If firearms in the united states could be restricted to the same degree as they have been in foreign countries, mass killings in the united states would continue unabated. The only difference would be the choice of implement used. But the body counts, as has been demonstrated in other countries that are still plagued by the killings, would still be significantly high and newsworthy. So ultimately what would change to serve to make the outcome better than what is already had? Why would the effort at restricting the implement be deemed worthwhile if the killings simply will not stop?
Such statistics largely pertains to couples in a relationship where illegal activity is already present on the part of either one or both participants.
Beto O'Rourke has stated otherwise. As has every other candidate for president of the united states who applauded when he issued his statement, or when their supposed "expert witnesses" supported the position of prohibiting any firearms that can be used for killing other individuals.
I'd prefer he grab a knife of course. BTW...that's how you answer a direct question ya bunch of cowards. That all being said...I still don't want any guns being banned.
Yes, select fire weapons should be available. The second question is more complicated. In theory, yes, people who have served their time AND ARE SAFE TO RELEASE, should have all their rights restored. The problem now is that the penal system does not rehabilitate and puts violent people back on the streets every day. Most of the murder in this country is done by a very small number of people, such as gang members who have often killed multiple people. People like that should never be released from prison.
Yes. If they had a gun they could have saved themselves. That's kinda what guns do. No, I'm sure you're willing to sacrifice as many people as possible on an individual level to satisfy the countries social justice feelings.
No it doesn’t That may be what you believe but it is NOT backed by any research https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense What you have yet to prove is that we have a higher rate of rapes than you do and since we have been over this ground before there is simply no way of proving that one way or the other
Then you have to accept the statistic that women are 5 times more likely to be killed when there is a firearm in the house
I'm afraid it is. Even the VPC admits it, though they try to downplay it. http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf Even the rabidly anti-gun VPC found 284,700 defensive uses of a firearm over a period of 3 years. That's about 95,000 defensive firearm uses per year. Which, of course, is 6 times higher than the 15k homicides we had in 2018 (which includes justifiable homicides). Minimum of 95,000 people use firearms each year to protect themselves from rape, murder and other types of crime. The real number is, of course, much higher than this.
Why would your "intimate partner" need a gun to kill you? All they have to do is wait for you to fall asleep. Plenty of dead "intimate partners" in Australia, right?
That and most men can easily overpower most women. My wife didn't really believe that until she took a self defense course. She asked me to try to attack her (without hurting her). It was fairly easy for me to overpower her, and I'm not in particularly good shape.
Ultimately because such statistics are related to circumstances when one or both partners has a pre-existing history of criminal activity, or are otherwise already engaged in criminal activity, such as dealing in illicit narcotic substances. This was covered in the work by Arthur Kellermann and his findings.
Yeah. One of my favorite games is guessing how many times my wife can hit me before she hurts herself. Never fails.
The truth is a lot of criminals who go into the system come out as better trained criminals and are even more of a danger to society then when they went into the system.
Exactly. So while I agree someone who has been released should get all their rights back in principle, I cannot support it in reality when prisons release people they shouldn't.
My wife has never hit me, she slapped me good and hard once and I deserved it, but she has never tried to throw a punch, I don't think she knows how. Conversely over the past four decades that we have been married I have never hit her, during the few arguments we have had the only thing I ever tossed at her where some nasty statements, which I regretted saying resulting later in a sincere apology and she has done the same in my direction from time to time and even though she doesn't verbally her mood later does. And as I have gotten older I have learned to just say nothing, it aggravates her but keeps me from saying something stupid. What is really telling is we both have firearms at hand, but have never considered using one, no matter how angry we might get with each other, I believe it is because we both understand that a one way street with no way to back out. And even if we didn't have firearms at hand, there are many razor sharp knives in my kitchen that we both have easy access to. If either of us want to injure or kill the other it would be very easy to do. What it comes down to and this is something the GCA's will never accept, is firearms don't kill, they are tools with no way to act out on their own, people kill and sub-human people kill a lot doing so without a second thought about it, why because they where raised to have no respect for life, be it theirs or another person. And that is the problem that needs to be addressed, but as long as we have GCA's ignoring that problem and demanding false solutions scarce resources will be wasted attempting to solve a symptom, while never treating the underlying disease and it will only get worse.
Oh no it's not in anger. I'm always laughing and counting. She knows why I'm laughing while counting which makes her try to hit me harder. When she rolls her wrist we laugh and laugh after she stops dancing around. We both have firearms too. I taught her everything she knows about using one. Now she's capable of defending herself from anyone she needs defended from. When I told her that included me you should have seen her face. But yeah, I mean how hard is it to kill someone you live with if you really wanted to? Guns aren't necessary to easily murder someone who sleeps next to you. Leftists are basically just herd animals when it comes to self defense. They know they'd be useless trying to defend themselves, so they don't want anyone else to be able to do it.
Using a 6 year old article? That was written before the recent wave of presidential candidates, one of which is coming for at least some of our guns.
How about something from real government statistics, not statistics massaged by a group with an agenda. I wouldn't quote a study by the NRA in an online debate. I wish that you had as much respect for me and not posting from an anti-gun group. It's just intellectually lazy.
All of them are coming for as many guns as they can ban, they are just not as bold about spelling it out or mentioning how violent they are willing to become to achieve that goal.
