Nothing works all of the time. Your two examples were of cops failing to act, but the Boulder King Soopers shooting showed where cops did act the right way. The shooting I linked showed someone who reacted immediately and saved lives, and you want to disarm her?
The reason the article you cited was newsworthy was that it is not the norm. Mostly pulling a gun on someone who already has his out is a recipe for failure with disastrous consequences. Further, I never claimed anyone should be disarmed. In fact I said that while I think owning a gun would be a foolish thing for me to do, I'm OK with you having one. At the supermarket shooting, while the cops' arrival likely prevented more deaths than the ten that had already occurred, those ten still died. Do you want to station police outside every store in the US in order to stop mass shootings? It seems to me that would be oppressive. I suppose another option would be a requirement that everyone own and carry a firearm.but that's just asking for trouble. To my way of thinking if firearms are to be readily available to most adults, funding for mental health care is needed. Perhaps mandatory classes in safety should be required as well. It just seems to me that there needs to be a minimum standard of knowledge and stability to be met before one is permitted to own a tool capable of effortlessly ending someone's life.
At the supermarket shooting, while the cops' arrival likely prevented more deaths than the ten that had already occurred, those ten still died. Do you want to station police outside every store in the US in order to stop mass shootings? It seems to me that would be oppressive. I suppose another option would be a requirement that everyone own and carry a firearm.but that's just asking for trouble. To my way of thinking if firearms are to be readily available to most adults, funding for mental health care is needed. Perhaps mandatory classes in safety should be required as well. It just seems to me that there needs to be a minimum standard of knowledge and stability to be met before one is permitted to own a tool capable of effortlessly ending someone's life.[/QUOTE] Do you mean just for guns? Doesn't knowledge and presumably trying make someone a better killer, for good or for evil? What is the suggested process for ascertaining sufficient mental stability? It would take a police state in the US to stop mass shootings.
An absurd conclusion, given these statements of qualification: -You must be part of "the people" -The "arms" in question are "bearable arms" -The use of said "arms" does not violate the rights of others.
Firearms are used at least 10x more often in self-defense than to commit murder. So... yeah, it does. Specific examples to the contrary do not negate the weight of the whole - especially when those examples concern agents of the state rather than private individuals.
As there seem to be no real qualifications there. my conclusion stands. People = members of species Homo Sapiens Bearable arms = firearms Use of said arms does not violate the rights of others. Show me where a person has been successfully sued for wounding someone as differentiated from, say, a blunt object or knife. Show me how guns need special protection.
Cite your stats. This sounds pretty suspect to me. If I'm coming to gun you down, I'm gonna be ready. You're not. That simple.
Do you mean just for guns? Doesn't knowledge and presumably trying make someone a better killer, for good or for evil? What is the suggested process for ascertaining sufficient mental stability? It would take a police state in the US to stop mass shootings.[/QUOTE] This is such a weird hash I can't even begin to make sense of it. just have to I'm willing to engage, you just have to organize your thoughts.
Your claim that firearm ownership was an absolute right was false and you knew it was false when you made it. I cited the posts in context to prove it. Weasel your way out if you can.
> 95k defensive gun uses per year. http://vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf See: page 6. ~8850 Firearm-related murders per year, 2013-2015: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls How's that math work out? 10x?
Let me understand. the FBI table claims 10k people are murdered with firearms yearly. The stats by the VPC claim that justifiable homicides number in the hundreds. Bad news. Homicides in total by firearms are over 10k. This means your whole Good guy vs. Bad guy narrative is BS. Again, no prob with your guns. Don't want any myself, thanks. I think they're a bad idea, but do as you see fit. Justification with statistic is a bad idea for you though. Just a hint.
8850 The stats I cited from the VPC show there are at least 95k defensive gun uses. See, you don't need to actually shoot someone, much less kill them. to use a gun in self-defense, so the number of justifiable homicides is irrelevant. 95k DGUs, 8850 murders - as proven. Thus: Guns are used MORE than 10x more often for self-defense than to commit murder. Like I said
many of the outcome based anti gun studies compare killings or woundings (bad events when perpetrated on innocents though the anti gunners never admit that most of the people murdered or wounded in gunshot incidents are also criminals or engaging in criminal conduct) vs defensive woundings or killings while ignoring the fact that people buy guns for defense and if the sight of a gun sends a mope running away-that is actually usually better for the intended victim than wounding or killing the mope
So you're full of the stuff that makes the stuff that makes the grass grow long and green. How many of those were used against an armed offender? How many were used against an offender who was later charged and convicted? How many of your 'DGUs' were later convicted of brandishing a gun in public? it sems your stats leave a bit to be desired. Pulling a pistol on someone who already has his out is asking to die; pulling one beforehand is a crime. Really? Not proven at all. But, as I've said before, if you are so frightened you feel the need for a gun, by all means get one. I think it's foolish personally, and the right is not absolute.
