Provide that study> What I hear you saying is that there is a greater likelyhood of my spouse or daughter getting raped by me than by an armed stranger ?

 

I will read that front to cover....let's see it.

 

Didn't say rape. Confusion there. I was referring to being murdered. I posted this earlier in the thread.

 

Having a Gun in the House Doesn't Make a Woman Safer - The Atlantic

Stopped me from possibly getting mugged a few months ago.

 

Want if any training do you have? Thankfully you were able to prevent yourself and others from becoming a victim.

I am not trying to be abrasive with you by any stretch, but expecting to be protected by calling 9-1-1.............very naive.

 

You're fine. I asked what you meant because I wanted your opinion.

 

911 is by no means a guaranteed solution for every situation, I know that. But, it's an alternative option to adding a gun to the situation.

Good luck getting this answer. I asked HC one earlier, regarding a Harvard study. Nothing but crickets.

 

I didn't see your question. I'll go back to find it.

I didn't see your question. I'll go back to find it.

 

I asked if the study you referenced concluded that the 83 victims who were murdered, would still be alive had they not defended themselves.

Want if any training do you have? Thankfully you were able to prevent yourself and others from becoming a victim.

 

Wasnt me, bystander pull his firearm as someone was approaching me from behind. Formal training none other than CC class. Been shooting since I was a kid, was instilled in me right after the moment I proved I could stand upright.

Say a 240lbs guy breaks into your house while you're out of town to rape your women and daughter, you don't want her having a gun?

 

STATISTICALLY: there is a greater likelihood of the man of the house ( or ex-man) doing that than an armed stranger.

 

Didn't say rape. Confusion there. I was referring to being murdered. I posted this earlier in the thread.

 

I'll agree with you on this one....confusion there....

You're fine. I asked what you meant because I wanted your opinion.

 

911 is by no means a guaranteed solution for every situation, I know that. But, it's an alternative option to adding a gun to the situation.

 

If you have to wait for 911, its too late.

 

Kinda like momma said when I was getting a well deserved whoopin back in the day, "here is the phone, call the cops, your butt is mine till they get here" (well that was the PG version, lol)

Does that study conclude that the 83 murder victims would all be alive today had they not tried to defend themselves?

 

What a question?! :ohbrother:

 

If you were a woman reading those odds...what would you think?

 

Just want to clarify that we seem to have derailed the thread a little but all of this goes back to the need for guns and specific ones at that.

Do citizens (not police officers) with guns ever stop mass shootings? - The Washington Post

 

Here is a much larger list, which does include instances involving bars holding 300+ people in them at the time (#7)

 

Of course a law-abiding citizen with a gun can make a difference. That's common sense and is also backed up by the cases you linked to. If I am ever in this situation I hope the person next to me is packin'.

 

One difference: The driver of the red car had to take a test showing he/she can safely operate a vehicle.

 

driving a car is not protected by the constitution. Owning a gun is. No person has a constitutional right to drive a car but every US citizen has a right to bear arms. The government should have a pretty compelling case when denying a constitutional right. That's the difference.

 

The week prior is what I read. It certainly would allow for more time for a more extensive check. It's possible he could rethink in that period of time sure. I also said it's possible he will go and steal one and do it anyway. The point is doing nothing isn't helping. I'm not trying to take anyone's guns away. I own an AR-15. I literally have no reason at all to have a gun like that. I get that you guys are saying, but there are simple things we could do that could provide at least a little bit of protection. It shouldn't be as easy as it was for him. I would like my child to grow up in a world where you don't have to carry a gun to be safe. It seems like most of you want to continue down the path we are currently on and it's not a good one.

 

 

Everyone can just skip the last 90 posts if you want to miss the gun debate. :lol2: Sorry I brought it up.

 

I can get on board with the bolded part. As i have stated many times in gun control discussions the answer does not lie in taking away or restricting further our constitutional rights. We have destroyed the foundations of our culture over the last 40+ years and are reaping the consequences. This is what needs addressed. Changing the hearts and minds of people is the real solution. More laws cannot help this one iota. We need another Great Awakening. This has changed things for the better in the past in both America and England and it can in the future. Over and over in this thread people have mentioned the hate we are seeing in our world. Well, how do you replace hate in the human heart? Not by writing another law.

 

Your not reading thoroughly is pretty common with most pro-gun folks. One mention of maybe making it a bit tougher to get a gun and everyone freaks out.

 

As far as a legitimate reason for a waiting period... If one person is deterred from carrying out one of these terrible acts because they have to wait longer to get the gun, it's worth it.

 

What is the difference between getting your gun today versus two weeks from now?

 

About 13 days by my calculations.

 

What percentage of mentally ill persons are actually diagnosed as being mentally ill? There are varying degrees of mental illness, so where does the line start and stop? Any type or degree of mental instability would keep one from purchasing? Even simple anxiety, minor depression? I would bet that most people who have a mental illness never get checked out and are never diagnosed.

 

You can be sure if the mentally ill risk being placed on some government "red flag" list they won't go to the doctor to be treated for their mental illness. The unintended consequence of forcing doctors to violate HIPPA laws to report the mentally ill on a "no gun purchase list" is worse than the current situation. I much prefer that the mentally ill get treatment without law enforcement knowing their issue than having the mentally ill bypass treatment so they can fly under the radar of the government.

 

Agreed, however, Healthcare and education takes time. If we are looking to protect our nation from terrorists and unbalanced individuals taking advantage of the freedoms our nation provides, we need to look at answers that will make immediate impacts: thorough background checks, mandated training, and extended waiting periods would be a start.

 

How about tougher immigration laws and keeping people out who are of a certain religion that they hold in common with known terrorists today like Al Qaida and ISIS and the Orldando, Florida terrorist? There's a solution for you. I guess this makes Trump your man.

 

Don't like this solution because it violates the "rights" of some who are not even citizens of the US? Truth be told, I don't like this solution either.

 

But unlike you, I am not willing to violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding US citizens so you can feel like we are trying to do "something" about the gun violence we are seeing in our country. Give US citizens the same courtesy as you would give to those who want to immigrate to the US.

 

One more concern... I am not comfortable with restricting the constitutional rights of those who are "suspected" of terrorist activity or contacts. You will give the government the power to deny constitutional rights based on a mere suspicion. Think about it. That is a slippery slope to tyrrany. How does one get off that list? You probably don't even know you are on it. No, there has to be more compelling proof than a suspicion.

Say a 240lbs guy breaks into your house while you're out of town to rape your women and daughter, you don't want her having a gun?

 

And they don't need to be 240lbs either.

 

Back in the fall I posted a video of an attacker in Israel, immediately someone tried to subdue him, it was difficult. Some people can be 150lbs and some drive/goal and stabbing or shooting them even several times isn't going to stop them, this is where having as much firepower is needed to eliminate the threat. Especially if the attack is on drugs.

What a question?! :ohbrother:

 

If you were a woman reading those odds...what would you think?

 

Just want to clarify that we seem to have derailed the thread a little but all of this goes back to the need for guns and specific ones at that.

 

"Just read a Harvard study out last year: for every woman who is able to stave off an attacker with a gun another 83 are murdered. The article stated there will be studies upcoming to focus but 1:83. If I were a woman I wouldn't want a gun in the house"

 

Your original post referenced that for every 1 victim who successfully defended herself with a gun, 83 were murdered. I ask again, did the study conclude that those 83 would not have been killed had they just sat by passively and allowed themselves to be victimized? It is a logical follow up question.

Your not reading thoroughly is pretty common with most pro-gun folks. One mention of maybe making it a bit tougher to get a gun and everyone freaks out.

 

As far as a legitimate reason for a waiting period... If one person is deterred from carrying out one of these terrible acts because they have to wait longer to get the gun, it's worth it.

 

What is the difference between getting your gun today versus two weeks from now?

 

That's the same argument I made regarding easily accessible abortions. I was laughed at by the por-abortion side.

 

driving a car is not protected by the constitution. Owning a gun is. No person has a constitutional right to drive a car but every US citizen has a right to bear arms. The government should have a pretty compelling case when denying a constitutional right. That's the difference.

 

 

Figured this one was coming. No one is saying anything about banning. Didn't Justice Scalia once say that the 2nd Amendment comes with checks?

 

I'll ask you specifically. Should a mentally ill person deemed to be dangerous be allowed to purchase a gun?

 

Should a person whose actions have put them on a terrorist watch list be allowed to buy a gun?

OG,

Which mass shooter would have been stopped by tougher immigration? So far we are dealing with our own who are being influenced by outside hate groups or mental instability.