lawful manner of uses described by Congress in the Gun Rights Act of 1968.

With regards to "nothing being done", that's an issue for the politicians who fail to insist that the justice system do its job with regards to current laws.

Click to expand...

I am sure that many Americans could utilise and take drugs lawfully and safely. Drive their cars in unregulated conditions. However the fact is not everyone can be trusted. The USA is a highly unregulated firearm market in comparison to other countries and domestic drug and driving laws.

The fact is the lawfully used firearms can just as quickly be used unlawfully. That is the very problem. The ease of misuse is far to high, so too are the risks. The risks which you ignore.

Do you agree that a knife is a tool and a firearm is a weapon?

- So in the meantime whilst politicians sought the issues out your going to just sit back and relax until they do. The likelihood of that ever happening is quite unlikely. It is lobbying, expressing beliefs that truely sways policy and implementation of legislation.

Justice System

- Your approach is reactive rather than proactive. Diversionary measures are far more effective than imprisonment/fines.
- The justice system does not deter criminals nor does it address the surplus of firearms in the USA that should be dealt with. Nor does it deter the mass shooters conducting such heinous acts. Nor does it stop a portion of legal gun owner from conducting unlawful firearm use.

Rucker61 said:

That's not the definition under the Constitution. This site can ban you for any reason, or none at all, and you have no legal recourse.

Click to expand...

Your assertions are WRONG

"The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government"

1- The first sentence denies your statement "Free speech means that the government can't restrict your speech". That is completely wrong, according to the First amendment
2- The second sentence denies you notion that "This site can ban you for any reason, or none at all, and you have no legal recourse" according to the First Amendment

So you don't class the Constitution as legal recourse?? You seem to assert to much power to the people and not enough to the Government in the case of free speech.

marke said:

If lefties cannot figure out how to get guns out of the hands of murderers then tell them to stop trying to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans instead.

Click to expand...

the main goal of leftist gun control is to punish political enemies not disarm groups who don't vote against left wingers

vegas giants said:

What is your solution to gun violence?

Click to expand...

Throw violent offenders in jail and keep them there longer to protect society from their ungodly demonic brutality. Do not make criminals out of law abiding patriotic Americans for wanting to keep their traditional firearms.

marke said:

Throw violent offenders in jail and keep them there longer to protect society from their ungodly demonic brutality. Do not make criminals out of law abiding patriotic Americans for wanting to keep their traditional firearms.

Click to expand...

Where is that system currently working that has led to low gun deaths?

goldkam said:

Your assertions are WRONG

"The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government"

1- The first sentence denies your statement "Free speech means that the government can't restrict your speech". That is completely wrong, according to the First amendment
2- The second sentence denies you notion that "This site can ban you for any reason, or none at all, and you have no legal recourse" according to the First Amendment

So you don't class the Constitution as legal recourse?? You seem to assert to much power to the people and not enough to the Government in the case of free speech.

Click to expand...

1. At the time of ratification, the federal government had no legal power to restrict speech; if they did there would have been no reason to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts.

2. Do you really think that this site couldn't ban you for any reason, or that you could fight them based on First Amendment protections?

goldkam said:

So you can purchase a firearm in a licensed firearm store, lets use Bass Pro Shops (which is in a state where background check are mandatory) as an example. You undergo a background check yet at the private firearm shows dealers by pass the vague legislation and inevitably background checks are not conducted

What does this do

- First and foremost the disparity undermines its enforceability and universality
- To analogise the situation at hand its like been able to bypass security screening when entering an airport. Do you agree that individuals should be able to do that?


I don't believe it is legitimate when gun dealers are bypassing legislation to negate background checks. That called evading the system, the system implemented to protect. At a family and friend level tradings can occur, NOT under any circumstances should it occur when it puts the population at risk. PARTICULARLY when Stephen Paddock (Las Vegas Shooter) did exactly that, he was able to dodge the system because someone else (ie the gun dealer) was dodging the system. That is not legitimate.

DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS?

Stolen and Illegal Guns
- I don't know what data there is on about potential mass shooters been stopped by background checks, there is some effectiveness in background checks but with the loopholes in place the true measure of effectiveness has not been recorded

- I agree that criminals bypass the background checks. One of the very problems lies with too many firearms in the market and the very little done to stop this. That is why they need to be reduced because a) criminals are not fearful of the consequences (ie jail, fines etc..) b) criminals are deterred by background checks etc... c) the risks expose by firearms becomes greater with the more that saturate the market

I know that. But in very few countries can you get your food, clothes and guns at the same time in the same store. It is quite wrong and abnormal.

Click to expand...

Background checks for commercial gun dealers are mandatory in all states.

Due to the mandatory commericial bgc, people at Walmart are not making impulse buys...there are forms to fill out and usually waiting periods unless you already have a cc permit (in which case you already LEGALLY are eligible to own a gun and likely already have one.)

It's not a loophole for private sellers. In many states there is no mandate to force private citizens to do so. That's the law...not a loop hole.

goldkam said:

I have been utilising facts and statistics from those sources throughout the whole debate and you never stated they were out of context then, why just now are you doing so?

You state they are out of context because you don't agree with them.

What may the credible statistics be for "legitimate gun use" be?

FINAL CLAIMS

- So your stating that if an individual commits suicide with a firearm that it doesn't impact the greater society ie. neighbourhood, family, friends, the school they attend. That is the general public. Thus the general public is impacted. Poor try at undermining the statistics.

- The premise is they were still utilised with a firearm, that is the very problem and it cannot be denied.

- Finally HOW DARE you state that individual who committed suicide "assumed" the risk "on their own". Typically it is mental health issues, poor education and relationship instability that draws them to utilising a firearm to end their own life.

Your comment is wrong, immoral, poorly constructed and lacks integrity and respect. It is that kind of destructive comment that seeks no solution, rather puts the blame on someone. Go state that to a mother who lost their son, daughter in such a manner, absolutely disgraceful. I don't usually put forth comments on individuals opinions in such as way, but you entirely deserve what is given after that comment.

Just to give you an idea of the lethality of a firearm the most commonly used methods of self-harm, firearms are by far the most lethal, with a fatality rate of approximately 85 percent. Conversely, less than 5 percent of people who attempt suicide using other methods will die.

Click to expand...

I didnt respond to most of your other posts and yes, sources for data please.

And I dont care about your opinion of people who choose suicide. You are really reaching with all that about 'influencing' others. With that view, everything we do impacts public safety...."if I fall off my bike, and get hit by a passing car, ALL cars should have to now drive at 25 mph everywhere!" (For ex.)

My point is that THEIR private issues should not be the root of punishment for the rest of us law-abiding citizens. Since their suicides dont usually harm the public, they are not a valid discussion point WHEN discussing restricting guns for the purpose of public safety.

Your opinion of my attitude about suicide means nothing to me. There are millions of $$ and hours being spent to decipher the reasons and signs for people who commit suicide. It's not being ignored.

goldkam said:

Just to give you an idea of the lethality of a firearm the most commonly used methods of self-harm, firearms are by far the most lethal, with a fatality rate of approximately 85 percent. Conversely, less than 5 percent of people who attempt suicide using other methods will die.

Click to expand...

Interesting claim. If you look closer you'll see that means matter. According to Harvard, the success rate of hanging/suffocation suicide attempts using common household materials is over 60%, with almost 12,000 deaths per year.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

Rucker61 said:

If you're claiming free speech as a right, then in the US you have to realize that free speech as a right protected by the First Amendment only protects your speech from being restricted by the federal government. That's how protected rights work in the US.



I believe he is referring to efforts to further and continuously reduce the individual protected right to keep and bear arms in the United States. Support of those efforts seems to be the gist of your posts here.

Click to expand...

Free Speech

- So your claiming that certain legislation ie Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not have to be followed when exercising the right to free speech. That is wrong, there are limitations to what an individual can state in the public
- This Government restricting your rights is not complete, they can however restrict the particular ideas, topics etc.. that are discussed if they are deemed to inhibit on the rights of others and inhibit on certain legislative areas.
- The First Amendment covers areas relating to Falsifying military awards, endorsement of illegal activity, sexually motivated in some circumstances, discriminatory speech, obscenity and among others defamation as limitations to Free Speech.

These rulings are all stipulated in common and statute law and the First Amendment.


Right to Bear Arms

1. My opinion is reducing and heavily legislating firearms. I believe they should only be utilised for employment or sports. That is one can still go down to a shooting range and utilise a firearm in a controlled environment. What section of the Second Amendment or legislation states that a reduction in the availability of firearms reduces your right to exercise "the right to bear arms"??

Bum said:

The CDC and Kleck study place DGU's annually at a significantly higher number.....

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ii

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:
The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Click to expand...

Thank you, as least your able to provide me with some evidence

Rucker61 said:

Are you referring to taking all guns away from all men, or to the fact that the USAF failed to have this man added to the NICS database?

Click to expand...

In the case of the incident referred to in a previous post, the incident involved a gunman (a male with a firearm). Hence the reason I utilised that terming. I then applied my theory to that particular situation stating that if we took the firearm off the man who possessed a firearm and killed dozens of people then the neighbour would not have to have a firearm to stop him.

You know my opinion. I believe firearms should be reduced and more heavily legislated upon. How many times do we need to blame the system and its inadequacies to realise that a man with the intent of killing is going to bypass the system completely anyway. Yes in some circumstances in may be effective but in various others it is not. Others who are pro-firearm on this forum support this notion as well.

marke said:

If lefties cannot figure out how to get guns out of the hands of murderers then tell them to stop trying to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans instead.

Click to expand...

There is no political stereotyping required. Everyone has an opinion and doesn't need to be categorised, we are all humans and we are all different.

I will provide a number of solutions to this particularly situation...

Solutions
1- Background Checks are effective in some cases but the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is flawed as many states don't input the required information to limit potentially dangerous firearm owners. But who is a responsible firearm owner. Its like saying who is a responsible grenade owner or who is a responsible owner of ice or cocaine (the drugs). Thus if this is nationally created into a cohesive system it would become more effective. But it is not enough.

2- Limiting the loopholes in private gun shows that allow individual to bypass the background check. This is not enough to stop the illegal use of firearms but it is a mechanism to attempt to reduce it

None of this is enough it simply limits access but doesn't stop access.

3- Heavily legislated and controlled gun legislation must be implemented combined with sensible economic and social policies. This starts with reducing the saturation of firearms within the market, attempting to limit black market trade. It then begins with a slow phase out of firearm availability into what would become firearms only being available for employment, professional sports or in controlled environments like a shooting range. It doesn't impinge on your Second Amendment rights, as there is no depiction in the amount of access that one can have. Additionally the right to self-defence is not an absolute right, thus this legislation generally does not impinge on this notions.


FINALLY....how do you know if those with firearms are law abiding citizens?? What mechanisms in the USA judge that other than the police?? There is nothing to stop you from walking out your door and utilising a firearm in a harmful way. The fact is everyone at some point gets angry or mad and conducts things they regret later, why should we put faith in ones self-control??