Why do anti gun extremists hate stories about self defense

Sometimes, society deems certain arms as more dangerous to the general public and have no problem with some infringements or laws banning certain weapons.
There's a line in the sand for everything in the world.

 

Good point.

 

Futile and dangerous. Government, not the people, will always be the great threat to humanity. Gun control laws empower criminals.

“Affixed to the wall in Mr. Appelgren’s office in Stockholm’s Police Headquarters is a chart showing the increase in the use of hand grenades. Until 2014 there were about a handful every year. In 2015, that number leapt: 45 grenades were seized by the police, and 10 others were detonated. The next year, 55 were seized and 35 detonated.”

“Mr. Appelgren has watched the trend apprehensively, calling it an arms race among gangs.

“I think we’re going to see, if we don’t stop it, more drive-by shootings with Kalashnikovs and hand grenades,” he said. “They throw rocks and bottles at our cars, and they trick us in an ambush. When will it happen that they ambush us with Kalashnikovs? It’s coming.”

“Sellers in Bosnia and Serbia have networks in Sweden’s diaspora and are so eager to unload excess grenades, … that they throw them in free with the purchase of AK-47s, Mr. Appelgren said. In Sweden the street price of a hand grenade is 100 kroner, or $12.50.”
NEW YORK TIMES, Hand Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden’s Middle Class, By ELLEN BARRY and CHRISTINA ANDERSONMARCH 3, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/world/europe/sweden-crime-immigration-hand-grenades.html

 

There are 2.7 million of them. There aren't nearly enough feds to be successful.

 

if civilian police routinely are issued a type of weapon for use in civilian environments-that estops the issuing government from claiming those weapons are too dangerous for other private citizens to own in their own homes

 

We don't need to have a discussion.
You've already agreed per other amendments that it is perfectly fine to impose certain infringements.

We have both already agreed that infringements happen and are often welcomed. But as was said before, everyone has their own line in the sand.

 

In any case, that line is determined by SCOTUS.

 

I support the 2nd amendment, but the gun control issue is demonized by the Right and by the Left.

First of all, about ½ of gun death is suicide – so people who support assisted suicide should support the 2nd amendment and people who oppose assisted suicide should ask for gun control, but on the average the Left supports assisted suicide, why the Right opposes.

Second - according to statistics handguns kill more people than AR15, so gun opponents should ask to outlaw handguns first.

I don’t know statistics in how many cases guns saved lives but according to the bellow source about 500 people are killed by mishandling guns.
https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/
So if more people are killed by mishandling guns than by saving lives – on the average gun kill more than protect.

Why I support the 2nd amendment? We need it as protection against government. I don’t think anti democratic regimes will succeed if the majority of population supports democracy and is armed.

 

sometimes.

 

For when it counts. Your opinion means nothing legally.

 

"A passerby stopped a road rage incident where a knife was brandished after he held a man at gunpoint until police arrived Friday night on 21st Street North near I-135, Wichita police spokesperson Chad Ditch said."
https://news.yahoo.com/road-rage-driver-wields-knife-153234140.html

I don't hate stories like this. I'm glad the guy with a knife got stopped. But predictably someone posted this unoriginal comment full of unsubstatianted claims below the article:
"This is just one of the many instances were a good guy with a gun stops a crime in progress. These sorts of stories happen every single day of the year in quantity despite anti-gun nut lies to the contrary. The only difference between this one and the majority of the others is that it became publicized news. Most of the time in stories like this when no one is shot, the news can’t be bothered to report it as it is essentially a non-news event without any bloodshed. Crime can and does happen everywhere at some point, and you can either be a prepared citizen like our Good Samaritan gun owner, or you can be an unarmed and would be victim under assault hoping for someone else to come along and save you. It’s a choice every citizen needs to make for themselves."

 

Any self defense use of guns is viewed by liberals through the following lens:

1. Religious, religious, and ethinic views that encourage turning the other cheek or submitting.

2. Being brainwashed from growing up in places like NYC.

3. Hoplophobia

4. Psychological projection -- the liberal knows he/she would not have the emotional control to safely own and use a gun;

5. Belief that the government should have a total monopoly on deadly force.

6. Belief that crime is the fault of society - therefore, the criminal must be rehabilitated. Many liberals love criminals and therefore, focus on the tools of the criminal as the problem.

7. Feelings. It hurts their feelings when a criminal is shot.

8. A belief that the founding fathers are old racist white men and therefore, the 2nd Amendment is racist.

 

No it is because a fair number are fake

the NRA a got caught out trying to sell that tactic in Aus

 

Giant strawman you built there mate

and here I was posting something entirely different BEFORE I read this drivel

 

Here is the USC definition of Militia. You might want to read it.

0 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

(((((Sigh)))))

Research why don’t people read research?

Point one - suicide. You are basing your argument on preconceived misconceptions the main one being that suicidal people will always eventually succeed

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/

https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-rise-of-firearm-suicide-among-young-americans/

So…. If we made guns less accessible would there be a “substitution effect”?

https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/40621392

Most importantly is the availability of the method

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/suicide-prevention-gun-research/

 

Don't have the statistics, but it is very likely that the vast majority of gun crimes, homicides and other, are committed with guns that are not legally owned. It is difficult to see how outlawing the legal ownership of guns would reduce the illegal use of guns.

 

Fewer legal guns in circulation means fewer guns that have the potential to become illegal.

 

How do you Constitutionally get to "fewer legal guns in circulation"?

 

not at a federal level. you keep hiding behind that cowardly excuse. Your attitude is this-if someone else agrees that citizens should not have nukes, then you are just as justified banning commonly owned semi auto rifles. and what amendments are you talking about-there is nothing that justifies federal gun control

 

fewer people being able to walk freely means less muggings. fewer people being able to speak freely means less slander. fewer gun banners means fewer attacks on our constitutional rights

 

gun banners want to twist the second to allow their schemes but they can never tell us how Article One Section Eight justifies gun control

 

bravo- you hit most of the nails on the head. especially #4, 5 and 6

 

want to hear FAKE--many of the anti gun "studies" that claim that "having a gun in the home" involved cases where the gun used to harm someone was BROUGHT to that home by a non-occupant.