Two simple measures to cut child shootings.

[PleasantValley]

I do second your politeness and honesty. It most definitely is nice to have a discussion, debate whatever you wish to call it without such hast and anger being the vehicle driving it.

I undoubtedly respect your right and your enactment to conduct such a right. However....why is a firearm is such a necessity in the US but very few other developed countries?? I also believe self-defence is not a medium in which can justify gun use/ownership...here is why (this is merely my opinion backed up by credible statistics)....for every 1 justified homicide (self-defence) there is 36 unjustified homicides (unlawful/misuse of a firearm). I cannot justify having a firearm in that one case (where death or injury was not even necessarily going to occur) for 36 others to be killed/injuried. This is a cost/benefit analysis outlook. The costs far outweigh the benefits.

Thank you for your kind words.
I also yearn to have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person on this or any other issue.

Now, in my reply, please understand i am not trying to sway you in any way.
I, like you, am merely stating things as i see them.
Our eyes pretty much work the same way, but our brains process what they see differently.
This is why we have others with differing opinions.

Here is mine in what you said.

A firearm is more necessary in the US than other developed countries because we are much more violent a people than other countries.
In Texas, the first settlers, the Spanish, had to deal with the Comanche, who were also violently defending their country Comancheera.
We also had cannibals living on the coast.
When Mexico became a nation, Tejanos fought with them to expel the Spanish, who were quite brutal in putting down any revolutions.
All the while the Comanche did what they do.
Then there was relative peace.

Then along comes the dictator Santa Anna who torn up the Mexican constitution of 1824 and installed his own dictatorship.
Mexicans and Tejanos loyal to the constitution took up arms and fought him.
if you look at the flag flown over the Alamo it is a Mexican flag with 1824 in place of the Mexican eagle. This was to remind Santa Anna of the legal constitution he tore up.
All the while the Comanche did what they do.
1836, Santa Ana is defeated, Loyal Mexicans and Tejanos are now all Texans in the new nation of Texas.
All the while the Comanche did what they do.
To fight the Comanche the Texas Rangers were formed.
Then we were almost driven into the sea by the Great Comanche raid.
More fighting, more battles, more raids, no peace.
If you were not armed, you were dead....and so was all in your home.

Now Texas is incorporated into the US as a state.
Boom! The Mexican American war...
then Boom! the Civil War.

Fast forward many other wars where Texans were in the forefront of them all.

Now...2018.

NO...I am not making myself defenseless by disarming. History has proven this to be foolish and dangerous.
You also have to know how to use it much more effectively than those that would do you harm.
You have to be better than them and also know how to clear malfunctions.
Texans generally do.

I also do not doubt your statistics.
STATISTICALLY, you are right.
However, i choose to not rely on STATISTICS for my life and the life of those i love.
STATISTICALLY you will not be murdered either, but I have a gun.
STATISTICALLY you will not die in a house fire, but i have smoke detectors and two fire extinguishers.
STATISTICALLY you will not die in a car crash, but i have a vehicle with air bags and always insist everyone wear their seat belts.
STATISTICALLY you will not drown on a water outing, but I insist everyone wear flotation devices while on the water.

I personally choose to not rely on STATISTICS when it comes to my life and the lives of my loved ones.

My opinion and my opinion only.

 

[Rucker61]

Do you not agree that in todays climate the firearms are more high power, dangerous and can inflict more harm. Additionally, do you not agree that the climate politically, economically and socially is very different today?

Guns have advanced technically. That's not an issue. See Caetano v Massachusetts.

To your next point. Its a matter of standing by what one believes in, not giving up if there are more Republicans. Not giving up when the odds may not be in ones favour. If history enacted like that the world would be a very different place. This whole firearm debate is not about Republicans or Democrats, its about doing what is just and right. If individuals disagree, then they must be so caught up in the political debate and scene.

Give up your guns then. Mine have not and will never cause harm.

What's your idea to reduce rape?

Do you even live in the US?

 

[goldkam]

Very telling and honest. Based on this you want zero lawful gun ownership. That will never happen in the US. It hasn't happened anywhere.



You're only counting justifiable homicide as the only "benefit" to gun ownership. That's a flaw in your reasoning. In addition to justifiable homicide there are DGUs where the attacker is only wounded, or where no shots at all are fired. Additionally, the uses of firearms for the "purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity" (Gun Control Act, 1968. Note that those who commit felonious homicide aren't protected by the Second Amendment for that action or in the majority for the mere possession of a firearm.

What I dislike is assumptions, and what you have done is taken my comment in relation to not finding one aspect of firearm defence justified and created that into some sort of profound and unrealistic portrayal of my opinion. The very basis of my point was a) there is a heavier reliance on firearms in the US than most other developed countries and b)I don't find self-defence with a firearm as a justified mechanism for having firearms based on the facts and the cost/benefit analysis results that come with the facts.

My view (in a nutshell is this)....
- Reduce the number of guns in the US (economic policies relating to the blackmarket) and legislative policies in relation to the selling of firearms to the public.
- Implement legislation that puts an extensive reduction on availability and use of firearms in everyday settings
- This reduction on availability would not extend to those who use firearms for employment, professional sports or in a controlled environment ie a shooting range. The use of these weapons would be in a controlled environment and with appropriate checks and balances implemented.

Secondly. It is for the purpose of comparison, the benefits and costs are being compared. For the purpose of a sustainable and realistic comparison it is foundational and credible....I can extend it to other areas of gun ownership and its inherent benefits if that ensures your not terming the comparison as flawed. What are the statistics for DGU's (credible statistics).... because the range of statistics provided is in the millions, with a range that large the credibility of each and every one of them is shaky.

NO.... the Second Amendment protected their right to bear arms up until they committed the crime. The fact is the Second Amendment initiated ownership and supported it up until they committed the act. In the case of illegal use of the firearm...the Second Amendment still instils the requirment and validation for a firearm. It has initiated an oversupply and saturation of firearms in the market. It assisted in creating the black market. It continually supports a weapon in which few other developed nations accept as a necessary part of life.

 

[jonny5]

Two simple measures to cut child shootings. Engineering a solution is simpler and safer than relying on people.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

We already have such things. It doesnt work if people dont use them. So we are back to relying on people.

 

[Rucker61]

1- There needs to be a line drawn as to what "strong" is defined as........if you call Mexico's gun laws strong what would you call Japans gun laws?

Draconian.

In Mexico-
- You can own up to 10 firearms
- Its a constitutional right to bear arms
- Semi-Automatic Handguns, Shotguns, Revolvers are allowed to be brought by those who pass the permit
- You can purchase a firearm for the purpose of home defence, collection, hunting etc..

Mexico has but a single gun shop open to the public, in Mexico City. Mexico, with a population six times that of Australia has about the same number of registered firearms. Due to the success of the drug trade the number of illicit firearms is much higher, but the gangs in Mexico have much more money and greater access to the military armories of Central America than those in Australia do.

When considering how strict these laws are it needs to be considered on an international scale and thus determined collectively with all countries. Thus Mexico in comparison to Japan has quite lax gun rulings. Same with Mexico and Australia, UK, New Zealand. I don't think it is accurate to act as if Mexico is a leading country for strict gun policies. You correlation between "strict gun laws" and criminals are managing to get their hands on them is because of 1 of 2 reasons. The two countries laws are not in fact strict, they lie between the US (lenient) and Japan (strict) hence the firearms are still in abundance and enable easier access. Also the countries have significant black markets which facilitate this. The government won't do anything to diminish these black markets because it is allowing for economic growth and success. If those two aspects were at least looked into a very different outcome could be reached.

I am not a politician, nor a legislator, not an activist. I am merely stating my opinion and highlighting factual information in relation to other countries successes with gun rulings. Common Sense gun laws are what need to be imposed.

Do you live in the US? Then vote. And you'll need to assassinate a few SCOTUS justices under a Democratic president, too. In order to get to UK, or Japanese or Australian laws, the Second Amendment will have to be amended and multiple SCOTUS rulings overturned, including Cruikshank, Miler, Heller, McDonald and Caetano. You claim to be for common sense gun laws but you've stated multiple times that those laws must include bans and confiscations, and based upon your example countries, bans of all handguns, all semiautomatic rifles, bans of all shotguns that hold more than 3 shells. That's about 200 million or so firearms.

Your "common sense" laws have never been attempted in a country with a Constitutional right to bear arms; where 40% of the populace owns firearms; where the highest court in the land has affirmed multiple times the right of the people to own firearms; and where there are more firearms than people in the country. There was also no major opposition to the imposition of those laws, nor was there much difference in before and after statistics.

 

[Rucker61]

What I dislike is assumptions, and what you have done is taken my comment in relation to not finding one aspect of firearm defence justified and created that into some sort of profound and unrealistic portrayal of my opinion. The very basis of my point was a) there is a heavier reliance on firearms in the US than most other developed countries and b)I don't find self-defence with a firearm as a justified mechanism for having firearms based on the facts and the cost/benefit analysis results that come with the facts.

What are the benefits to firearm ownership? How do you measure them? It appears by your posts that the only measured benefit is the number of justifiable homicides each year.

My view (in a nutshell is this)....
- Reduce the number of guns in the US (economic policies relating to the blackmarket) and legislative policies in relation to the selling of firearms to the public.
- Implement legislation that puts an extensive reduction on availability and use of firearms in everyday settings
- This reduction on availability would not extend to those who use firearms for employment, professional sports or in a controlled environment ie a shooting range. The use of these weapons would be in a controlled environment and with appropriate checks and balances implemented.

Okay, we again see what you want. It won't happen in the US until the Second Amendment is overturned. It's that simple. Until then you're just living in fantasy land.

Secondly. It is for the purpose of comparison, the benefits and costs are being compared. For the purpose of a sustainable and realistic comparison it is foundational and credible....I can extend it to other areas of gun ownership and its inherent benefits if that ensures your not terming the comparison as flawed. What are the statistics for DGU's (credible statistics).... because the range of statistics provided is in the millions, with a range that large the credibility of each and every one of them is shaky.

Basic flaw in your reasoning is that the existence of the Second Amendment does not depend upon statistics. There is no simple way to accurately count all DGUs, as we don't have 24/7 satellite coverage of the US. There are studies that claim millions, and there are studies that claim fewer, but even the GCA sites acknowledge DGUs in the 10s of thousands.

Are DGUs the only benefit you extend to lawful firearm ownership. Is there no benefit for firearms ownership for target shooting, hunting and competition?

NO.... the Second Amendment protected their right to bear arms up until they committed the crime. The fact is the Second Amendment initiated ownership and supported it up until they committed the act. In the case of illegal use of the firearm...the Second Amendment still instils the requirment and validation for a firearm. It has initiated an oversupply and saturation of firearms in the market. It assisted in creating the black market. It continually supports a weapon in which few other developed nations accept as a necessary part of life.

No, nearly all of those who commit crimes with firearms have lost their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Does the UK not have a black market for firearms? Australia certainly does. So does France. Japan, likely not, but Japan is a corner case.

You don't like the Second Amendment? You know the deal. Start counting.

Seriously, do you live in the US?

 

[goldkam]

Draconian.



Mexico has but a single gun shop open to the public, in Mexico City. Mexico, with a population six times that of Australia has about the same number of registered firearms. Due to the success of the drug trade the number of illicit firearms is much higher, but the gangs in Mexico have much more money and greater access to the military armories of Central America than those in Australia do.



Do you live in the US? Then vote. And you'll need to assassinate a few SCOTUS justices under a Democratic president, too. In order to get to UK, or Japanese or Australian laws, the Second Amendment will have to be amended and multiple SCOTUS rulings overturned, including Cruikshank, Miler, Heller, McDonald and Caetano. You claim to be for common sense gun laws but you've stated multiple times that those laws must include bans and confiscations, and based upon your example countries, bans of all handguns, all semiautomatic rifles, bans of all shotguns that hold more than 3 shells. That's about 200 million or so firearms.

You "common sense" laws have never been attempted in a country with a Constitutional right to bear arms; where 40% of the populace owns firearms; where the highest court in the land has affirmed multiple times the right of the people to own firearms; and where there are more firearms than people in the country. There was also no major opposition to the imposition of those laws, nor was there much difference in before and after statistics.

1- Harsh because they limit death. Are America's policies lenient because they promote rights over safety from injury and death?? What about the 14th Amendment...."right to life" is that not as important as the 2nd Amendment?? I feel that some priorities are not in order here...

2- That is quite a narrowed view...it is like stating "We have an illicit drug problem and there is only one illicit drug store.. how are people getting them??". Its called the black market of which over 600 firearms are being smuggled from the US every day into Mexico, which contributes to Mexicos 15.5 million firearms.

Few Australians feel the urge or need to obtain a firearm because of the safe and secure climate and environment that the Government collectively with Australian's have created. Along with correct economic and legislative policies black markets cannot flourish. In Australia a mass shooting in culmination with a lead up of shooting occurred and the Government reacted with the greater good and protection of society at the forth front of their mind. Not a Mass Shooting Since. In the USA mass shootings occurs in the double digits every year (https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.cf3122b7ee57) and the primary concern is the 2nd Amendment. The only worry is not the people impacted but the people that stricter legislation would impact. The only worry is not the firearm but other mechanisms to blame other than the firearm.

As an individual.....I would do any means necessary to ensure that the greater good of society and a safe, secure climate is created. Not be deterred by barriers in which are merely road blocks. Once again....you have fabricated my perception and morphed it for you own premises. The other posts explain explicitly my beliefs. So your stating the majority of developed nations are exercising nonsensical gun laws (yet at the global scale the US is at a minority in relation to supporting lenient firearm use and availability in a country) That sounds incredibly bias to me...and a conflict of interest.

Yes because there has been very few countries with that or have had a Constitutional right to bear arms for good reason....it may provide one additional right but undoubtedly at the expense of so many other rights and freedoms. The Global community and many in the US don't seem to agree with those notions. A divine power could have asserted the right to bear firearms, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ETHICAL, MORAL OR RIGHT"

 

[goldkam]

What are the benefits to firearm ownership? How do you measure them? It appears by your posts that the only measured benefit is the number of justifiable homicides each year.

Okay, we again see what you want. It won't happen in the US until the Second Amendment is overturned. It's that simple. Until then you're just living in fantasy land.



Basic flaw in your reasoning is that the existence of the Second Amendment does not depend upon statistics. There is no simple way to accurately count all DGUs, as we don't have 24/7 satellite coverage of the US. There are studies that claim millions, and there are studies that claim fewer, but even the GCA sites acknowledge DGUs in the 10s of thousands.

Are DGUs the only benefit you extend to lawful firearm ownership. Is there no benefit for firearms ownership for target shooting, hunting and competition?



No, nearly all of those who commit crimes with firearms have lost their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Does the UK not have a black market for firearms? Australia certainly does. So does France. Japan, likely not, but Japan is a corner case.

You don't like the Second Amendment? You know the deal. Start counting.

Seriously, do you live in the US?

1- Your the individual who is telling the BENEFITS story. Those questions should be answered by yourself. I don't agree the benefits are a justification, hence I would be biased creating a further framework for judgement

Benefits can be continued to be asserted through Cost/Benefit analysis....as I have continually done.

2- Incorrect. Its called striving to achieve what one believes is best, individuals such as yourself do a fantastic job and criticising ones opinion yet individuals should continue to pursue my belief because it is what is just. Additionally it doesn't necessarily mean the Second Amendment has to be changed...significant gun reform could be simply passed by the alteration in interpretation of the 2nd Amendment....in saying that the requirment for change of wording or simply interpretation does not imply a null or complete stop in a debate such as this.

3- The Second Amendment assists in producing the statistics however and thus an interaction can be drawn. So you deny or agree that such a large range alludes to a lack of credibility.

Additionally how do you measure how many of the uses were justified because of an actual threat of injury, harm or death. A vast amount of DGU's could be, according to the inaccuracy, a reactionary mechanism to an individual that posed no harm....

In finalisation of that point. You cannot give me a firm figure of DGU's per year?

I find those actions...not benefits pertaining to firearms.

4- But individuals at the time of losing that right would have perhaps been exercising the 2nd Amendment lawfully....

A black market exists (including in the UK) but the economic and legislative policies have counteracted its creation along with the AFP (Federal Police) by a) creating a black market where an average firearm costs $22,000 and b) the ongoing investigation and efforts made by police limits its expansion.

No I don't agree with it. For the reasons I have mentioned. Do you find it alright that the 2nd Amendment can impinge on your right to life (14th Amendment)? I don't have to count because it doesn't change my opinion..if it did that is called a lack of passion and drive for an issue.

 

[Rucker61]

1- Your the individual who is telling the BENEFITS story. Those questions should be answered by yourself. I don't agree the benefits are a justification, hence I would be biased creating a further framework for judgement

Benefits can be continued to be asserted through Cost/Benefit analysis....as I have continually done.

You're the one who thinks that rights depend upon a cost/benefit analysis. I disagree, as does the law. If you don't agree that benefits are a justification, why are you even using a cost/benefit analysis?

2- Incorrect. Its called striving to achieve what one believes is best, individuals such as yourself do a fantastic job and criticising ones opinion yet individuals should continue to pursue my belief because it is what is just. Additionally it doesn't necessarily mean the Second Amendment has to be changed...significant gun reform could be simply passed by the alteration in interpretation of the 2nd Amendment....in saying that the requirment for change of wording or simply interpretation does not imply a null or complete stop in a debate such as this.

Be specific, as your point is very nebulous here. In order for the government to ban and confiscate firearms, especially at the level you are suggesting, it would take more than a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The government is not empowered to take the actions you suggest, and their power is strictly limited according to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you think that SCOTUS can simply say, "we changed our minds on Cruikshank, Heller, Miller, McDonald and Caetano, ban away", you don't understand either how SCOTUS addresses issues or what the future makeup of SCOTUS will look like for decades.

3- The Second Amendment assists in producing the statistics however and thus an interaction can be drawn. So you deny or agree that such a large range alludes to a lack of credibility.

The Second is as responsible for those statistics as the freedom of movement under the Privileges and Immunity Clause is responsible or the 13th Amendment is responsible.

Additionally how do you measure how many of the uses were justified because of an actual threat of injury, harm or death. A vast amount of DGU's could be, according to the inaccuracy, a reactionary mechanism to an individual that posed no harm....

In finalisation of that point. You cannot give me a firm figure of DGU's per year?

I find those actions...not benefits pertaining to firearms.

It isn't possible to accurately measure DGUs, nor is it a necessary exercise. Your opinions do not matter in this country.

4- But individuals at the time of losing that right would have perhaps been exercising the 2nd Amendment lawfully....

You lose that right when you are convicted of committing a crime. Very few criminals carry a gun legally at their trials. There is no criminal activity that is protected by the Second Amendment. You have no right to carry a gun to commit a crime.

A black market exists (including in the UK) but the economic and legislative policies have counteracted its creation along with the AFP (Federal Police) by a) creating a black market where an average firearm costs $22,000 and b) the ongoing investigation and efforts made by police limits its expansion.

No I don't agree with it. For the reasons I have mentioned. Do you find it alright that the 2nd Amendment can impinge on your right to life (14th Amendment)? I don't have to count because it doesn't change my opinion..if it did that is called a lack of passion and drive for an issue.

There is no Constitutionally protected right to life which would protect you from all harm. Constitutionally protected rights protect you from governmental actions. Someone who robs you isn't charged with violating your property rights - he's charged with robbery.

Once again, where do you live?

 

[VanceMack]

1- What are you referring to when you used the term "gang banging"?? According to the data it states "were shot" to extend on this a further 6000 per year are injured from gun shot wounds and have to attend hospital. Swearing is not required, not necessary to enhance your point. What sources etc.. disprove the statistics I have used..

Additionally the assertion you made that number is "decreasing" is wrong it actually increased in 2016 to 495 (https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics). Please ensure you are using factual information not some morphed information to make your point sound better.

The fact is every gun death is as tragic as the last and not enough is being done to alleviate and reduce the risk and number of deaths.

2- What percentage of other developed countries is the teaching of gun safety a normality in everyday society.....you assertion is false. There are very few exceptions.

Gun Safety programs didn't do a whole lot for Stephen Paddock or Nicholas Cruze.....the fact is if someone is going to commit a crime, accidentally misuse a firearm or act in a vengeful way "gun safety" programs are not going to work. They are a knee jerk reaction to ensure that societies expectation of what should be done and what is being done is levelled out. It will tame the lion until the next atrocity occurs. Enforcing, heavily legislating and banning are mechanisms which have proven worth throughout the world, not ignoring the actual issue which is the firearm itself.

3- Once again swearing merely highlights you have an extended vocabulary range and is unnecessary. You don't have to care, in fact if you don't care don't respond to my posts as that is showing some sort of care (in reacting). You do care, you just don't agree. Once again the immaturity is quite astounding, particularly when I am putting my opinion forth and no change has been initiated. Would you act like this if such changes did happen?? Some individuals need to understand that this is an adult mature discussion, not some teenage conversation where the humour emanated is that of immaturity and spite. Unfortunate really....

I can have a Constitution debate with you if you wish (minus the swearing and immaturity)

:lamo

Facts...so...you WERE including gang violence and other criminal activity in your bull**** '4 lives are lost' comment.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Rucker61]

:lamo

Facts...so...you WERE including gang violence and other criminal activity in your bull**** '4 lives are lost' comment.

Thanks for playing.

He doesn't care about the difference. He thinks all gun owners, legal or illegal, are similarly evil.

 

[VanceMack]

He doesn't care about the difference. He thinks all gun owners, legal or illegal, are similarly evil.

The dishonesty though...He was trying to pull the same thing Clinton did when he made his ridiculous "13 CHILDREN a day die by gunfire"...and then proceeded to count adults to the age of 26 as 'children'.

 

[vegas giants]

The dishonesty though...He was trying to pull the same thing Clinton did when he made his ridiculous "13 CHILDREN a day die by gunfire"...and then proceeded to count adults to the age of 26 as 'children'.

Tio suggest that children are not dying in massive numbers due to firearms in this country compared to any other developed nation on earth is to ignore the obvious

 

[SMTA]

I am focused on reducing the risk of misuse and illegal gun use. The fact is I don't believe there can be a society where firearms exist where legal use can benefit society enough to outweigh misuse. The fact is for every 1 justified homicide (self-defence) there is 36 unjustified homicides (illegal use). There are more firearms than people. There are 14,900 more gun shops than grocery stores. Twice as many gun stores to McDonalds. Your average hand gun costs less than a typical grocery shop at Walmart and less than a Chromebook computer. About 50 women a month are shot to death by intimate partners in the U.S. The list goes on.

The fact is in the current situation something had to be done. But the very idea that this is all in reaction to occurrences highlights no proactive implementations are being put in place or being supported. This does not stop individuals from obtaining a firearms and using it for unlawful even vengeful purposes. It does not stop accidents. It does not stop suicides with a firearm. The very thing this stops, is the poor outlook placed on government by society when atrocities happen. It tames the lion until something else happens.

You need to document all of these statistics.

 

[Rucker61]

1- Harsh because they limit death. Are America's policies lenient because they promote rights over safety from injury and death?? What about the 14th Amendment...."right to life" is that not as important as the 2nd Amendment?? I feel that some priorities are not in order here...

You do realize that the intentional death rate in Japan is 30% higher than the intentional death rate in the US, right? South Korea with similar laws to Japan has an intentional death rate twice that of the US. How is death being limited there?

2- That is quite a narrowed view...it is like stating "We have an illicit drug problem and there is only one illicit drug store.. how are people getting them??". Its called the black market of which over 600 firearms are being smuggled from the US every day into Mexico, which contributes to Mexicos 15.5 million firearms.

You should provide support for your claims. The fully automatic firearms and RPGs used by the cartels certainly aren't being smuggled into Mexico.

Few Australians feel the urge or need to obtain a firearm because of the safe and secure climate and environment that the Government collectively with Australian's have created. Along with correct economic and legislative policies black markets cannot flourish. In Australia a mass shooting in culmination with a lead up of shooting occurred and the Government reacted with the greater good and protection of society at the forth front of their mind. Not a Mass Shooting Since.

One, they only banned firearms that constituted 20% of the firearms in the country. Two, they only collected about 70% of the ones they banned. Three, they still allow semiautomatic handguns, which are the most common type of firearm used in mass shootings in the US. Four, they have had mass shootings since: Monash University, Hectorville, Hunt Family shootings and the Margaret River mass shooting this year that left 7 dead. You should update your data. Since their 1996 law, they've had three times as many arson mass murder incidents as they did in the previous 20 years.

In the USA mass shootings occurs in the double digits every year (https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.cf3122b7ee57) and the primary concern is the 2nd Amendment. The only worry is not the people impacted but the people that stricter legislation would impact. The only worry is not the firearm but other mechanisms to blame other than the firearm.

As an individual.....I would do any means necessary to ensure that the greater good of society and a safe, secure climate is created.

Assuming child pornography is bad for society, would you increase the police powers to search any home, phone or hard drive at any time without a warrant to reduce child pornography? Assuming rape is bad for society, what would you do to prevent rape for the good of society?

Given that every felon currently in possession is a danger to society, why don't you go door to door in high risk neighborhoods to demand that any felons inside give up their guns?

"Any means necessary" seems to be typing shrilly on a forum.

Not be deterred by barriers in which are merely road blocks. Once again....you have fabricated my perception and morphed it for you own premises. The other posts explain explicitly my beliefs. So your stating the majority of developed nations are exercising nonsensical gun laws (yet at the global scale the US is at a minority in relation to supporting lenient firearm use and availability in a country) That sounds incredibly bias to me...and a conflict of interest.

I'm stating that the laws you want to impose in the United States are not Constitutional, effective, enforceable or would be enforced in the United States. It doesn't matter what other countries did, or do. None of that has ever been done in a country like the US.

Yes because there has been very few countries with that or have had a Constitutional right to bear arms for good reason....it may provide one additional right but undoubtedly at the expense of so many other rights and freedoms. The Global community and many in the US don't seem to agree with those notions. A divine power could have asserted the right to bear firearms, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ETHICAL, MORAL OR RIGHT"

Those countries have had kings and peasants for centuries. Kings don't trust the peasantry with the means to overthrow the kings. Good thing you don't live here. Your "ethical, moral or right" is just your opinion. I don't think it's ethical, moral or right to take away a person's ability to defend themselves in the best way possible.

 

[Exactice]

There is a loading indicator. All guns are loaded at all times, handle accordingly.

Oddly enough...... SEE sig. Simple Measure?

NRA provides Firearm safety course.

RULE #1 - Treat all Firearms as if they are LOADED

Period.

You know the other thing right? "Where there is a will there is a way" We cant prevent all. BUT we darn well should try.

WITH THAT... I have multiple firearms. I have a home defense firearm and that is THE ONLY firearm potentially accessible (while still under security measure I wont share)

The rest as cliche as it is ("Shooter" The movie) I have all bolts and firing pins removed from ALL weapons that are am NOT using.... meaning ALL of them except the specified home defense. Why? ..... because Im NOT using them. So All bolts are removed and locked separate from the fire arm. if the bolt cant be removed then the firing pin is removed, if that is NOT removable, then the slide is removed.

Its my responsibility as an owner to sometimes to take UNREASONABLE step to safeguard my firearms...and if it means I have 20 and remove 19 bolts/Firing pins..... Why the HECK do I need 19 ready to fire, weapons?

 

[goldkam]

You're the one who thinks that rights depend upon a cost/benefit analysis. I disagree, as does the law. If you don't agree that benefits are a justification, why are you even using a cost/benefit analysis?



Be specific, as your point is very nebulous here. In order for the government to ban and confiscate firearms, especially at the level you are suggesting, it would take more than a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The government is not empowered to take the actions you suggest, and their power is strictly limited according to the Constitution and the Bill of



There is no Constitutionally protected right to life which would protect you from all harm. Constitutionally protected rights protect you from governmental actions. Someone who robs you isn't charged with violating your property rights - he's charged with robbery.

Once again, where do you live?

1- That is incorrect, I am using the cost/benefit judging the implication of the rights that individuals have (ie. I am using the cost/benefit to draw on the implications of having the right to bear arms) Additionally if you hold such a liking to the benefit of having a firearm, why is it difficult to answer your own question which you posed to me??

I have never stated that benefits are not a justification, I have stated some of benefits you have highlighted are not a justification. I believe firearms used for employment purposes benefit (in most cases) the environmental structures and functions and overall business success. I believe firearms in a safe and controlled environment (ie a shooting range) can be a benefit for those who enjoy it. It all needs to be controlled and moderated however, it shouldn't be an open slather for anyone and everyone.

I don't believe I should have to be ridiculed because I don't believes firearms are of benefit to myself, I have and exercise my opinion for a reason.


2- Lets outlook on what I have put forth....

- Putting in economic policy to reduce the black market and over saturation of firearms in the market...How would that impeach on your 2nd Amendment Rights?
- Heavily legislating upon firearms.....why was it for 10 years it was Constitutional to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and now it isn't. The fact is 2nd Amendment stayed the same during this time. Its not the 2nd Amendment that is the major blockage at the moments it is politics, NRA and societal views.

What is does the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment mean?

On you notions of Government power...it seems to be a one way street. Congress lets the 10 year ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines ban expire but suddenly DOESN'T HAVE ANY POWER to legislate further on limiting certain firearms?

So they have the power only when it suits them and don't have the power when it doesn't?

3- So essentially you basing your whole argument of DGU's off a mere range of more than a million occurrences. There are no large scale reports nor media/public attention placed on DGU's for good reason, the statistics are not used because the cannot provide an accurate picture.

Where is there substantial and credible public reports on DGU's?
Its your view that my opinions don't matter. If you don't like my opinions why are you replying to me then?


4- Well the lax gun laws don't assert that notion.
- In Minnesota, for instance, violent felons can petition a court to regain their gun rights by showing “good cause.” There is no waiting period.
- In Ohio, a violent felon need only demonstrate to a judge that he or she has “led a law-abiding life” since they’ve left prison.
- In Washington State, felons can get their gun rights restored as long as they haven’t been convicted of any new crimes in five years.
- In Montana makes it possible for felons to get their gun rights restored as long as they didn’t use a dangerous weapon in the commission of their crime.

Additionally the crime you have committed must, under the Gun Control Act 1968, lead to one year imprisonment. So the way you defined "crime" excludes assaults, domestic violence, drink driving etc.. if imprisonment over 1 year occurred. Are those not crimes??

Where are the stats to back up your claims?


5- The 14th Amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" In your case lets deny that there is any reference to the right to life (as you stated) what do you value more the right to life or the right to a firearm??

 

[goldkam]

:lamo

Facts...so...you WERE including gang violence and other criminal activity in your bull**** '4 lives are lost' comment.

Thanks for playing.

The statistics didn't stipulate the inclusions of certain activities...

Do you consider the "4 children's lives lost" less of a concern if they were taken in gang violence? It seems you are more concerned with the premise of me indicating the dangers of firearms over the implications is has...

Once again, I am perplexed as to why you find it such a necessity to swear in every post...just because you disagree with me.. I think this discussion is more mature than that.

 

[goldkam]

You need to document all of these statistics.

https://gun-control.procon.org/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

In relation to gun stores to McDonalds-->
https://www.indy100.com/article/the...ds-and-supermarkets-put-together--W1NPIvYg84b

 

[Rucker61]

https://gun-control.procon.org/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

In relation to gun stores to McDonalds-->
https://www.indy100.com/article/the...ds-and-supermarkets-put-together--W1NPIvYg84b

So they'll count every retailer that sells guns but only count the grocery stores that have more than $2M in sales? Seems honest. They don't say where they get their gun seller data from. They might be counting every FFL in the country.

 

[VanceMack]

The statistics didn't stipulate the inclusions of certain activities...

Do you consider the "4 children's lives lost" less of a concern if they were taken in gang violence? It seems you are more concerned with the premise of me indicating the dangers of firearms over the implications is has...

Once again, I am perplexed as to why you find it such a necessity to swear in every post...just because you disagree with me.. I think this discussion is more mature than that.

I am unconcerned about ‘children’ that are gang bangers and engage in illegal criminal activities or die as a byproduct of such actions. Further, I believe ALL violent criminals that use weapons...all weapons...in the perpetration of violent criminal acts should be sentenced to mandatory minimum criminal sentences above and beyond the sentence for the criminal act. You want to reduce crime? You want to reduce deaths by gunfire? Start with those committing the violent criminal acts RESPONSIBLE for those ‘4 children a day’. If you don’t have the stones to do that, you aren’t worth my time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Quite the difference between drowning and firearm deaths. Making a comparison between the two is irrelevant, they are two separate issues which must be judged on their own merit and thus have their own strategies and implementation to assist.
.

Not true actually. Not if you care about children's lives.

Who is it for then??? Who is preventing gun violence for.....I would extend it to everyone. Ensuring the safety of everyone.

Actually that's a good point.. what is "preventing gun violence for"... I would say that using "gun violence" is an invalid statistic.. since I would rather live in a community that was safer from all forms of death.. than in one that was deadlier.. but.. I was less likely to be killed with a firearm.

We live in a country that has the highest gun ownership in the world.. and yet we are among the safest of nations.

Do you deny the success of Japan, Australia, New Zealand, India, Italy, UK??

Absolutely. Japan has few firearms.. but a much higher suicide rate than the US. The UK has fewer firearms.. but has much higher violent crime than the US. And so forth.

The US just so happens to have one of the highest firearm deaths rates of any developed nations and just so happens to have the highest firearm rate per capita

But overall is actually SAFER..

Would you rather live in a country were I was less likely to be harmed or killed.. OR live in a country you were more likely to be harmed or killed.. BUT.. at least you would not be harmed or killed by a firearm?

I'd rather take overall survival alex for 1,000

 

[TurtleDude]

1- That is incorrect, I am using the cost/benefit judging the implication of the rights that individuals have (ie. I am using the cost/benefit to draw on the implications of having the right to bear arms) Additionally if you hold such a liking to the benefit of having a firearm, why is it difficult to answer your own question which you posed to me??

I have never stated that benefits are not a justification, I have stated some of benefits you have highlighted are not a justification. I believe firearms used for employment purposes benefit (in most cases) the environmental structures and functions and overall business success. I believe firearms in a safe and controlled environment (ie a shooting range) can be a benefit for those who enjoy it. It all needs to be controlled and moderated however, it shouldn't be an open slather for anyone and everyone.

I don't believe I should have to be ridiculed because I don't believes firearms are of benefit to myself, I have and exercise my opinion for a reason.


2- Lets outlook on what I have put forth....

- Putting in economic policy to reduce the black market and over saturation of firearms in the market...How would that impeach on your 2nd Amendment Rights?
- Heavily legislating upon firearms.....why was it for 10 years it was Constitutional to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and now it isn't. The fact is 2nd Amendment stayed the same during this time. Its not the 2nd Amendment that is the major blockage at the moments it is politics, NRA and societal views.

What is does the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment mean?

On you notions of Government power...it seems to be a one way street. Congress lets the 10 year ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines ban expire but suddenly DOESN'T HAVE ANY POWER to legislate further on limiting certain firearms?

So they have the power only when it suits them and don't have the power when it doesn't?

3- So essentially you basing your whole argument of DGU's off a mere range of more than a million occurrences. There are no large scale reports nor media/public attention placed on DGU's for good reason, the statistics are not used because the cannot provide an accurate picture.

Where is there substantial and credible public reports on DGU's?
Its your view that my opinions don't matter. If you don't like my opinions why are you replying to me then?


4- Well the lax gun laws don't assert that notion.
- In Minnesota, for instance, violent felons can petition a court to regain their gun rights by showing “good cause.” There is no waiting period.
- In Ohio, a violent felon need only demonstrate to a judge that he or she has “led a law-abiding life” since they’ve left prison.
- In Washington State, felons can get their gun rights restored as long as they haven’t been convicted of any new crimes in five years.
- In Montana makes it possible for felons to get their gun rights restored as long as they didn’t use a dangerous weapon in the commission of their crime.

Additionally the crime you have committed must, under the Gun Control Act 1968, lead to one year imprisonment. So the way you defined "crime" excludes assaults, domestic violence, drink driving etc.. if imprisonment over 1 year occurred. Are those not crimes??

Where are the stats to back up your claims?


5- The 14th Amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" In your case lets deny that there is any reference to the right to life (as you stated) what do you value more the right to life or the right to a firearm??

those state matters don't overcome the fact that if you have been convicted of a felony, unless the conviction was set aside or you were given a complete pardon, its a federal felony for you to possess a firearm

your cost benefit analysis is worthless because "benefits" are based on your opinion

 

[goldkam]

You do realize that the intentional death rate in Japan is 30% higher than the intentional death rate in the US, right? South Korea with similar laws to Japan has an intentional death rate twice that of the US. How is death being limited there?

Those countries have had kings and peasants for centuries. Kings don't trust the peasantry with the means to overthrow the kings. Good thing you don't live here. Your "ethical, moral or right" is just your opinion. I don't think it's ethical, moral or right to take away a person's ability to defend themselves in the best way possible.

1- Are we now comparing just death rates....you have changed the focus. We are comparing firearm death rates to firearm death rates...you need to provide a correct scope on the issue not distort it. One doesn't say we got rid of drugs and I don't know why suicide hasn't decreased....a slight correlation can be drawn but the mechanism of banning drugs is not the primary driver for reducing suicide. Just like focusing solely on mental health as the primary driver for decreasing gun deaths . Just like focusing on improving operations of the FBI is not the primary driver for reducing gun deaths. The question you posed is termed in a way that distorts the premise we are discussing.

2- In relation to the smuggling of firearms from the USA --> There is only one gun store in all of Mexico. So why is gun violence soaring? - Los Angeles Times
In regards to the black market in Mexico--> https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/mexico-losing-fight-against-illegal-firearms/


So according to you it is alright that the smaller weapons (which still are used in the same way) are being smuggled into Mexico? Smuggling weapons is still smuggling weapons no matter what size/ type.

3-
- Where are you getting the 20% statistic from..maybe a source would create credibility around your claim
- Close to 1 million guns have been taken. It has reduced gun crime, it has created a safer environment, it has lowered the number of suicides and it has even correlated to lower crime in other areas (https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/) that cannot be denied nor disputed.
- The assertion you make regarding semi-automatic weapons. The National Firearms agreements stipulates its users in certain genuine circumstances

Mass shooting defined as 4 or more deaths

Monash University-
NOT A MASS SHOOTING

Hunt Family-
STILL AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION (THE ACTUAL NATURE OF THE CRIME IS NOT PROVEN)

Margaret River-
WAS UNAWARE OF THE OCCURANCE. IT WAS A MASS SHOOTING.

You should ensure you data is accurate and depicts the points you are making. I was unaware of Margaret River shooting, you have attempted to distort the stats by claiming mass shootings occurred when they didn't.

We are talking about firearms not arson, I can start another forum if you wish to discuss that.


4- The nature of what you state is primarily based around technology, which is a largely unrestricted intangible platform. A little different to the the highly tangible environment in which the firearm crimes are occurring. However if you want to compare a principle based around two very different concepts, you can. I don't know of such evidence that suggests going to each house actually decreases the illegal act, its not reducing the basis of the crime which is the filming and actual act. HOWEVER it is proven in many many countries that reducing firearms through legislation reduces deaths, injuries, economic strain and firearm crime. That cannot be denied.

5- So if something is unconstitutional you automatically rule it out as a point of discussion...you are able to go against the Constitutions bases. How do you know they are not effective or enforceable if they haven't been implemented? Your basing your perception off a bias dislike towards anti-gun policies. Maybe ignorance is the problem, if every country had that mentality progress would be limited and reduced internationally on a range of matters. So why do many international treaties, laws, conventions contain the US as a signatory if it is like no other country?

6- We are living in the 21st century not the 18th and 19th century. We live in democracies and monarchies and your occasional socialist state. The right that takes away the right to life of others. A right that very few other countries have. The right that is so fluid in nature, any Supreme Court judge can interpret in the way in which suits the current views of society. A right that is debated for decades but never truely fixed. The right that continues to take away so much and give so little.

 

[goldkam]

So they'll count every retailer that sells guns but only count the grocery stores that have more than $2M in sales? Seems honest. They don't say where they get their gun seller data from. They might be counting every FFL in the country.

That was the data collected. It seems your excusing the sheer number of firearm stores.

If we compare Walmarts 5,000 to Firearm Stores 55,000. A grocery store is outweighed. That is even counting the fact Walmarts have firearms for sale within.

Lets add in Kroger (2782), Whole Foods (470), Publix (1231), Wegmans (98), Trader Joes (474), H-E-B (340), Aldi (1600), Harris Teeter (245), Hy-Vee (245)

Total = 12,145

There are still 41,000 more gun stores than all the major grocery stores combined. Thats not an appealing statistic. Or is it alright?