Some NRA tool argued feet are just as dangerous a weapon as guns. The sheer callousness of some people is truly appalling.
Applying the pro gun logic, why stop at guns? How about hand grenades? After all feet can kill people too. How about chemical weapons? How about nuclear? Rocket man can as well launch knives and arrows at us too right?
Twice as many people die in auto accidents as from gun homicides. Should we ban cars? They cause more deaths. Cigarette usage accounts for 20% of all deaths in the US. They are still legal. Diabetes kills over 5x as many people a year as gun homicides. Why arenât we doing more to ban sugar?
If the goal is to make people safer, then why is there so much energy around a cause of death thatâs so far down the list? Also, guns violence is highly concentrated. That should be an indicator that the issue is those specific areas not guns. If the issue was guns, the whole country would have a similar homicide rate. There wouldnât be cities that a 7x the national average. Changing gun laws isnât going to magically make Chicago and Detroit safe.
Why are you so against banning semi automatic rifles??? When does anyone take a semi auto rifle hunting? Never. Frankly, when would a civilian ever have the opportunity to really use a semi automatic rifle in a legal manner? You would only use it if the sky were falling or at a target shooting range perhaps. Thatâs it. A semi automatic handgun would be more than enough to protect oneself in a given instance. Yes, the police has let us down on occasion but it does exist in most places around here to take up the slackâŚ
Until our government decides to execute the LAW and put people in jail. Nothing really matters.
saw a newsletter from police i think in ssf couple months ago, some dude got caught with 2-3 pounds of pot. all the police does it give him a warning and let him go.
and jerry brown is going to release more criminal back on the street, so unless people committed big crimes like killing someone, i donât think police or legal system will do anything about it.
San Jose police kind of gave up on burglary too. I know some friendâs friend trying to report and they tell him to file a report online, donât even bother to come no more.
So, I would agree that in the face of all that someone wanting to use the âI want to protect myselfâ defense has every right to it. But come on, so are you going to set up semi automatic rifles with tripods, fully locked and loaded and pointed at every door, window and skylight in your home? Come on, chances are, someone breaking into your home will surprise you while your sweet lil armory is all locked up away.
To me, this is just another proverbial example of what I have cited in the past about people contemplating going to the gym and then insisting that oh they better not because they donât want to turn into The Rock. Please. Letâs break a sweat first, ok, Awnold???
Itâs time to legalize nuclear weapons. It has never killed anyone in the last 50 years. Super safe. Why ban it while people are dying from cigarette smoking?
While we are at this we should stop fighting ISIS too. More people die from car accidents than terrorism. Itâs not even close.
All these talk are useless until gov implement and execute the law. this is what iâm saying.
I donât care pro or anti gun. to me it does not make no difference because our country in this state will not execute nothing against the law.
if they got time with all these BS, how about first use those time to execute the law, catch some bulgalar, put them in jail, remove all illegal gun. remove drug dealers off street. But None is happening.
whatever law is all talk. no execution.
Where do those illegal guns come from? If you donât turn off the faucet why bother mopping?
from LELAND YEE
Arenât 47 guns in the possession of one man excessive? Yes or no, please.
No. Also, I donât see how a limit would reduce most crime which is 1 person shooting 1 person.
You canât ignore how concentrated crime is and say guns are the problem. The vast, vast majority of the country doesnât have issues with gun violence. Banning guns isnât going to suddenly make those cities safe with low crime rates. I posted the links above that show you get an increase in other crime.
You get ~14,000 gun homicides a year. Meanwhile, 2.5M people a year use a gun in defense. So 0.5% of gun use is for crime, but we should ban them. Of course, most people only compare gun homicides to self-defense kills. The best part of the 2.5M number is it was from a study funded to prove citizens donât need guns.
Oh, and 57% of criminals say they are more afraid of armed victims than the police.
Best home protection is a shotgun or maybe a pistol. assault rifles are awkward at close range. Just pumping a round into a shotgun will scare away most intruders
With the right shell, you have a pretty big damage radius at close range. You donât need to be marksman to hit the target. In a hallway, itâs pretty much impossible to miss. Itâs also enough power to knock over just about anyone even if they are running at you. Letâs face is, most criminals are going to run like mad once they realize you have a gun or hear a gun shot. If they donât run, then they came to kill you.
You are just repeating what I have told several times on this forum, police force is overwhelmed by the amount of incidents people report.
We can talk about the jail industry in another topic but your comment is out of topic.
If you were selling shoes and they told you they found a guy dead, and in his apartment he had 100 pairs, you would say yes, OK to own 1K
Only the nutzis think that owning basically an arsenal is OK.
Come on, time to get out of the rain up thereâŚ
47 guns owned by one individual is, YES, excessive. OMGâŚplease at least concede that pointâŚ
Iâve never seen the forum overwhelmingly supporting anything. Wow! I see most agree this is too much. Time to talk about the criminalization of the assault rifles and so on.
We pay insurance on our car. Why? Pathetic question, right? Maybe because we can cause bodily or material damage to others?
We pay insurance on our homes. Why? Again, why? Because our negligence can cause death or injury to a visitor and covers other problems?
We have insurance on almost anything! But not on a thing that by accident or evil purpose can kill a human being. Letâs make people responsible for owning a gun.
Letâs open a debate, let the gun lovers win, but with the caveat that anybody wanting a gun needs to pay an insurance and make them sign a document where they accept that if they donât report on time the theft of one gun they are guilty of whatever damage that gun or weapon does. The insurance premium goes up as the size or caliber of the weapon increases.
We wonât see too many gun aficionados around.
I can go for that. But honestly, all I want is the banning of owning semi automatic assault rifles that really have no use by civilians in a civilized world. Since Mr Seattle thinks that crime is low and so and so, the disappearance of that small segment of guns shouldnât be an issue then, right? Surely, there are way more hand guns out there than semi auto riflesâŚ
It appears that most folks here are for responsible gun ownership with reasonable regulations to keep innocent people safe. I donât have enough time to research or address every point thatâs being brought up by Marcus335 who has some rather extreme views.
However, I have to speak up and point out that many arguments that appear convincing are logically flawed or based on misleading publications. It would be irresponsible of me as a member of society to let these declarations stand in case these posts are shaping the beliefs of people who are open to considering different viewpoints and could affect how they vote or talk about gun laws with others.
So, Iâll make two additional points.
First, it seems the strong resistance to not even conceding that assault rifles should be strictly controlled stems from a logically flawed slippery slope argument.
Slippery Slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know weâll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
Second, flawed or misleading research continues to be cited as support.
Example: the belief.net article quoted above about the Harvard study has been discredited.
âIn short, the purported 2007 Harvard âstudyâ with âastonishingâ findings was in fact a polemic paper penned by two well-known gun rights activists. Its findings were neither peer-reviewed nor subject to academic scrutiny of any sort prior to its appearance, and the publication that carried it was a self-identified ideology-based editorial outlet edited by Harvard students. The paper disingenuously misrepresented extant research to draw its conclusions, and researchers at Harvard (among which Kates and Mauser were not included) later objected to the paperâs being framed as a âstudyâ from Harvard (rather than a law review paper). The paper wasnât âvirtually unpublicized researchâ (as BeliefNet claimed); rather, it was simply not deemed noteworthy at the time it was published due to the fact it was neither a study nor much more than a jointly-written editorial piece representing its authorsâ unsupported opinions.â
To have a healthy democracy, it is important that we base our beliefs on what is true and not on what is misleading. Please stay vigilant so that youâre not swayed by things that appear legitimate but instead is false.