Gun in Home Kills Loved ones and Owner

[Bodi]

you want laws (or I should say, you pretend to want laws in order to stir things up) that have yet to be enacted. So Where is the constitutional authority to do so. Your last citation was a joke and proves to anyone who has even a passing understanding of constitutional law, that you haven't a clue about what you are talking about

My last citation about Brown v board was about context. That lies can be made by congress... which I pointed out as a fact... that can be reversed by a supreme court decision... you aren't even close to out lawyering me at this point

 

[Lursa]

Yes guns in the home are much more likely to be used in a suicide or a felony than for defense. You know that is true don't you? It is not a laughing matter either it is a tragedy. Do gun owners always laugh at suicides and murder?

There is no way to prevent suicide by gun without reppealing the 2A and confiscating every gun.

Because stripped to the most basic premise, the 2A guarantees that American adults can own at least one firearm. Even if it's a single action, 6-shot revolver. Even if it's a blackpowder pistol. Even if it's a hunting rifle.

And that's all it takes to commit suicide with a gun. So it's pointless to keep dragging suicide into discussions on gun laws, restrictions, controls. If that's what you want (prevent suicide by gun) then just come out for repealing the 2A and confiscation.

 

[zsu2357]

It’s still his home. The divorce was nowhere near final.

It makes no difference since he didn't live there.

 

[zsu2357]

The gun made it easy and now it’s over. We’ll never know if “he would find another way.” Odds are, statistically, he would not have.

Would it or would it not be a fair assessment too say the guy had some serious problems? Serious enough that if he was going to kill his family (split up or not)it wouldn't really matter if he had a firearm or not,the end result would be the same.

 

[zsu2357]

There is the crux of the problem with the US......and in part changes in legislation, policy and attitudes towards such aspects require change in order for gun control to be effective.
However by no means is the problem you propose a means of just saying 'I give up....lets not worry about gun control'. It is also unjustified stating this because it does not mean if one country doesn't have all of these preconditions that you cannot learn or adopt policies from other countries, it simply means there are additional challenges that will be faced.

And IF it turned out all fluffy kittens and unicorn popcorn farts and group hugs around the campfires while singing kumbaya the guns are gone. Do you know what the biggest challenge will be? Getting the criminal element too hand them in. They won't.

 

[zsu2357]

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
I am a professional competitive shooter: tell me why I should not be able to own guns.

And you reply↓

Never said you cannot. Last time I checked a professional competitive shooter does not justify their ownership by means of self-defence (of which I was speaking about previously). I advocate for a more controlled, heavily regulated public domain for firearms. I believe they still should be available but more heavily regulated for employment and sports purposes.

You do understand that professional competitive shooting is a sport? Oh I think competitive shooters or most anyway have a little something extra for self defense.

 

[zsu2357]

I suppose the children should all be armed also? Yours is a ridiculous argument.

That is not just ridiculous it is lame brained. Typical anti gunner response. By the way you forgot the nuke.

 

[zsu2357]

Originally Posted by goldkam POST 153
Lets be clear.....GUN CONTROL SEEKS TO REDUCE DEATHS AND INJURIES BY FIREARM, NOT ALL VIOLENT CRIMES.
Therefore your link is flawed and depicts the data inaccurately, Gun deaths have continued to rise over the past 20 years.

Yes I cherry picked your post a little. Doesn't the underlined seem too be a contradiction? So the more people disarmed are left open to violent crime. What do we have now about 90-100 million+ gun owners? We should have crime wall to wall. I think one reason they seem too rise is the fact they are hammered too death when something happens. Kinda like some demonstration that only 100 people show up for but by the time camera angles are fixed and people moved around it looks like 1000.

 

[Glitch]

In this case, 3 kids under ten, a twenty nine year old wife and the scumbag husband who shot them all. One child, a sixth victim, is in surgery.

5 dead, including three boys under 10, after shooting at San Diego home | Fox News

Shakes head at another senseless slew of deaths brought about by our gun-obsession, which has clearly reached epidemic proportions.

Appeal to Pity is a common leftist tactic. It is a clear indicator that you don't have evidence for your argument. It is also laughably hypocritical since anti-American leftist scum never pity their victims.

 

[Glitch]

That is not just ridiculous it is lame brained. Typical anti gunner response. By the way you forgot the nuke.

Why is it ridiculous or lame brained?

I was being taught firearm safety by age six. By age eight my father was allowing me to use his firearms to go hunting with him. On my tenth birthday my father bought me my very first firearm. I've been handling firearms all my life. The right to keep and bear arms does not include an age limit, and the only weapons the Second Amendment does not protect against are arms that are not bearable.

So a good argument can be made to ban the ownership or possession of military tanks, fighter aircraft, or naval combat vessels - all of which are legally owned by private citizens today. But any attempts by government to restrict or limit weapons ("arms") that are bearable, whether they are firearms or not, is an infringement. Regardless of the age of the individual.

 

[zsu2357]

30 years ago, when most people did not have guns? You are kidding.

At any rate, I just checked. Mine are still here. Wasn't mine.

WOW! I think that I had just as many then. And even more prior to 30 years ago.

 

[Glitch]

30 years ago, when most people did not have guns, one could smooth these things over. Now? Boom!

You are living in a fantasy world, which is also not uncommon for the anti-American left.

I've owned firearms for 55 years. As kids we use to bring our shotguns to school with us so we could go hunting after classes. When I was going to school and carrying a shotgun we didn't have the infringement of Second Amendment like the fascist left has twisted it into today. Even today every public high school built in Anchorage after 1977 includes a built-in indoor gun range.

We don't allow leftist freaks to intimidate us and violate our rights in Alaska.

 

[zsu2357]

Why are these bad policies?

Because we don't like being punished for what someone else does. Kinda like being thrown in a debtors prison because of a family member even a distant one.
Hows that NZ gun grab going? Mongrels give in yet?

 

[zsu2357]

=JMR;1070907850]It hasn't been my experience that almost all men have threatened women with violence.

The crack of my ass where did you dream that up.

It is rather obvious that a gun is a very easy tool to use to complete a violent act. I know it is unthinkable to suggest psychological testing for gun ownership. But displays of unbalance should count for something, JMO.

If it's unthinkable why bother bring it up? Owning a firearm is a right that shouldn't have a permission slip attached to it.
What would you call "displays of unbalance"?

 

[zsu2357]

In which direction did the graph go. What's the slope?

30% increase is skyrocketing. Your BS post saying it went down was a pipe-dream.

1999-2017 of course the population has grown somewhat and suicide has gone up(TD noted)not too mention more bangers and illegals in gangs(see MS-13) . And I can make a graph too that looks real. Not saying you did but just saying.

 

[zsu2357]

Uh, the second amendment does not apply in California?


Please provide a citation.

He didn't say not apply,you did though. And for all intent and purposes it may as well not since guns and even bullets are so tightly regulated it's pathetic.

 

[zsu2357]

Okay....you don't have to. I believe my points are validated and I am trying to show how validated they are. I just don't believe with over 40,000 deaths last year via firearms that anyone can advocate against greater gun control.

Take away suicide,accidental shootings ,gang shootings,DGUs,police shootings and the number is small.

 

[zsu2357]

Why is it ridiculous or lame brained?

I was being taught firearm safety by age six. By age eight my father was allowing me to use his firearms to go hunting with him. On my tenth birthday my father bought me my very first firearm. I've been handling firearms all my life. The right to keep and bear arms does not include an age limit, and the only weapons the Second Amendment does not protect against are arms that are not bearable.

So a good argument can be made to ban the ownership or possession of military tanks, fighter aircraft, or naval combat vessels - all of which are legally owned by private citizens today. But any attempts by government to restrict or limit weapons ("arms") that are bearable, whether they are firearms or not, is an infringement. Regardless of the age of the individual.

I agree 100% with you. I was stating too JMR it was a typical anti gun response. You know how you always got the ones that say "so arm the children".
I know exacly what you mean about being taught firearm safety at a young age. As I also did my kids.

 

[calamity]

Let’s add mass shooting in Fresno to the list.

 

[calamity]

Take away suicide,accidental shootings ,gang shootings,DGUs,police shootings and the number is small.

Yes the three dead children under age 10 were “small.”

I see some don’t care about dead kids; only their gun fetish matters.

 

[calamity]

When you count legal shootings by cops, you cant get much more dishonest than that in a discussion about gun control.

Gun deaths are gun deaths.

 

[goldkam]

well you assume that laws designed to harass honest gun owners, rather than punish criminals, will cut down on what are mostly suicides or felons killing other felons.

I would caution you in assuming what I state....the laws are designed to increase safety and security of everyone within the US. Are you claiming the UK's, Australia's , NZ, Japan's etc. gun laws are harassing firearm owning citizens?.....that is one conspiracy theory. That is false and not the purpose of the laws, you are simply seeking to victimise yourself for the enhancement of your point. More concerningly gun owners are the minority with reports showing between 43 and 46% of the US having reported a gun in their household. This is whilst you ignore the majority and their views and rights. It is even more concerning that those in the US own over 46% of the global stock of civilian weapons, yet only make up 4% of the global population. That in NO WAY can be justified. It is simply disgraceful, wrong and unnecessary.

Are you against cutting down on suicides?

 

[goldkam]

1)none of those countries have the same demographics or gun culture we ever had

2) many of those countries experienced more violence as they further restricted people being armed

3) is an opinion by someone who doesn't like guns and has zero relevance nor merit. There are more shoes in the USA than people too. and in affluent areas, far more tennis balls and golf clubs too

4) They have in the cities that tend to have the most murders. And your ideal laws are unconstitutional on a national level

once again. who is more likely to be disarmed by a gun ban

someone who has never even been charged for a violation of any law vs someone who has a felony record of violent crime?

1) Doesn't the UK, NZ and Australia speak English as well? Doesn't the UK, NZ and Australia share some of the same cultures? Whilst I agree there is variances in the firearm culture that does by no means justify the inability to create gun control in the US based on single or combined principles from other countries.

If you want to make this point at least PROVE IT.....

2) Do you have any proof of this? You state these sweeping statements with absolutely no proof. At least have the grit and ticker to back up your claims.

3) Anyone who pays taxes, contributes to the economy and can be potentially impacted by a firearm can put their opinion forth. You advocate for the Second Amendment profusely yet want to invalid my right to the FIRST AMENDMENT. Quite a contradiction. Golf clubs and tennis balls are not designed as a weapon which can be used to kill and injure.

4) Any proof of this? At least back up your point.
Yes that is true but that is why we are having this debate and why the current climate is the way it is. Interestingly the constitutional restrictions are highly interpretative. The DC hand gun ban was in place for decades until in 2008 someone saw a political gain and plight could be made and suddenly reinterpreted it. It's all politics and the gun industry combined with an increasingly concerning gun culture.

 

[goldkam]

Well in that first sentence I guess I should have noted sarcasm after it. I think the only thing you focus on is the desire to disarm your neighbor. Don't know if you have replied to post 134 on what you believe an "assault weapon"is

I would suggest you don't assume my motives. It is to create a safer country....the current climate is volatile driven by a concerning gun culture, politicised gun industry and vested political interests.

Do you consider it justified for the US to have 46% of the global civilian firearms yet only make up 4% of the global population. Additionally the US is the only country to have more guns than people. For every 100 people there are 32 more guns. Absolutely ridiculous. This is all why the firearm industry makes billions, 75,000 casualties each year as a result of firearm use and a 25% increase in firearm deaths over the past decades.

I don't believe self-defence should be a valid reason to own a firearm. I think firearms should be limited to employment or sporting purposes. That is you can still go hunting with a firearm and you can still go down to the local gun range, just with greater protections to ensure the safety of all. Only 43% of my neighbours would have a firearm in their house....so it impacts the minority yet you act as if you are the majority.....

 

[calamity]

1999-2017 of course the population has grown somewhat and suicide has gone up(TD noted)not too mention more bangers and illegals in gangs(see MS-13) . And I can make a graph too that looks real. Not saying you did but just saying.

Ah yes, the MS-13 boogieman. Meanwhile three children were murdered by their "law abiding" father.