Some gun related questions for liberals:

Can you explain why someone willing to risk the penalty for committing murder would not risk the penalty for not keeping a particular firearm in their home?

 

Saved Rittenhouse.

Do you want people to lock them in a safe too? Might as well run a home invader's head into the safe...

 

Thanks for the meme.

I probably own more guns than you, that doesn't mean i need any of them.

 

Answer to your last question...
Why does à vociferous part of your population think they have the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies?
As for the rest, if the bad guys dont have open access to guns, you dont need yours.
It is that simple.

 

Straw man? No- some actually equate firearms with the ability and intent to murder, and believe that eliminating firearms would at least radically reduce murder. Some think of guns as other think of snakes; that they are always stalking us, waiting for the opportunity to kill us.... thus, the existence of the weapon is the enemy, not the person pulling the trigger. If murders were being committed by crazy people running over kids with lawn mowers, they would seek control of lawn mowers.

The "straw man" would be like taking someone thinking they were a "Ninja " assassin- and deciding that if they didn't have their black costume they would lose their desire to kill.
Yeah, that would work. Let's make black assassin outfits illegal. Then there won't be any Ninja murders.

No rational person wants to enable violence- but when you target a "straw man" as the culpable cause, you do just that. When you focus on such things- the real answers go past you without notice, and nothing changes.

 

Actually, it's doubtful you do....
A man once bought a bass boat, and his wife told him- "You don't need that!"
He replied- "I didn't need you either, but I wanted you..."

I have three boats.

 

Some statistics all should know-

In any given year, for every person murdered with a rifle, there are 15 murdered with handguns, 1.7 with hands or fists, and 1.2 with blunt instruments. In fact, homicides with any sort of rifle represent a mere 3.2 percent of all homicides on average over the past decade.

According to a New York Times analysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”

That’s 173 over a span of a decade, with an average of 17 homicides per year. To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.

With an average of 13,657 homicides per year during the 2007-2017 timeframe, about one-tenth of one percent of homicides were produced by mass shootings involving AR-15s.

Given documented facts like this, why is the AR-15 the prime target?
Real answer..... It looks mean. It looks military. It's black.
And it looks...... like the numbers don't support the paranoia.

 

You people don't seem to understand that the bad guys are not going to give theirs up. There is your ideal picture perfect world and then there is the real world.

 

Or run over by a car, but at least we require people to qualify to drive one. Why can't we apply the same principal to guns?

 

Because they're not the same thing anyone can go and buy a car but not anyone can go and buy a gun

 

What in the world could someone say that convinced you that bad guys, who won't give up on rape and murder and robbery, are going to just hand over their guns?

 

Or to put it another way, lets make laws that will affect those "some people" rather than the 99.99% of innocent gun owners that never point their gun at another.

What makes you think those parents feelings should dictate the policy that affects millions? Including those who's lives were saved by using a gun?

 

Yes he does.

 

I am not in favor of taking legitimate guns away from people who legitimately use them therefore your argument about my goal of taking all guns away holds no water. I have been told that "assault type weapons" are needed to protect one's family therefore I am willing to propose that people can have such weapons on their property to protect their family, but they should not wander about with them. I never said take the guns I did say what I thought a compromise might look like.
The response was a common one bu,t not a logical one: "You want to take away everybody's guns".

 

What you individually want here is irrelevant- what the movement is focused on is. And what I think I need is not your business, anymore than what you think you need is mine. You are free to own a guillotine- and even free to chop off your own head if you wish. But when you use that to kill other people- THEN it is indeed the business of other people. Not that you own it, but that you use it improperly.
The idea that you don't need anything I don't approve of is perhaps the total example of tyranny.

I will give you credit for being intelligent enough to know that power given will not only be used, it will be abused. Once a precedent is set, it invariably expands further, it does not retreat. Taxes for example, are an addiction-feeder for politicians who take great pleasure in spending other people's money- usually wastefully and foolishly. Just yesterday,. a report showed that Los Angeles top paid lifeguard made over $500,000 last year- and 92 others made over $200,000. Biden as decided he has the power to forgive $6 billion in student loans, because the university chain misrepresented thing. That money isn't his- it's taxpayer dollars.
What's more the people who have already paid their loan back get nothing, those who didn't pay now pay nothing. There's nothing righteous or just here- it's all about the power to manipulate people and money. It's not about justice or fairness or freedom- those are just the window dressing put up to hide the dirt. What people actually do matters- what we think they might do is at best- baseless speculation by most people. and does not matter at all, because it's almost always wrong.

I'm like most other gun owners I know- The government can take any person using a gun in a felony offense and bury them. More than you, we are offended by the misuse of weapons, and that is logical because the weapon is not the criminal- the person using it wrongfully is. IF we applied the logic of the anti-gun hate to all abusive uses, we would ban all things which could be used as weapons that could kill, simply because you could use them to kill. IF the defining value is based on quantity- then it's totally fluid and can be set anywhere anytime some politician reacts to public pressure. That would include all your kitchen knives, your cars, your hammer, even your fists. Should we limit the number of knives you can own? The size of them? License knife owners?
Just like taxes and regulations, once they establish a threshold, the pursuit of total control is virtually assured. You haven't seen it otherwise in any area that matters, unless it provides no power, benefit or profit to government.

The most popular anti-gun target is the AR-15, which in fact is nothing more than a .22 caliber, center fire semi-automatic rifle. It IS used for hunting as well as target shooting, but regardless of use- if you just think it's cool to look at- that your business unless you make it a murder weapon. However, in the big picture- it's at the bottom of the list of weapons used to kill people. Why is it at the top of the list the anti-gun people hate?
Because hate is propagated emotion that overrides logic and common sense.
People in that state are also easy to manipulate.... and politicians thrive on that weakness, so they are inclined to encourage it. .

The real culprit is and always has been people unable to control their own emotions and decisions, and blame the misery of that failure on society. So long as we allow them to shift their guilt to the rest of us- they will, and along with that is the motive to punish us for their misery. That is usually what murder is about. It's never been the weapon- it's the person behind it. Every time.

 

Couldn't come even close to saying it better myself. It's amazing how gun grabbers deny as loud and as often as they can that they are not doing what is obvious and even admitted once in a great while by some (Feinstein, Beto, eg). The impeccable logic of your last sentence sails right over their heads.

 

What good would it do?

 

Israel can do as they like. In the mean time, I am perfectly content if they outlaw the AR15 for a period of at least 25 years.

 

Then if you think your view should control others, it will be OK if I support outlawing the car you drive for 25 years to protect society. It is also a potentially deadly weapon, and kills vastly more people every year than all rifles of all kinds put together, and is capable of causing mass killings.

Actually, if you fear the presence of an AR-15, all you have to do is NOT own one. What anybody else owns is none of your business UNTIL they use it wrongfully.
Every gun owner I know is fully in favor of greatly increased penalty and prosecution of any person using a gun in criminal purposes. We aren't ones wanting to defund the police or let the thugs walk, that's the lefties, democrats and liberals. Those who won't fight the thugs but fear the people who will.... really aren't in a position to demand anything.

 

Gun owners are largely Republicans, Gun Grabbers are largely Democrats, violent felons are largely within the Left's political sphere.

Their approach is designed to disarm law abiding Republicans while not disturbing violent felons. Our violent felon armed gangs operate openly in our blue cities and that cannot occur without a lot of key blue politicians being on the take of the criminal gangs and the prosecutors looking the other way, rather than empaneling grand juries and jailing the blue politicians that are on the take.

Stop and Frisk was an amazingly successful approach to reduce violent crime rates as well as reduce arrests and incarcerations, but, violent felons hate it, and Blue politicians have successfully fought it, tooth and nail.

If you understand that what they are advocating for guns is designed to disarm law abiding Republicans while not disturbing violent felons, you'll understand why they propose what they do and form accurate predictions of what their next proposals will be.

 

Compare ACCIDENTAL VS INTENSIONAL DEATHS.

 

Well, how can this be put gently... to "assume there are no gun or bullets in the United States of America" is the most unrealistic, bizarre kind of superfluous, simple-minded fantasy that can be imagined. How about 'assuming' something less mindless....

Think: even if there were suddenly no "guns and bullets" in America, how long do you think it would take for them to be brought over here by enterprising criminals all over the rest of the world...? Ponder: Pandora's box has already had its hinges torn completely off -- a LONG time ago.

Let's assume instead that nearly all the 'criminals and crazies' are discovered and locked-up so that they can't do any harm to the rest of us! NOW, that's something worth pondering....

 

tell us how creating a bunch of malum prohibitum laws that erode what lawful people currently can do, going to stop those who currently and constantly engage in breaking malum per se offenses/

 

it is about what the government cannot do-not what the citizens can do

 

With proper background checks and training let teachers, janitors, and other faculty staff carry concealed guns on school grounds. Will it prevent school shootings, no. But at least teachers have a fighting chance to defend their students.

If some teacher, dean, counceler or principal one day snaps and goes to their school with sinister intentions at least facility staff will be their to defend the children.