How rational countries deal with gun violence.

I carried a M16 for three years courtesy of the USA

 

I suppose it would be more rational to ban whatever race or religion this monster is.

That's what Trump would do.

 

"One of New Zealand's largest gun retailers, Hunting & Fishing New Zealand, said it supports "any government measure to permanently ban such weapons."

"While we have sold them in the past to a small number of customers, last week's events have forced a reconsideration that has led us to believe such weapons of war have no place in our business -- or our country," CEO Darren Jacobs said in a statement."

There's an example of a human being who has put the lives of fellow human beings ahead of the profit gained from selling these weapons. That moral decision and the thinking behind it is the NRA's worst enemy.

 

It is the example of feel good action which likely will have little effect. If someone wants to have mass killing, they will pick a semiautomatic which does not look like a weapon of war.

 

That's a great argument for having semiautomatic weapons banned as well. Not to mention imposing stricter gun control laws. Cuz.....you know.........the public's safety should be the guiding principle.....said with the understanding if some right wing nut wants to kill a lot of people all society can do is make it as difficult as possible.

 

Does that include semiautomatic pistols because that introduces another problem which might lead to more deaths. For home defense, I want a pistol that is stored not loaded, but can be loaded rapidly. A semiautomatic pistol has a magazine. The magazine can be stored separately with the rounds loaded. The magazine can be inserted in a couple of seconds.

The alternative is a revolver. In order to load a revolver, the rounds must be taken out of the box and inserted one at a time which can take minutes rather than seconds. The alternative is to store the revolver loaded, which is not safe.

Keep in mind, I live in country with law enforcement at least fifteen minutes away, most likely more.

Your recommendation puts me at risk.

 

Having a gun in the house puts you at greater risk than not having one.

Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

 

You are trying to take national statistics and apply them to a unique case. You do not know whether it puts me at greater risk or not.

 

Every day a gun is in your house there is a risk that someone is going to shoot it and every time a gun goes off in your home the risk of someone being shot increases. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. It is pure logic.

 

Why should we follow the example of inferior countries?

 

Allow me to correct your response:
"Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death" ... by mishap or by murder.

 

Because they are only inferior with regards to greed, materialism, personal inferiority, and homicidal proficiency.

 

Had guns in my house my entire life. 30 years. No one ever shot one in the house. Why? There are rules like dont pull the trigger for funsies and dont treat it like its unloaded. Ever.

 

Everyday without a gun in my house increases the odds that someone can break into my house and either beat my wife and I to death with a ball bat or shoot us. Given my experience with handling weapons and my method of storage, provide the statistics which say which is most likely to lead to the death of my wife or me.

 

You are welcome to entertain the false sense of security a gun provides. But statistically you are at greater risk of death with a gun in the house. Those are just the facts.

 

Statistically as part of the general population.

But, we do not live among the general population nor does the general population have my level of training or level of safety. And the general population does not live so far from law enforcement as to be useless.

You statistics simply are not relevant.

 

Good for you. And to how many members of your household do those rules apply?

 

I bet the odds are against:
1). Anyone breaking into your house
2). Anyone breaking into your house with the intent of beating you (or your wife) to death with a ball bat or shoot you.

In fact, I am betting the odds greatly increase getting beat or shot if the intruder sees your gun because he is more likely to beat or shoot you in self-defense when all he really wants to do is rob you.

 

Is that all you've brought to this discussion ..... facts??? I bet you're one of those boring guys who thinks before he speaks.

 

You can bet all you want. You are not in our unique situation.

Just the knowledge I am likely to have a gun in the house is usually sufficient to keep a potential troublemaker away.

I fully expect to live out my life without ever having to use my gun.

 

That's all very fine but Roy Horn never expected his tiger to eat him either.

"The knowledge that you are likely to have a gun" can have more than one consequence when seen through the eyes of a criminal.

* Someone with a gun must have great treasures to guard and the best way to get at them is to be armed yourself and "get the drop on him".

 

Around here, almost everyone has a gun. That whole thing falls flat on its face.

 

Texas, where most shootings take place?

 

Nope. We haven't had a shooting around here for many years except for a hostage situation where law enforcement shot the perpetrator.

 

That is the kind of rejection of facts I've come to expect from Trump fanatics.