Gun in Home Kills Loved ones and Owner

[calamity]

gun haters often pretend that legal gun ownership and felonious possession of weapons are the same thing.

The shooter in the home was not a felon in possession. Hell, he wasn't even legally barred from the home.

Dobbs added the victim tried to obtain a restraining order yesterday. It was unclear if that was served, though the shooter knew of it, Dobbs said. "This is a tragic case of murder-suicide due to domestic violence," Dobbs said.
9-year-old boy fighting for his life after family shooting | fox5sandiego.com

"Tried" is a far cry from do. Ask Yoda.

 

[goldkam]

Most of those deaths are suicides. Gun control won't prevent that.

Suicides make up a significant portion of that, that is correct. But do you not see a need to reduce suicides?

In relation to gun control....do you deny it has reduced suicide rates by firearm in Australia, UK, NZ, Japan, Germany, Italy, India and so many other countries?

Once again people simply cannot go out and state these sweeping unsubstantiated claims without backing it up with proven fact. I can say anything and make it sound true....that is easy. Not so easy to back it up with fact and proof.

It frustrates me that keyboard experts lay an unproven point down and see it as an adequate argument....

 

[Glitch]

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.

My earliest childhood memories are helping my father clean his firearms after a hunt. Never once did my brothers or I ever consider actual firearms as toys. We all knew the difference between a toy and the real thing. The public schools in Alaska teach firearm safety to kids, and they include indoor gun ranges. I highly recommend firearm safety classes for everyone, and firearm training classes for those who want them, starting in grade school.

 

[goldkam]

Violent crime has gone up since the Australian gun confiscation.

Homocides increased after the confiscation:

Decrease in firearm homicides | Australian Institute of Criminology

You really should do your homework.

Lets just debunk the validity of your claim and the use of such a source:

1) It was published over 17 years ago. It has no data from the past 17 years. Hardly an accurate and viable depiction of Australian success with gun control.

2) GUN CONTROL SEEKS TO REDUCE GUN RELATED DEATHS NOT ALL DEATHS. Can you not agree? You don't introduce harsher penalties and more restrictions for young drivers and then scratch your head wondering why aeroplane crashes and in turn deaths increased. Use common sense.

3) Total Number of Gun deaths has declined by 46% from 1996 to 2018. Total gun related suicides has declined by 47% in the same time period. That is a statistic form the ABS, a Governmental body. You cannot deny it.

I suggest when you want to come out and debate a topic you conduct due research and accurately apply facts and statistics. It becomes frustrating when you use invalid and unsubstantiated points for your own gain and to try and prove your own point. Show the ticker and might to do your research and refute claims.

 

[goldkam]

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.

You have exaggerated the extent of gun control. Your first sentence alludes to a society with 0 guns....that is simply unachievable and not what I am advocating just to be clear.

You allude to one of the biggest challenges faced. The extent of the gun culture, the availability of weapons and the political inaction on this issue has created the only country in the world to have more guns than people and that is only growing each year. You can walk in and get your dinner at Walmart and stop by and get your kids Christmas presents and then buy a gun...that is not healthy or a positive element to the current issues.

Its about stifling the stockpile, reducing the availability and cracking down on illegal gun use. The claim and hypothesis you make undermines the other methods that can be used. You have dumbed up the policy to make out like gun control is impossible. Have a look of the dozens of countries that have successfully implemented it....

 

[apdst]

You really should do your homework.

Lets just debunk the validity of your claim and the use of such a source:

1) It was published over 17 years ago. It has no data from the past 17 years. Hardly an accurate and viable depiction of Australian success with gun control.

2) GUN CONTROL SEEKS TO REDUCE GUN RELATED DEATHS NOT ALL DEATHS. Can you not agree? You don't introduce harsher penalties and more restrictions for young drivers and then scratch your head wondering why aeroplane crashes and in turn deaths increased. Use common sense.

3) Total Number of Gun deaths has declined by 46% from 1996 to 2018. Total gun related suicides has declined by 47% in the same time period. That is a statistic form the ABS, a Governmental body. You cannot deny it.

I suggest when you want to come out and debate a topic you conduct due research and accurately apply facts and statistics. It becomes frustrating when you use invalid and unsubstantiated points for your own gain and to try and prove your own point. Show the ticker and might to do your research and refute claims.

That's why it's useless.

 

[apdst]

Suicides make up a significant portion of that, that is correct. But do you not see a need to reduce suicides?

In relation to gun control....do you deny it has reduced suicide rates by firearm in Australia, UK, NZ, Japan, Germany, Italy, India and so many other countries?

Once again people simply cannot go out and state these sweeping unsubstantiated claims without backing it up with proven fact. I can say anything and make it sound true....that is easy. Not so easy to back it up with fact and proof.

It frustrates me that keyboard experts lay an unproven point down and see it as an adequate argument....

At the expense of my civil liberties? No.

 

[goldkam]

And you reply↓

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.

I would suggest you read the thread and understand the conversation, rather than jumping in half way through acting as if you are smarter than I am.

The post I made was about self-defence, in my opinion, as an invalid reason for owning a firearm. TurtleDude responded by stating he is a 'competitive shooter'. I was making the point that a competitive shooter in itself does not have to justify their gun ownership via self-defence rather hunting, sport or recreation. That is a valid proposition to make.

Once again before commenting understand what you are commenting on, rather than making diminishing comments which are unnecessary and discourteous.

 

[goldkam]

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

That is what I am trying to advocate for.....reduce firearm deaths. You are unbelievable.

You seek to diminish the suicide rate via a firearm, accidental shootings etc...and reduce the number of shootings denoting it as small. How dare you...
As if to say "its only a few people it doesn't matter". Every death is one too many. Gun control works if you deny it I would suggest you go and create a TV show, a book and a website on a major conspiracy theory around Australia's, NZ, UK, Italy's, India's, Japan's etc.. gun control.

How do you propose to reduce firearm deaths?

 

[goldkam]

That's why it's useless.

The article you used?? That was my point.

Or are you alluding to something else?

 

[calamity]

That is what I am trying to advocate for.....reduce firearm deaths. You are unbelievable.

You seek to diminish the suicide rate via a firearm, accidental shootings etc...and reduce the number of shootings denoting it as small. How dare you...
As if to say "its only a few people it doesn't matter". Every death is one too many. Gun control works if you deny it I would suggest you go and create a TV show, a book and a website on a major conspiracy theory around Australia's, NZ, UK, Italy's, India's, Japan's etc.. gun control.

How do you propose to reduce firearm deaths?

Yes, we see their true colors in these threads.

 

[Glitch]

You have exaggerated the extent of gun control. Your first sentence alludes to a society with 0 guns....that is simply unachievable and not what I am advocating just to be clear.

You allude to one of the biggest challenges faced. The extent of the gun culture, the availability of weapons and the political inaction on this issue has created the only country in the world to have more guns than people and that is only growing each year. You can walk in and get your dinner at Walmart and stop by and get your kids Christmas presents and then buy a gun...that is not healthy or a positive element to the current issues.

Its about stifling the stockpile, reducing the availability and cracking down on illegal gun use. The claim and hypothesis you make undermines the other methods that can be used. You have dumbed up the policy to make out like gun control is impossible. Have a look of the dozens of countries that have successfully implemented it....

All Gun Control is an infringement. Do we have Speech Control? Or maybe you think we have Association Control? How about Religious Belief Control? What part of "shall not be infringed" escaped your grasp?

People may own whatever property they desire without you, or your fascist friends, dictating what they can and cannot own. Why is it always the most ignorant leftist freaks who think they can always determine what others need or don't need? Is it some kind of sickness? It clearly is a prevalent mental disorder among the fascist left. Everyone of them thinks they know what is best for everyone else, and they are always wrong.

Those dozens of other countries to which you refer do not include provisions within their Supreme Law of the Land that prohibits government from infringing on our individual right to keep and bear arms. The US is unique in that regard.

 

[goldkam]

At the expense of my civil liberties? No.

What a cruel world we live in. So if someone doesn't take something away from you, you are happy to support the reduction of people dying. Yet when you potentially have something taken away from you, you chuck a tantrum and now don't care if people die. These values are completely and utterly unethical and immoral.

I advocate that you can keep your civil liberties they are just more heavily regulated. I believe that firearms should still be available for employment and sporting purposes with greater restrictions on the uses and types of firearms. Your civil liberties would not be taken away....you are being unreasonable.

 

[goldkam]

Yes, we see their true colors in these threads.

I'll say....I am just concerned in how they approach this. No facts, no truth to substantiate their points just the stereotypical argument that is not justified.

 

[Glitch]

What a cruel world we live in. So if someone doesn't take something away from you, you are happy to support the reduction of people dying. Yet when you potentially have something taken away from you, you chuck a tantrum and now don't care if people die. These values are completely and utterly unethical and immoral.

I advocate that you can keep your civil liberties they are just more heavily regulated. I believe that firearms should still be available for employment and sporting purposes with greater restrictions on the uses and types of firearms. Your civil liberties would not be taken away....you are being unreasonable.

Yet more leftist Appeals for Pity. Did you anti-American leftists pass around a memo or something? It clearly demonstrates that you have no substance or facts to support your argument. Probably because you know your argument has lost before it even began. The Supreme Court has already squashed your fascist dreams. Get use to it.

 

[apdst]

What a cruel world we live in. So if someone doesn't take something away from you, you are happy to support the reduction of people dying. Yet when you potentially have something taken away from you, you chuck a tantrum and now don't care if people die. These values are completely and utterly unethical and immoral.

I advocate that you can keep your civil liberties they are just more heavily regulated. I believe that firearms should still be available for employment and sporting purposes with greater restrictions on the uses and types of firearms. Your civil liberties would not be taken away....you are being unreasonable.

Do you support assisted suicide?

 

[apdst]

The article you used?? That was my point.

Or are you alluding to something else?

You claim that gun control is to lower the number of gun homocides, not all homocides. That's why gun control is useless.

 

[goldkam]

All Gun Control is an infringement. Do we have Speech Control? Or maybe you think we have Association Control? How about Religious Belief Control? What part of "shall not be infringed" escaped your grasp?

People may own whatever property they desire without you, or your fascist friends, dictating what they can and cannot own. Why is it always the most ignorant leftist freaks who think they can always determine what others need or don't need? Is it some kind of sickness? It clearly is a prevalent mental disorder among the fascist left. Everyone of them thinks they know what is best for everyone else, and they are always wrong.

Those dozens of other countries to which you refer do not include provisions within their Supreme Law of the Land that prohibits government from infringing on our individual right to keep and bear arms. The US is unique in that regard.

Gun control saves lives. This is proven. The inconvenient truth is there are more guns than people (the best example of a greater confusion of values), the US makes up 4% of the world population but has 46% of the worlds civilian firearms, the US firearm death rate has increased by 25% over the past two decades, suicide rates with firearms are increasing. It is concerning and nothing is being done about it.

Yes the US has speech control. Here is a list of legislation that does this (this includes a small proportion of it)
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967[6]
Alaska's Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990[7]
California Fair Employment and Housing Act

Yes the US has association control. You cannot associate with certain groups linked to terrorism or the like. It is illegal to do so.

So your points are really not validated.

What the Constitution says has no difference on my view or how I approach the situation. Many people have seemingly interpreted that as they (the laws on firearms) shall be 'unhinged'. Which quite fittingly is representative of this gun obsession existent today and lack of good and enforceable gun control legislation and policies.

I WOULD FIND IT RESPECTFUL TO NOT CALL ME OR ASSOCIATE ME WITH FASCISTS Have a little bit of respect for people. Respect is reciprocal and should practised in a mature manner. We are all adults. If your calling anyone who support gun control fascist...sounds like you have conspiracy theory about the population of Australia and Japan and the UK and India. Come on lets be realistic.

Last time I checked you cannot pick a property up and use it to shoot and either kill or injure people. A unjustifiable comparison that is not relevant and was only used for your own gain.
I believe in SAVING PEOPLES LIVES AND AFTER DECADES OF POLICY, POLITICAL AND SOCIETAL FAILURE GUN CONTROL IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND PROVEN OPTION

**I am writing as I read your post and I will say this after getting to a certain point. How dare you politicise mental disorders. I have a level of tolerance and understand debates can be heated and not everyone will agree. But if you cannot act in a mature way and post in an appropriate manner I would suggest you go have a long hard look in the mirror and approach these kind of debates more sensibly in the future.

Oh its unique alright. A Constitution does not need to stand in the way and justify society into giving up and not evolving or changing. I and many don't agree with the 2nd Amendment and that is validated. Gun Control from other countries or a combination of it has never been tried in the US....so how do you know it won't work?

 

[TurtleDude]

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

what part of Article One, Section 8 authorizes the stuff you don't even believe in?

 

[TurtleDude]

What a cruel world we live in. So if someone doesn't take something away from you, you are happy to support the reduction of people dying. Yet when you potentially have something taken away from you, you chuck a tantrum and now don't care if people die. These values are completely and utterly unethical and immoral.

I advocate that you can keep your civil liberties they are just more heavily regulated. I believe that firearms should still be available for employment and sporting purposes with greater restrictions on the uses and types of firearms. Your civil liberties would not be taken away....you are being unreasonable.

false dichotomy: taking away constitutionally protected arms from honest people doesn't stop people from being killed. And people like you have never ever said at what point too much regulation is too much. WHY? because once you buy into the the nonsense that further restrictions on what legal gun owners can own or do, somehow stops criminals, when it doesn't you never say-hey maybe these laws don't work: rather you demand more and more restrictions.

 

[TurtleDude]

You claim that gun control is to lower the number of gun homocides, not all homocides. That's why gun control is useless.

Does anyone who follows this issue actually believe that the leaders of the anti gun movement even pretend that their schemes are designed to reduce crime?

 

[TurtleDude]

You really should do your homework.

Lets just debunk the validity of your claim and the use of such a source:

1) It was published over 17 years ago. It has no data from the past 17 years. Hardly an accurate and viable depiction of Australian success with gun control.

2) GUN CONTROL SEEKS TO REDUCE GUN RELATED DEATHS NOT ALL DEATHS. Can you not agree? You don't introduce harsher penalties and more restrictions for young drivers and then scratch your head wondering why aeroplane crashes and in turn deaths increased. Use common sense.

3) Total Number of Gun deaths has declined by 46% from 1996 to 2018. Total gun related suicides has declined by 47% in the same time period. That is a statistic form the ABS, a Governmental body. You cannot deny it.

I suggest when you want to come out and debate a topic you conduct due research and accurately apply facts and statistics. It becomes frustrating when you use invalid and unsubstantiated points for your own gain and to try and prove your own point. Show the ticker and might to do your research and refute claims.

Do you know what is the most common type of firearm used to commit suicide? Do you know which types of firearms have actually increased in Australia when things like Semi Auto rifles (almost never used for suicide) or large caliber (like 10MM or 45 ACP) pistols were banned?

 

[goldkam]

Yet more leftist Appeals for Pity. Did you anti-American leftists pass around a memo or something? It clearly demonstrates that you have no substance or facts to support your argument. Probably because you know your argument has lost before it even began. The Supreme Court has already squashed your fascist dreams. Get use to it.

Pity? Are you actually serious.....

Do you not feel pity for those families who have had family member die in gun related incidents. How about the families of those killed on the Las Vegas strip?

The gun culture is out of control. And that was proven in my previous post.

Not Anti-American....Anti-Innocent people dying we just have different views on how to achieve this. You are trying really hard to offend me and discredit me but I simply am not feeling it. You use a lot of words with a lot of weight but don't actually prove your point further.

I could call you all the contrary names under the sun 'obsessed with guns'....'using murder weapons' BUT I DON'T because I use facts, stats and truths to support my claims. You just use insults.

You really need to make a change in how you speak to people...it is is disgusting. This is a debate forum not an unhinged attack and insulting contest.

Here are the facts:
- 40,000 people died as a result of gun related injuries in 2018
- There has been over 1.5 million gun related casualties in the last decade
- For every 1 justified homicide there are 36 unjustified homicides
- The US is the only country IN THE WORLD to have more guns that people (120 per 100 people)
- If a gun is present in a abusive domestic relationship the woman's chance of death increases by 500%
- Guns are rarely used in self-defence. You simply cannot have a firearm ready 24/7 ready to shoot.
- Over 3 million firearms have been stolen by felons over the past decade.
- Gun related crime and injury burdens the US by 3 billion every year.

Action needs and must be taken..denial of this is concerning

 

[ttwtt78640]

Does anyone who follows this issue actually believe that the leaders of the anti gun movement even pretend that their schemes are designed to reduce crime?

The general idea seems to be that if fewer guns are "out there" then there will be fewer "gun deaths". The problem, of course, is that criminals by definition do not obey the laws. The end result of a "gun control" law is that the law abiding will obey it (if they feel like it?) and criminals will not. How that is alleged to affect criminals (other than creating more of them who simply fail to obey the newest "gun control" laws - e.g. granny had an illegal 15 round magazine) has not been satisfactorily explained.

 

[TurtleDude]

The general idea seems to be that if fewer guns are "out there" then there will be fewer "gun deaths". The problem, of course, is that criminals by definition do not obey the laws. The end result of a "gun control" law is that the law abiding will obey it and criminals will not. How that is alleged to affect criminals (other than creating more of them who simply fail to obey the newest "gun control" laws - e.g. granny had an illegal 15 round magazine) has not been satisfactorily explained.

I constantly ask gun banners or gun restrictionists the following

1) who is more likely to be disarmed or limited by banning some or all guns and or "high capacity magazines"

a) someone who has never violated a felony statute or harmed someone with a gun

b) or a violent criminal who has a track record of violence?

they never answer.

It is because they see gun owners as the enemy due to how we often vote. They never concede that armed honest people are a net positive so they refuse to answer. It is my honest opinion that many of the avid gun banners actually see honest gun owners as what they really despise-not criminals who don't vote against Democrat candidates