Lies about gun violence and mass shootings.

We are being deluged on this site by gun grabbers who would like people to believe that mass shootings and gun violence is justification for abridging the right of Americans to keep and bear arms both for personal protection and the security of our nation. We are seeing this portrayed as a major issue in the Presidential election, as if it is an issue which affects the majority of American Citizens. This is a blatant lie.
The fact is that for the average American mass shootings are something that are a statistical impossibility. For people to use mass shootings as justification for removing peoples right to protect themselves is statisticaly ridiculous.
Let's look at some statistical facts.
For the past 10 years the number of people who were victims of mass shootings averaged about 140 per year. That is a 1 in 2 million chance of becoming a victim. In contrast your chance of being a victim of violent crime in which you may need a firearm to protect your life is 1 in 2 or 50% of Americans. Your chance of being killed in a violent assault are about 1 in 200.
The average number of school shooting victims is about 10 per yr. or about a one in 3 million chance.
As a comparison about 3500 people a year die from drowning and among children 76% of them die in family pools.
Statistically it would be far more effective to outlaw pools to protect the lives of our children than to ban guns.
Teen suicides number about 5000 per year, about 1 in 10 thousand.

So when we look at this issue factually, we see that mass shootings are statistically insignificant, and the chances of actually becoming a victim are virtually impossible. So why is this issue being propagandized to make it seem as if it is a major issue for the average American by both media and the Democratic party? Why are we as a nation being lied to and deceived?

 

Mass shootings will end when governments let the targets shoot back.

 

Less than 0.01% of the U.S. population is killed by gun.

There is no gun crisis in the U.S.

 

The falsehoods above are easily rebuked. Almost no one here wants to confiscates everyone's guns. Most of us here want sensible registration and regulation, and restriction of certain types of firearms.

Why?

People kill people in mass shootings, and they prefer fire arms to knives, bottles, and can openers. There is a sliding scale of tool value in mass killings. The easy access and efficiency of a firearm maximises the shooter's opportunity to kill many people in a very short time.

One's right to a gun does not outweigh my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

There is no such thing as "sensible" gun control.

Any registration and restriction to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

 

My agenda is not to change the minds of liberals, but to help clearly define the issue for conservatives so they can improve their ability to refute liberal arguments.
Liberalism is like religion, it is based on feelings and faith, not facts and science.

 

A Muslim terrorist used a box truck to kill 84 people and injure hundreds more in Niece, France.

 

And yet you did not even take a pot shot, at it.

 

FatBack, the pot is closed.

And I have corrected this: Conservatism is like religion, it is based on feelings and faith, not facts and science.

You gunners are going to hate what happens after next year's election.

 

Two thirds of the people killed by guns, in the US, kill themselves.
Three quarters of the remaining one third are criminals killing other criminals.
I do not believe that disarming the remaining eight percent of truly innocent people makes them any safer.

 

Lies.... Anything or action which requires license or permits is by definition "illegal". Requiring registration is synonymous with outlawing. Gun ownership in no way infringes on your natural rights.

 

To suggest that is the goal of gun regulation is unethical and wrong. It is not true. Gun regulation is legal and unethical.

 

Yes, I feel safe. I'm not scared of guns like you are.

 

You anti-gunners are going to hate what happens after next year's election. Trump is going to easily win re-election and will appoint at least one and maybe two more SCOTUS justices.

 

Whoops! I think you meant ethical

 

"Civilian firearm ownership undermines the legitimate power monopoly of the state."

This was the UN's intellectual contribution to 'The Great Gun Control Debate' (Scottland? 2002, iirc).

This statement rings true to all in the gun rights debate. The only difference is between those who agree with the word 'legitimate' and those who dont.

 

Horse Cr*p Gun regulation is both unethical and wrong. It is an abridgment of individual and Constitutional rights.

 

Nope, jdog: regulation has always been ethical and legal.

No right can abridge my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or yours, for that matter

 

I do not agree. The United States government instilled the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution specifically to act as a tool of National Defense in that it recognizes the need for a citizen militia to defend the country. Gun ownership in America aids in the National Defense as it insures the citizens ability to mount a defense of local areas and States should the need arise. In a totalitarian ruled government gun ownership may undermine the government, but ours is not a totalitarian government..... yet

 

You really do not have a clue do you? Where does the power to regulate come from? You think all regulation is ethical? Tell me how my ownership of a firearm abridges your rights specifically.

 

Disarming innocent people does not make them safer.

Disarming everyone does not make most people safer.

Guns have done more to decrease violence than any other tool invented by man.

If the world were disarmed tomorrow, there'd be a whole new pecking order. With my training and conditioning, I'd be moving up, way up.

Really, what are you going to do if a man like me walks up and takes your stuff off of you?
If not for men like me, who's going to defend you from men like me?

Most people have absolutely no idea of how violent, brutal and brief life was before guns.

 

It sounds like you would agree that the US Govt does not have a power monopoly because so many of its citizens are lawfully armed.

Successfully undermined

 

The more I think about it, the more intrigued I am about the idea of living in a post-gun America.
Thousands of hours training and conditioning every year for over thirty years would really pay off. Years and years of close quarters combat weapons and melee combat reenactments would suddenly turn from an obscure niche of MMA to a very valuable skill set. A lesser man might be tempted to become a bully under such unrestrained circumstances.

 

It most certainly does, but no one is taking those rights from you. If anything, it is the exact opposite and allowing you to preserve your life, protect your liberty, which will allow you to pursue all the happiness your little heart desires.

Your odds of using a gun in self defense are far far greater than your odds of being shot by a mass shooter.

 

what exactly do you think is going to happen?