I think there's something in the fact that our Canadian neighbors to the north that have strict gun control laws had 200 gun related deaths last year compared to 9,484 in the United States. The population of Canada is much less than the U.S., 35 million compared to 315 million, but the numbers are still way out of proportion. Other nation's numbers were: Germany 194, Spain 60, Britain 39, Australia 35, and Finland 17.

 

Our nation is too ingrained with a gun mentality. And everyone wants to use an amendment written in a time when guns were single shot muskets that took over a minute to reload. I'm not sure the great men who wrote the 2nd amendment foresaw the type of weapons that are on the market today.

 

I understand what you are saying, but how do you respond to the idea that banning guns will only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals? For the other countries that you mentioned, how many guns per capita did they have prior to a gun ban? I just cannot see a ban making us any safer, even if I could bring myself to agree with it.

I understand what you are saying, but how do you respond to the idea that banning guns will only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals? For the other countries that you mentioned, how many guns per capita did they have prior to a gun ban? I just cannot see a ban making us any safer, even if I could bring myself to agree with it.

 

 

Gun grabbers do not listen to common sense, and it is sad.

 

Mexico has a gun ban, mass killings happen there on a weekly basis.

Even small changes ie decrease in gun incidents (suicide/murder/shootings) seem worth it to me and those changes have NO negative impact on those who want to own a gun for the right reasons.

Lets say you're a gun owner, you own to protect your family. You have a home invasion of three armed assailants, you have a gun with 5 rounds. There's a shootout between you and them. You kill two of them and use all five rounds and the third guy is still ok and still has a gun and more ammo. Now, lets say I have the same scenario but I have a gun with 15 rounds and therefore have three times better opportunity of defending my family and surviving. This is an entirely possible scenario for anyone, not a stretch of the imagination. Whose shoes would you rater be in, mine or yours?

 

The only thing worse than not having a gun when someone’s trying to kill you with a gun is having a gun without enough bullets. How many is enough?

Gun grabbers do not listen to common sense, and it is sad.

 

Mexico has a gun ban, mass killings happen there on a weekly basis.

 

Mexico is basicly a 3rd world country with an out of control drug war. Doesn't count in the debate IMO. The countries I listed are industrialized nations.

Mexico is basicly a 3rd world country with an out of control drug war. Doesn't count in the debate IMO. The countries I listed are industrialized nations.

 

How do the overall crime rates in those countries compare to ours?

Lets say you're a gun owner, you own to protect your family. You have a home invasion of three armed assailants, you have a gun with 5 rounds. There's a shootout between you and them. You kill two of them and use all five rounds and the third guy is still ok and still has a gun and more ammo. Now, lets say I have the same scenario but I have a gun with 15 rounds and therefore have three times better opportunity of defending my family and surviving. This is an entirely possible scenario for anyone, not a stretch of the imagination. Whose shoes would you rater be in, mine or yours?

 

The only thing worse than not having a gun when someone’s trying to kill you with a gun is having a gun without enough bullets. How many is enough?

 

That same logic would say that because "some" people would be impaired with a BAC of .02 that we should not allow ANYONE to drive if they had alcohol.

Lets say you're a gun owner, you own to protect your family. You have a home invasion of three armed assailants, you have a gun with 5 rounds. There's a shootout between you and them. You kill two of them and use all five rounds and the third guy is still ok and still has a gun and more ammo. Now, lets say I have the same scenario but I have a gun with 15 rounds and therefore have three times better opportunity of defending my family and surviving. This is an entirely possible scenario for anyone, not a stretch of the imagination. Whose shoes would you rater be in, mine or yours?

 

The only thing worse than not having a gun when someone’s trying to kill you with a gun is having a gun without enough bullets. How many is enough?

 

Exactly.

That same logic would say that because "some" people would be impaired with a BAC of .02 that we should not allow ANYONE to drive if they had alcohol.

 

Apples and oranges Clyde. I know you like to argue (debate) but this isn't even close. You are better than this one....

That same logic would say that because "some" people would be impaired with a BAC of .02 that we should not allow ANYONE to drive if they had alcohol.

:lol: Come on, my man. That wasn't even a good attempt.

My stance remains unchanged. Gun control is one of my "crusades". But even with gun control, this situation likely wouldn't have been avoided. I still crusade for limitations on the types of guns for sale, for waiting periods, for registration of firearms, and for a requirement that safety training be completed prior to receiving a permit, and at intervals throughout the ownership of that permit to ensure no lax attitude pervades. I also advocate an immediate charge of at least assault with a deadly weapon if a mishandled gun wounds someone, and some sort of manslaughter charge if the person dies.

My stance remains unchanged. Gun control is one of my "crusades". But even with gun control, this situation likely wouldn't have been avoided. I still crusade for limitations on the types of guns for sale, for waiting periods, for registration of firearms, and for a requirement that safety training be completed prior to receiving a permit, and at intervals throughout the ownership of that permit to ensure no lax attitude pervades. I also advocate an immediate charge of at least assault with a deadly weapon if a mishandled gun wounds someone, and some sort of manslaughter charge if the person dies.

I think a better crusade would be getting to the crux of what's changed over the years that makes people commit such heinous acts of violence, it sure isn't the guns. Gun control, as you yourself admits, won't avoid these crimes, so I feel it much more important to find ways to actually attack the problem. I understand your feeling as you understand mine, so don't think I'm being pugnacious. I just think the emphasis should be on the cause of the crime and what we can do to prevent it.

I think a better crusade would be getting to the crux of what's changed over the years that makes people commit such heinous acts of violence, it sure isn't the guns. Gun control, as you yourself admits, won't avoid these crimes, so I feel it much more important to find ways to actually attack the problem. I understand your feeling as you understand mine, so don't think I'm being pugnacious. I just think the emphasis should be on the cause of the crime and what we can do to prevent it.

 

 

So, you support increased government funding of programs for the mentally ill?

So, you support increased government funding of programs for the mentally ill?

Believe it not, yes, I do. But I don't want a bunch of worthless political pork involved. I would like to see serious studies that look at such crimes and the people that commit them. Sometimes, I lean more toward the middle. :lol:

Biggest correlation between most mass shootings: they are within a gun-free zone.

 

Also, although Australia and other European countries like GB - the more civilized - have a lower gun crime rate than the US, they have a higher rate regarding violent crime.

 

I am against all forms of gun control. The 2nd amendment is not there for my right to hunt. Its there so I can protect myself and have the same equipment as ANY entity who might infringe on my life, property, and liberty. Its number two for a reason.

I'm not necessarily against better background checks and perhaps a longer waiting period but if the thread is regarding "After Sandy Hook" well then I don't think it changes my stance much. This kid murdered his mother and then took her guns and used them to murder other innocent people. Not like he went out and bought them himself the kid murdered his own mother to get those guns. I just don't see how stricter background checks or longer waiting periods would've saved lives in this situation.