Herein lies the problem and why many voices cannot be heard because to have an opinion means we must make the issue black or white - there is no middle ground. My opinion is not black or white, but you so easily cast me as (1) being in favor of taking away the right to bear arms, or (2) not understanding the 2nd amendment. Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.Mister Moose wrote:The authors of the 2nd amendment envisioned EXACTLY that scenario - the need a for a citizenry capable of their own self defense. You need to understand the freedom from a government taking that basic right away from the people. From your writing it appears you don't understand that. That the founders might have envisioned the British instead of a wacked out teenager is just details. They understood the most basic right of self defense.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
I can’t imagine the authors of the 2nd Amendment envisioned such a scenario. Maybe time to admit we have a problem, Egh?
I still don’t understand any legimate use for any style of guns that are designed for anything other than hunting. The solution is certainly not more guns and anyone arguing that having an AK is going to help them defend themselves against the US military is just silly.
More sweeping statements introducing things to which I didn't say. I've made my choice to be armed as noted above. What I believe in is regulation. Do you believe in the right to buy fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, tanks, APCs, etc. No? Then you, too, believe in some reasonable degree of regulation. Otherwise, why should these be regulated but an AR-15 is not? I am in favor of regulations being expanded to limit firearms capable of mass murder. I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.Mister Moose wrote:You enjoy a peaceful neighborhood and workplace, and you enjoy a military and police force that keeps many of the threats at bay. Why oh why must we get our hands dirty and think about protecting ourselves when these other folks do such an adequate job of it? And you can make the choice to be disarmed. The odds are you won't need a weapon in your lifetime. However it is your right to be prepared, should you choose to do so. Should a threat move into your comfortable world.
The analogy doesn't help change my view above. If fire extinguishers were used to inflict mass murder among school children, you can bet my view would be different.Mister Moose wrote:Are there fire extinguishers in your house? Why? Why in the world would you want to stay in a burning house and risk death? Why not just run? The fire department will be there in just 4-10 minutes.... And the odds are you won't need it ever anyway.
The analogy doesn't help change my view above. At my high school fire extinguishers were behind a thin pane of safety glass you had to break in order to use it ... to mitigate the type of scenario you describe. A little thought into mitigating events through some regulation can act as a deterrent.Mister Moose wrote:If students in a school start yanking fire extinguishers off the wall and spray students in the face, an entire classroom of kids with chemicals in their eyes, are we going to start locking up fire extinguishers? Or eliminate readily available extinguishers in the hallways?
It matters. See the shots fired totals above. It's unreasonable and illogical to suggest a single shot from a .22 is the same as a .357 and is the same as a 5.56 NATO.Mister Moose wrote:As to your other comment, a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. One trigger pull, one bullet. Same for a revolver or a pistol. It doesn't matter if it looks scary. All guns look scary to me. I can't think of a friendly looking gun.
Hopefully for you, not Trump, who believes in taking the guns first and going through due process second. The decision should be made by the people through our legislative process.Mister Moose wrote:I think the luxury of your own personal secure feeling blinds you to the needs of those who are not so secure. Should a pilot have a gun? Should a woman who works late and sometimes walks through a parking garage alone? Did the founders envision airborne Islamic terrorism? Did the founders envision women working outside the home late at night?
Who should make that decision to carry for me, for us... you? The ones who can't imagine?
On average, there were 67,740 occurrences a year for self-protection behaviors using a firearm by victims of attempted or completed crime over the five-year period 2007 through 2011. In 2012, there was 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.Mister Moose wrote:Gosh. Imagine that. I suppose if there were zero guns, there would be zero gun deaths. You needed a graph for that? A far better question is how many assaults, robberies and murders were stopped with the use of a gun?)Coydog wrote: [....Lots of statistics....]More guns = more gun related deaths. Yes, it’s really that simple.
In 2013, there were 107,141 occurrences of injury or death by firearm (73,505 injuries and 33,636 deaths).
I suppose this suggests more guns are necessary.