By opting out of owning guns, you're giving us a power monopoly.

Will criminals follow this law?
No?
That being the case, what compelling state interest does this law meet, and how is this the least restrictive means to hat end?

 

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

Most of America doesn't. Violent crime is largely condensced to the urban areas where there are less guns and more people.

The rural areas where there are more guns and less people are as safe as anywhere in the world.

I rarely carry at home. I generally carry when I go to the city or to the deep wilderness

 

I applaud her initiative, but it's hard to believe that she did not have opportunities to abscond while he was elsewhere or too drunk to notice.

Fortunately, today, women subjected to such intolerable conditions are somewhat more likely to escape without recourse to firearms.

 

And I'll ask again, why are the urban areas of America so crime ridden that citizens feel they need to be armed to protect themselves?

 

Demographics and the breakdown of societal norms.

 

Such is not what is being stated. It is not the paranoid belief of an attempted assassination that is being referred to. Rather it is the acknowledgement that there are no safeguards to prevent a random killing from being committed. Thus, at any given moment of any given day, it is entirely possible for an individual to be killed. Those who do not acknowledge such, but rather maintain the belief that nothing either can or will happen to them, are quite foolish.

 

Im sure theres many reasons. Chief among them, I suspect, is that people arent meant to live stacked on top eachother like that.

 

The fact that you think about it on a daily basis does prove you have belief that that you'll be killed every day you walk out of your house.

 

It's futile. Most of the recent mass shooters have bought guns despite having mental health and criminal background checks.

It is already a felony for someone to buy or sell a gun in a straw purchase to someone not eligible to own a gun. I notice that you anti-gun people are often ignorant of actual laws in place. If I felt strongly about something, I would research the issue.
From the ATF website:https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/dontlie-postcard-enpdf/download

 

Such is indeed the case. The problem is that what qualifies as a "very dangerous place" is in a constant state of flux, dependent heavily upon the individuals in any given location at any given time. If certain individuals with a penchant for unrestrained violence amass is sufficient numbers if a given area, it can easily become a very dangerous place in very little time.

What makes an area dangerous as opposed to not dangerous are the individuals within that given area. Meaning previously safe areas can be made dangerous with ease, so there are no constants.

the united states, as a country, has been around for less than two hundred and fifty years. Other countries have existed for far longer than that. Thus most other countries were founded long before firearms even existed, much less before they became widespread and in common use. Thus there was no chance for a firearm-related culture to even exist in most other countries before they were established.

The united states is further unique in the fact it was founded on the basis of the people themselves being in charge and appointed their leaders, rather than unelected officials who ruled by mere virtue of perceived nobility and who were deemed above the reach of law.

There are a great many reasons to explain and rationalize such. Chief among them is the established fact the government of the united states has no moral or legal obligation to provide any degree of protection to the public at large, except in a collective sense. If any private individual is murdered, the government and its individual agents are not responsible for failing to prevent the murder from occurring. If all available law enforcement officers have already been deployed to tend to other matters, there is no one that can be dispatched when an emergency call comes in afterward.

That matter aside, whether or not the people of other nations feel safe, or feel the need to carry firearms for their own defense, is a moot point of discussion. Most other countries have significant firearm-related restrictions and do not recognize self defense as a valid use of firearms, thus the public does not actually have a say in the matter since the decision was made for them.

 

My bet is your breakdown is wrong, based on real life cases. I think 25% would turn them in. 50% would turn some in, and 25% would turn none in.

Gun registration, which is much less intrusive than a gun ban, has almost no compliance. Why would a gun ban have more compliance?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...wners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty
https://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-g...ns-assault-weapons-registered-latest-gun-law/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...gistering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#755995835a1b

 

Because there's no 10 year mandatory sentence.

 

Neither does yours.

 

At any given moment of any given day, one is never more than five seconds away from dying from one cause or another.

Perhaps one has an undiagnosed aneurysm that ruptures when they sneeze. Perhaps one trips and falls to the ground with enough force to induce a lethal subdural hematoma. Perhaps one has a heart attack or stroke while operating a motor vehicle and winds up plowing into a crowd of individuals crossing at a designated cross walk. Perhaps one is so absorbed into their phone they fail to be aware of their surroundings and walk right into oncoming traffic.

The causes of death are many, there is no way of knowing what cause will end any particular life, and there is no guarantee that today will not be the day any given individual dies.

 

No, I'm probably a commie by your lights. Keep your calumnies straight

 

If i did not already have the guns you don't want me to have, you might be right.
But I do, and thus, you're not.

Your irrational fears do not create a compelling case against my rights.

 

The fact you deny being a Nazi, under your line of reasoning, proves you're a Nazi.

 

That doesn't address why America has more gun violence. Using your example, it would suggest that countries with significant firearm related restrictions have less gun violence.

 

Most people who commit suicide are not only wrong, but are mentally incapable of making a sound decision. Severe mental disability, or drug-induced states of mind can impair judgement.

 

And thus, they committed suicide because they had no choice, not because they had access to a gun.

 

Nice moving of the goalposts. The subject is about carrying a gun due to the threat of being killed. Is a gun going to prevent an aneurysm???

 

How many victims of domestic violence have you known in your life?
Because your statement betrays a serious misunderstanding of the psychological control abusers exhibit over their victims.

 

Where did I say that denying you are a Nazi makes you a Nazi?

 

See? You don't even know you're a Nazi.
How sad - and ironic that you just discussed you.