its funny... when you replied, i was posting this PSA: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/psa.566195/
You didn't in any way address my questions. Here - try again: I haven't killed anything with mine - have I used them improperly? Isn't the fact firearms can be used to kill people the very reason our right to own and use them specifically protected by the Constitution?
Good of you to admit you have no idea whatsoever if the Aussie gun laws have anything to do with the decline of gun-related murders there.
You cannot demonstrate this to be true. This is why my 101yr old grandmother's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Why is it ultimately so easy to utilize a motor vehicle for the purpose of killing, when they are neither intended nor designed to be used for such purposes? Which ultimately means nothing. No individual present has ever denied the fact that firearms are lethal weapons, that is precisely what they were designed to be, and why they were designed in the first place. But that lethal nature does not mean they can be prohibited from legal ownership, simply because they are misused by those who cannot legally possess them. The united state supreme court has said as much, at least twice now.
I couldn't find that thread that someone started where he mocked those who wanted the ability to carry at church. It wasn't in this forum I assume. Here we have the results of allowing such carry. https://crimeresearch.org/2019/12/texas-church-shooting-stopped-by-person-legally-carrying-a-gun/ Wrong TX church to try that crap. Appears four or five were carrying.
they were volunteer security for the church... so far only the dallasnews is flamebaiting with the sensationalized headline with the name of the town 'white settlement' ... anywho, the blue team is already using it to call for more gun control, go figure...
Look at the USA. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/us/2019-officers-killed-trnd/index.html This is not funny. It has little to do with illegal gun ownership. Elsewhere, only serious criminals are armed 24 hours a day. But in the US, nearly everyone is allowed to have a firearm in his car. Sure, for self-defense only. He never intended to shoot a policeman. But when it comes to a traffic stop and this guy has some Weed or Meth in his pockets, he's suddenly in serious trouble. This leads to a short circuit reaction and shortly afterward the officer is dead.
Where is the evidence any of these incidents were committed by those who legally own firearms? Again, where is the evidence that any of these incidents were committed by those who legally own fierarms? Then the individual was not engaged in legal activity, and thus was in illegal possession of a firearm for the purpose of furthering a crime. Thus the firearm-related restrictions of the united states were violated.
Legally and superficially, you are right. But it's not so easy. I think we need comparisons regarding the amount of gun violence in different countries with loose or strict gun laws. That hopefully would take us further. I firmly assume that such comparisons exist (which the NRA doesn't like ).
Such comparisons would ultimately serve no purpose, as no other country in the world is comparable to the united states. It is not so much a comparison between apples and oranges, but rather would more accurately be described as a comparison between apples and cinder blocks.
Are you kidding? Do you think that someone first has to commit a crime, to decide that he illegally possess a firearm? I am not a lawyer, but I find such definitions very strange.
Illicit narcotic substances, such as marijuana and meth, are prohibited at the federal level. Their possession is illegal, a felony offense. Therefore the possession of the firearm was not legal at the time, as it was in furtherance of a crime.
This guy was allowed to carry a gun because he seemed to the state as a decent citizen. Nobody could know that he later would become involved in drug crimes. Thus you provide an argument for those who want to prohibit a general possession of weapons.
Plenty of examples of people with concealed weapons permits murdering police officers: http://concealedcarrykillers.org/law-enforcement-officers-killed-by-concealed-carry-killers/
▶ The FBI recorded 608 law enforcement officers who were killed in “felonious acts” between 2007 and 2018. According to the Violence Policy Center, 18 concealed-carry permit holders killed 23 law enforcement officers during that time. Americans defend themselves with their firearms between 500,000 and 3 million times every year. https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/debunking-the-myth-concealed-carry-killers
Which ultimately means nothing. The possession of the firearm was illegal at the time since it was in furtherance of a felony offense. Therefore he was not allowed to carry a firearm. By demonstrating how the state is hardly an expert on matters such as this, and are just as capable of making fatal mistakes as anyone else?
First and foremost, the violence policy center admits to counting cases that are pending, meaning no final judgement as to guilt or innocence has been reached. Therefore those cases will not be counted, tallied, or discussed further in this discussion. Second, the violence policy center does not differentiate if the permit being referred to relates to a concealed carry permit, or an ownership permit. Third, limiting the focus of the investigation to incidents that resulted in the conviction, the grand total of incidents amounts to only seven out of twenty presented cases. That is hardly "plenty of examples" to demonstrate anything, when the violence policy center admits to presenting data over the course of a twelve year period.
Pure rubbish. I'm reminded of a pretty accurate saying: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
Even if true it doesn't seem to be doing much good: "Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU [self-defense gun use]. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
