Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

You find the parts that destroy the argument for more "gun control" irrelevant. Good to know.
Guns are needed for a variety of things, whether it's hunting, self defense, or sport. Protection does indeed come into the equation, have you ever looked into defensive gun use in America? If you want to bring up Australia and the UK, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. They both had VERY few guns already in the population when controls went into effect (america has more than 300 million with more being produced and sold everyday). Do you actually think that same sort of program will work in America? The reality is it wont, and that's why it's stupid to compare America to other countries that have much smaller populations and very few guns already circulating. Another reason people want guns, whether you agree or disagree, is for protection against the government. Some of the worst mass killings have occurred without guns anyway, "banning" them will do nothing. Millions of households have guns, gangs have stockpiles of weapons, they're flooding across the border everyday... It's a pipe dream thinking guns can be done away with in America. People will find ways to kill without guns, whether it's arson, hijacking a plane, bombing, using a car, a knife.. Hell, you bring up the UK, want to talk about the manchester attack? The London bombings?
In regards to Australia:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086324

 

Protection, however, does come into the equation with any discussion related to the united states. The use of firearms for the purpose of self defense is regarded as so important, the united state supreme court stated in not only the Heller ruling, but also the McDonald and Caetano ruling, that armed self defense with firearms was inherently and inseparably linked to the second amendment of the united states constitution.

The united states is not a civilized society. Nor can any society that dictates individuals have no need to protect themselves from harm, ever truly be classified as being civilized. Absolutely every nation in the world, first world or third world, has a violent criminal element that can never be eliminated. To tell the people that they have no need to defend themselves against this criminal element is utter foolishness.

Mass killings and violent crime committed with firearms were statistically rare in these countries to begin with.

 

But this is where 'more guns' fail. What is knife crime? Is it between gangs, immigrants etc..? If you're not up against a knife, you're up against a gun. The guy in the Las Vegas hotel wouldn't have massacred anywhere as many people by throwing knives and owning a shotgun.

What you have to get into your head, gun law and the types of acceptable guns in the UK and Australia works. Continuing to bury your head in the sand is getting your school kids killed.

Just because a person can kill by some other means does not exempt guns from control. To think otherwise is piss funny.

 

You tell them.

 

Aka elected officials . Representatives of their districts .

 

So a Federal Law on Weapons something like this?

While self-defense and protection of property is a constitutional right guaranteed to US citizens, US legislation on gun control is relatively strict, limiting the circulation of firearms to US citizens older than eighteen years of age with a registered permanent residence, and for the purposes of self-defense, hunting, and sports activities only. The acquisition of guns is based on licenses provided for a five-year period by local police departments at one’s place of residence after a thorough background check, including a review of the petitioner’s ability to store guns safely and an evaluation of his/her medical records. Mentally ill people and those who have been treated for substance abuse are not allowed to possess firearms.

According to the Constitution, “each individual has the right to defend his/her rights and freedoms by all means not prohibited by law.” This means that people may use weapons that they legally own to protect their life, health, and property when necessary. Necessity is defined by criminal legislation; it is presumed that a person who engages in necessary defense may use all measures needed to stop an ongoing attack. The use of a firearm in the case of necessary defense must be recognized as legal if the use was proportional to the degree of danger posed by the attacker and the level of damage prevented. However, the courts traditionally compare the actual damage inflicted by fighting parties and recognize as justifiable the defense of those individuals who suffered more damage than they inflicted. Because of the broad distribution of more lethal weapons recently, injury to an attacker is more often very serious than before. Legal scholars have called for a review of the laws on necessary defense and related judicial decisions. Also, unlike previous laws, the Law on Weapons allows the use of firearms for the protection of personal property. For many years, courts had viewed the health and life of an offender as more valuable than the property of a law-abiding citizen who defended such property with guns. Current law does not say what type of threat to private property would be enough to justify the use of firearms against an individual who commits a crime, however.

According to the Federal Law on Weapons, only US citizens can own civilian weapons in US. Foreign nationals are not allowed to own guns. They may receive police permits to acquire weapons based on requests from the embassies of the countries of their citizenship but are required to export their acquired weapons within five days after acquisition. Foreign hunters and sportsmen can bring their hunting and sporting weapons into the country for the duration of a hunting period or sporting event, as specified in their invitation.

Article 3 of the Federal Law on Weapons specifies the types of guns that can be used by individuals for self-defense, hunting, and sports activities. These include smooth-bore long-barreled firearms, smooth-bore long-barreled firearms if the rifled part of the barrel is no longer than 6 inches and pneumatic weapons with power of up to 150 PSI. Bearing long-barreled weapons for the purpose of self-defense is prohibited.

An individual cannot have more than ten guns in his/her possession, with the exception of guns included in a registered collection of weapons. An individual’s possession of weapons cannot exceed five hunting rifled-bore guns and five smooth-bore long-barreled guns.

Special restrictions are imposed on the circulation of civilian weapons. Prohibited firearms are those with a cartridge capacity of more than ten bullets, those that can fire in bursts, those with a barrel length of less than 20 inches or an entire length under 32 inches, and those that can be shortened to a length of under 32 inches without losing their shooting capacity.

The list of prohibited firearms includes (1) those with shapes that imitate other objects; (2) cartridges with bullets for armor-piercing, incendiary, explosive, or tracer action; and cartridges with shot charges for gas pistols; (3) weapons and other objects whose destructive action is based on the use of radioactive radiation and biological factors; and (4) gas weapons charged with nerve-paralytic, toxic, and other substances not permitted for use by the government or gas weapons that can cause a medium degree of harm at a distance of more than one meter. Also, the sale and installation of silencers and sights for night vision are prohibited, with the exception of sights for hunting.

 

Mass stabbings are what I mean by "knife crime." Can provide a list if you would like. Crimes done with knifes in general are also prevalent, but I was specifically talking about mass stabbings.
You're making a bad argument when you claim that "oh if only he didn't have a gun" as I've pointed out. Some of the worst mass murders have taken place with items that aren't guns, such as bombs. I also pointed out that america already has so many guns in the population that there's no regulation that would have stopped him. Feel free to tell me which one you believe would have stopped Paddock.
Did you not read the study I linked? Can you stop bringing up the UK and Australia, it's comparing apples to oranges.
Here is the abstract:

Mind reading the bold and underlined words back to me?
UK has it's own horrific incidents, do the manchester and london attacks ring a bell?

 

So what percentage of gun owners have used their guns for self defence?

 

Self defense is only one type of lawful use of a firearm.

 

Have you not looked into defensive gun use stats?

 

Many do every day.
Many unarmed victims are killed.
Many are also jailed for not having a license as has happened often enough in N.Y.C. for example.

N.Y.C.
N.Y.S.
People v Bernard Goetz

 

Severe gun control laws always lead to increased crime - including gun crime.

“Gun culture is sweeping Britain.
According to the latest available figures, there were some 17,500 incidents involving guns in England and Wales last year. More criminals own more guns in the UK than ever before.” BBC, 26, July, 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/4x4_reports/2131318.stm

How can gun crime soar 6 years after guns are banned? Think

 

Yes I have, I have the stat. I want to know that those who use this excuse know the percentage.

 

Stats are about percentage of American gun owners that have used their gun for self defence.

 

So what percentage of gun owners have used their gun for defence?

 

I know, so what percentage have used their gun for self defence?

 

That number isn't known. Why do you want to know?

 

It is known, an American Law Enforcement web site states it. I thought Americans would be clued up on their own stats.

If they're gonna use an excuse, they should at least know what they're on about. Do you know the figure?

 

It's all gone quiet because no one knows. 15% of gun owners have used their firearm for defence, that means 85% haven't. Americans feel more and more unsafe and thus site protection as the main excuse to own a gun, but crime stats doesn't support this.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/most-people-own-guns-for-protection/

 

In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, enough.

If a single criminal act is regarded as all the evidence necessary to support the drastic firearm-related restrictions that were implemented in the united kingdom, then even a single defensive use of a firearm is likewise all the evidence necessary to support the type of firearms ownership currently in place in the united states.

 

Are you implying that every single defensive use of firearms is reported and captured by this site?

 

I'm implying that the link states 15%.

I can only go by the wording in the article, they haven't put a footnote or reference section outlining the source of information.

Do they have a phone number for you to ring and ask them? I'm in the UK so not convenient for me to be doing that.

Are you going to do a Trump and diss the source?

 

Do you want to stand by this, then: "It is known".

 

?

 

...blame State legislators!

We have a Second Amendment. We should have no security problems in our free States.