Gun deaths in 2016

Yea I also shoot low. The "shoot him in the face" comment is what I say to be silly; ie, You break into my house and I'm going to shoot you in the face.
Truthfully I'll shoot you wherever I can and I'll do it over and over until you're down.

The guy I'm arguing/debating with just grabbed onto that phrase and started coming up with fanciful break in scenarios which all depended on me only aiming for the perps face. So I went along with it for the laughs.

 

What Gestapo like tactics please? What is the problem to control who is getting a gun and which gun and to register this proper in complete USA ... and with this to prevent that any criminal or otherwise bad person is getting legal guns?

It is amazing how "pro gunners" are fighting like mad any action to prevent this and see it always as attack on them and their rights to have a legal gun which is not the point at all in reality!
The goal is to prevent and fight illegal guns and to lower the criminal threats out of them ... NOT to restrict legal guns to normal persons!

 

Let's finish first with my points please.

 

I do not argue against self-defense, but it is ridiculous when this self-defense argument is taken again and again and let the USA look like being still the Wild West with next Sheriff 50 miles ago. So better to take law in own hands … and more important: Not a spark of thinking about how to prevent criminals that they can do such crimes against your family, because why? I have a gun!

Because when was this ever tried to fight illegal gun market please? Every try to do so was right by these honest gun owners with their legal guns fought, because any trial to fight illegal guns is directly suspicious that their constitutional right for a legal is attacked too!
Yes, there are hundreds of millions guns and did anyone ever seriously ask from where these illegal guns are coming and how they can enter the black market? And out of this, does anyone ever seriously ask how to prevent this and reduce the threat out of it?
No … it is more comfortable to up arm myself and honest citizens with reasoning who evil bad the situation is as to do something against this situation!

 

Then make no ridiculous telling of Gestapo like tactics too please!

Clear laws and using of these laws with first goal to fight access of criminals to guns (legal and illegal) is the core answer to your point!
This includes also the illegal use of guns ... and here no matter who does! But of course is such a restriction always a bad thing and attacks personal freedom and constitutional rights ... what is BS argumentation at least.

 

That's as idiotic as claiming that the AMA is allowing drug addicts to abuse oxycontin

you really don't have any substantive arguments against the NRA other than you are mad that the NRA helped Trump beat Hillary

 

your blind hatred of the NRA and your lack of understanding about how silly the placebo of background checks are is patent. There is no evidence that background checks decrease violent crime and a DUKE U study showed that the BRADY BILL didn't do anything to decrease violent crime. its a feel good law that is designed to create a demand for registration and/or a ban on private sales. and are you suggesting that Universal background checks is ALL someone as hateful towards the NRA wants?

 

In case you missed it earlier you are more than entitled to your fallacious opinion of my position but it doesn't alter the facts about the NRA one iota.

You still haven't refuted the fact that the NRA staunchly opposes any legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and the mentally unstable.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no factual studies to support your allegations because your beloved NRA blackmailed the GOP into passing legislation making it illegal for the CDC to study gun violence.

 

Really? Those legally adjudicated mentally defective and those who have been committed for mental health are already prohibited persons. Any attempt to change that law has to fight the ACLU and their protection of HIPAA. With regards to terrorists, I presume you're referring to making those on the "no fly list" prohibited persons with regards to firearms purchase. We have this Constitutional protection of due process that would have to be violated to cause those on a secret list to lose a Constitutional right. That's one problem. Another is if these people are too dangerous to fly and too dangerous to buy a gun, why are they walking around free in our country? Thirdly, the proposed law said that they couldn't pass a background check. That still allows them to own firearms and to buy them in states where private sales don't require background checks. It doesn't prevent them from purchasing them illegally in any circumstance, nor does it prevent them from renting trucks or buy pressure cookers. It's pure security theater.

Curious, then, that the CDC does study gun violence, and publish reports on those studies:

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

They aren't prohibited from studying gun violence, nor are they the right agency to do so. The DOJ, the agency with actual expertise in criminology, studies gun violence and gun control:

"Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" and "Victimization During Household Burglary".

Some results on a simple "DOJ Gun Control Research" search:

http://nij.gov/funding/awards/pages/awards-list.aspx...


http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/Strategy.htm

 

We accept your concession of all the points made.

 

Protecting house, home, family and self has been part of the right to keep and bear arms since its genesis.
Thus, there's no shift.

 

This is, of course, a statement you know to be false, and yet chose to make it anyway.
The current federal background check system exists because the NRA was able to force it into the Brady Act.

 

From the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state"

Looks like it's been "modern" since at least 1776.

 

I've already explained it.

He was able to do what he did because our legal system and the FBI didn't want to "profile" him, because it's just mean.

It's the same reason the Orlando shooter, the San Bernardino shooter, the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Aurora CO shooter were successful.

ALL of these people were known to law enforcement, mental health professionals, and/or the FBI.

The average violent criminal here that ends up shooting someone has an average of 9 prior arrests with at least half of them being prior felonies.

We live in a country where our government does not keep us safe from violent people because of "politically correct" reasons.

They would rather allow people to die than to be called "racists" or worse.

This is the exact same reason your country is flooded with violent people from violent countries.

Until our country gives severe and swift punishment for violent crime, regardless of their color or religion or nationality, law abiding people can and should arm themselves against it.

Until a government can prove it can reliably keep it's citizens safe by ENFORCING the law, it has no right to prevent it's own citizens from defending themselves.

 

Home invaders deserve to die. It's completely inexcusable.

 

And, as soon as home invader produces a weapon, it's no longer about your TV.

 

If I'm going to be in a gunfight that I didn't plan on, nor want to, be in, I'd rather have a gun than not have one. It's no guarantee I'll win, but it does up the odds considerably.

 

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. SMH.

- - - Updated - - -

Fortunately, where I live, a home invader doesn't have to produce a weapon to be legally qualified to die.

 

Right.
The point was made for those who complain about someone being killed because they tried to steal a TV.
Presentation of a weapon by a criminal during a home invasion can only be interpreted to as a threat to life.

 

Within the next few years, even a certifiable moron will be able to buy a consumer grade 3D printer and manufacture high-quality guns in the privacy of their own home. We're not there yet, but it is inevitable.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who breaks into an occupied (or even unoccupied) residence is a threat to life, and should be dispatched, if possible.

 

That's why there are laser attachments and instructors telling you to shoot center mass. As for me if you wake me up then I'm up.

Maybe I missed something but I doubt anyone uses a .22 for self defense.

 

Like most gun banners, you start with a position that assumes facts that have NEVER BEEN PROVEN-that Universal background checks will keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. Can you even come close to proving that claim? I am intimately familiar with the issue and guess what, you cannot.

The CDC is not a proper government agency to study "gun violence" claiming pro gun politicians who oppose the Bannerrhoid movement were not "blackmailed

Can you prove otherwise.

You're just mad that the NRA helped keep the most corrupt person to run for president on a major ticket since Warren Harding, from being elected

 

And yet, despite your assertion that the above post is nothing but obvious flamebaiting, it has not been removed by the staff for being such.

Your assertion, however, does not change the fact that you argue from a point of arrogance and elitism. There are those who simply cannot afford the same luxuries as yourself when it comes to defending themselves from harm.

 

Pray tell what legislation has been proposed in the united states in the last ten years, that could keep terrorists from acquiring firearms? the nation of France has failed at doing just that, despite having far stricter firearm-related regulations than the united states.

- - - Updated - - -

The number of police officers who are on active duty at any given time, compared to the number of private citizens who may be victimized, is exceedingly low. There are less than one million police officers in the united states currently. That means for every police officer, there are more than three hundred people to protect. That is the equivalent of one police officer being stationed in every small town.

Comparatively speaking, your hyperbole is not far off the mark.

Demonstrate how self defense is taking the law into your own hands. Show how such is indeed the case.

That is because it has been proven as being impossible. The city of Chicago and the district of columbia both prohibited handgun ownership for decades, but nearly every homicide in both cities involved handguns almost exclusively.

Demonstrate precisely which pieces of legislation have been introduced in the united states in the last ten years, that would have focused exclusively on illegal firearms, and not in any way affected legally owned firearms.

According to the FBI, the most common sources of firearms procured illegally are through theft and straw purchases, which involves one knowingly purchasing a firearm for an individual that is legally prohibited from firearms ownership, despite such an act already being illegal for multiple reasons.

If you do not wish to use statistics to establish points as being valid, then what do you wish to use?

The first part of the above is correct. The best course of action under these circumstances, is to admit defeat. The saturation point of firearms in society has reached the point where even removing percent of them from the equation is impossible. The united states does not have the resources to remove three million firearms from society, never mind three hundred to five hundred million.

In the field of medicine, it is recognized and accepted as absolute fact that a patient can be too far gone to be saved. The same must be accepted with regard to society.

And pray tell how will registering all firearms in existence actually service to prevent them from being utilized for criminal purposes, or leading back to who committed what murder? Unless a firearm is found at the scene of the crime, registration amounts to nothing.

Beyond such, the united states supreme court has held that individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing a firearm cannot, under any circumstances, be required to comply with registration requirements, as it is a matter of self-incrimination. The only ones who would register their firearms are those who can legally possess them, meaning government would have nothing more than a list of individuals who are not likely to commit a crime, which is of no legitimate use, or law enforcement benefit.

Such is a physical impossibility. So long as there is a legal product, there is the possibility of it becoming an illegal product.

What are you even talking about?

Show us the citation. Show us the quotation.

Ultimately for what purpose? What is the ultimate, meaningful difference that is made, in determining where any given individual may illegally acquire a firearm from?

A sound question. Why is it acceptable to use deadly force for the purpose of protecting property, when the law of the united states specifies that private individuals cannot legally use deadly force to protect their property? Why can a security guard, at least in theory, shooting someone who is in the process of stealing a necklace from a jewelry department, but a homeowner cannot legally shoot a burglar caught in the act of stealing their television?

Any criminal that is free in society is able to acquire a firearm through one source or another, be it a friend, family member, or outright theft. Asking how to go about actually stopping them from doing such, is no more sound or reasonable than asking how to avoid being infected with a communicable disease while surrounded by individuals who are contagious and spreading sickness with every breath taken.

If the member Vegas giants ever returns from being banned, you will be called upon, as this has been his established position for quite some time.

That matter aside, the majority of homicides in the united states are largely isolated to several cities, and often the fault of those that cannot legally possess firearms. The remaining firearm-related homicides are spread out across the country, at a ratio of approximately one homicides to every two cities.

While the effort to learn from mistakes is certainly admirable, it is rarely ever followed through. Failed policies continue to be followed and offered up as solutions, just as they have been for decades, despite failing every other time. Even when their failures are pointed out and documented, those that support such failures insist that it can work the next time, and the next time, and the next time after that if the same formula is simply followed sufficiently.

 

No statement has been either confirmed or denied. Rather you have simply been asked to actually prove that your statement and position are indeed accurate, rather than merely claiming them to be accurate.

How are terrorists actually getting into the united states? Are they slipping in under cover of darkness by crossing the border like tens of millions of other illegal immigrants? Are they sneaking in with fake credentials that can fool government agents? Where exactly are they coming from, and how are they successfully entering the united states?

Beyond such, how would background check requirements actually prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms? What "other measures" do you refer to, that can prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms, when the nation of France has not been able to do so?

Are you claiming that before the NRA existed, there was simply no widespread desire to own firearms?