Er....those are accidents? No-one walks into an elementary school and "accidentally" murders several children with an automatic military issue assault rifle. No one "accidently" mass shoots several people.

No, recently we've seen multiple instances of individuals using cars and trucks as their murder weapon of choice so private ownership of motor vehicles has to end. Only police, fire, ambulance and military will be allowed motor vehicles. And swimming pool deaths may be accidents but innocent children are still dead so pools must go anyway. And nobody in the U.S. murders anyone with an automatic military issue assault rifle although I guess it's always possible a member of the military could do so one day. Highly unlikely though.

True regarding the vehicles, but those incidents have been very rare isolated "terror" related, the majority of the 300+ daily shootings in the US are not. If 300+ innocent people were purposely run over every day across US cities, do you think the government would just shrug it off as every day occurrences as they do with deadly weapons, or intervene?

Ah, so it isn't saving lives that matters, it's eliminating guns. We don't really care about the people, just the end result. Got it. Otherwise we'd care about the 3,000 people killed every month in motor vehicle wrecks and ban the cars from public ownership. And the 11 people who die from drowning every single day so we'd ban all swimming pools and boat ownership. But it's really not about saving lives at all, just taking away guns.

I'm all for taking away guns, FROM THOSE WHO ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN THEM. I also like the idea of no question buy backs and destruction, unless the bought back gun is destroyed and loses its evidentiary value in prosecuting a crime, which makes the no hassle buyback a problem.

In my personal experience, one of my customers at my shop told me he had contemplated robbing my business but did not do so since he had always been treated fairly. I told him it was much nicer to have him as a customer, versus having to shoot him with my legal (carry permit) weapon.

In fact my life has been pretty much a crime free zone, even after 66 years. Never witnessed a crime (not counting stupid drivers), never watched a person die. Was it due to having a weapon and being able to defend myself? Who knows, to me it's just another type of insurance and I have been a range officer at a range where machine guns were allowed. The statement about military assault weapons is false. The requirements for ownership of a machine gun in the US are seriously strict, which leaves law enforcement with advantages in a confrontation with a citizen.
Do some research.

I think the mods should shut these types of threads down the instant they go off topic. It's stupid to argue with conflicting agendas, with those who aren't experienced enough to know how to handle themselves. Guy picks up $14k on the side of the road and makes sure it gets to the rightful owner.

Now that's the kind of people I want to live around. It's doesn't belong to me, so lets see if we can find the poor person who lost it.

Once in the last 50 years, I misplaced my wallet at a garage sale. After several hours of panic, my doorbell rings and the mother whose yard sale I had visited hands me my wallet with over $500 as well as every other thing still in the wallet, with her baby in her arms.

I actually cried, thanked her sincerely and handed her $50. People like that need to be recognized and rewarded for such acts. Truly a shame we are all not that considerate of others rights and property. She drove 50 miles to get to my house and back.

The guy who picked up the $14k said, sure we could have kept it and paid off a car or something else, but the one who lost it might need it to feed his kids or stop a foreclosure. God bless him and I hope his life is rewarding and prosperous.

I think if people saw the devastating effects of firearms first hand, or had been effected directly, shot, or family member shot, they would change their views. We all saw how angry and upset Trump got when he viewed the images of the Muslim Syrian children choking to death, he even launched a few missiles he was so angry. Now imagine his reaction if photos were faxed to his office, 7 EVERY DAY on average, of American children with bullet holes in their heads/chests. I for one would be outraged, it would prompt me into action.

Anyway, this argument goes around in circles, we've all made our points and it's obvious no-one is going to change their view even with the facts in their faces. Shall we move on?

The President can't ignore the Constitution's second amendment. I think the only one that has been rescinded is the Volstead ACT. Thinking about Prohibition, why not make alcohol illegal? Maybe you Brits should try that. Latest Supreme Court case, the chief justice said "what part of the second amendment don't you understand".

Take away every gun and assuming every gun related death would disappear is simplistic in the extreme. Pissed off People who are not rational will find another way to kill. I have a Russian bayonet with a piece of a gun barrel in my garage I used to get rid of weeds. Just another tool, or a weapon of mass destruction with a proven track record of German corpses.

Now unleash the criminals and leave them armed, while disarming the responsible citizens. Makes about as much sense to me as life prison terms. I'd rather subsidize health care for those less fortunate than provide meals, housing, AC, free medical care and even education for free to those who crap on honest citizens.

3 strikes your out would work for me. Don't like it, YOU take them. Kind of like Castro did with the Mariel boat lift, dumping his inmates on the US. If you value life so much maybe you can take a half million inmates or so?

Come to think of it the French offered their prison inmates the option of freedom, if they would go to North America or remain in prison in France.

Guess which choice they took?

I've been there. My mother was robbed at gunpoint and two shots were fired, neither hitting her or anyone else. That was before legally being allowed to be properly prepared and equipped to defend oneself. I also know Suzanna Gratia Hupp. If you want to know the truth look at Kennesaw, GA. and Morton Grove, IL.. There you'll find the true numbers and results. Your arguments are all based on numbers that will change very very little if the strictest of controls are put in place because they're all based on gangs and criminals. That won't change. You're wrong but you have the right to be wrong. The good guys with guns insure that.

Must just be a massive coincidence then proven by several countries Worldwide. Here, School shootings dropped by er...100%, gun crime dropped to almost zero, and violent crime, not related to firearms, dropped by 73% since the gun ban too. It just shows, people are significantly less challenging, provocative and aggressive knowing there are no firearms to deal with by either party.

Anyway, enough factual evidence, no one seems to care much about that anyway ;)

Kennesaw and Morton Grove. Complete evidence with numbers fully supporting the actual facts. But nobody cares about that.

How Switzerland Developed a Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

Maybe the Swiss like the idea of individual responsibility more than becoming the whipping boys of European dictatorships.

I guess its hard for you guys to compare, as you've only lived in the US where guns laws haven't changed. For me, living in a country that had issues with firearms, and seeing them banned, its much more safer and peaceful.

If guns truly were the problem Switzerland would be an absolute disaster. It isn't the guns, it's society. You think taking all the guns away from the USA is going to work magic. It isn't. It's the same society. The same criminals will continue unchanged using knives, clubs and who knows what. Until the "progressives" are silenced and not allowed to make victims out of criminals and criminals out of victims nothing will change other than the methods and weapons used. Go visit Switzerland sometime. You'll see what's possible when inanimate objects aren't used as scapegoats for society's failings.

Actually, it is more the opposite of individual responsibility. For the Swiss it is more a responsibility to the group and security of their country. Keeping firearms in the home wasn't about protecting oneself and family, nor providing food. This is a country where every able bodied male is drafted into the army, and those trained soldiers may have to engage an invader before they even reach their assigned post.

"One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.
...
“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME."

The cultures of our country is just too different, but if Switzerland is going to be held up as an example of gun ownership done right, would the gun lobby support how they do things?

Their draft involves mental health screening as part of determintation for fitness. Those that don't pass likely are excluded from gun ownership as a history of mental illness. Would the gun lobby be okay for such screening for everyone that applies for a firearms permit? Would they be okay with no concealed carry, and a limit of 3 guns only for each permitted individual?

Ok, so if you identify that "the people" or "society" is the problem, do you not think the if, as you say, the American people are evidently more likely to commit a crime or a murder with a firearm, that such weapons should still be as easily available as they are currently?

When we identify a country that has nuclear, chemical or weapons of mass destruction that we feel they are "more likely" to use, we intervene don't we? Gun crime stats are off the scale and beyond compared with other developed countries, even those with lots of guns like Switzerland. Other countries don't have the issues so intervention isn't required on such a drastic scale.

Yes, because I and the many many millions of good citizens shouldn't be punished for the actions of the thousands of bad ones. And the Swiss culture could be taught here and brought back. We had it and liberals erased it. Eliminate the problem. Don't punish those not guilty.

Or are you ready to give up your vehicle in the name of overall safety? You may never drive drunk or high but some people do. So are you willing to give up your vehicle for a total ban so the X% who do will be stopped even though it means YY% completely innocent also lose their vehicles? Substitute swimming pools or anything else you want that causes harm and death to society. And we all know the answer is No you won't give up your whatever it is. That's only a viable option when it infringes on someone else, not you. That's common human nature.

But you're comparing proven useful appliances which have completey different primary uses, with a firearm, which is, when used for its primary function is to seriously injured and/or kill. Not a fair comparison.

There are lots of things that have been banned, which can be used safely and recreationaly but have still been banned for the saftey of the users and others around them. I know a lot of people that use illegal drugs for example and enjoy doing so, but they have been banned because of "safety" concerns. Mobile phones whilst driving is another example. Smoking in confined public spaces, the list goes on and on. All these examples are probably responsible for less deaths/injuries than firearms.

There's a road paved with good intentions. The "proven useful appliances" still kill regardless of good intentions. So we're back to are you ready and willing to give up your motor vehicles and swimming pools in the name of public safety? Of course we must include stock tanks on farms/ranches as well and I'm sure other reservoirs one could swim in. Only military and police can be trusted with vehicles after all, not good honest citizens. So, you'll be handing in all your keys and vehicles soon? Or maybe you'd prefer yourself and the other good honest citizens get to keep their vehicles and those who abuse the privilege are dealt with instead?

Vehicles and swimming pools aren't the cause, or tools for a cause of a mass epidemic the same as firearms are, so no. As mentioned, murders or mass murders using cars, farm storage tanks or swimming pools are pretty rare, often accidents. Whilst accidents with firearms are fairly common (2200 out of 58,499 total incidents in 2016) most incidents are intentional. Out of the 58,499 incidents, less than 2000 were used as intended for self defence last year.

Draigflag: Until you can view a swimming pool, an automobile, and a handgun as being basically the same/similar, you won't be able to understand the thinking of people who do. No amount of explaining or clarification on your part, or the other's, will narrow that thought system chasm.

Nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide over 3% concentration are out of the public's reach for safety concerns, when in the context of the Second Amendment they shouldn't be.

Got it. We don't give a flip about saving lives, only about taking away guns. And do you mean the pool/automobile/firearm that are all inanimate objects until used or misused by humans and therefore yeah, similar, or some other pool/automobile/firearm?

I've made my point. If you think living in a society where some schools need armed guards and metal detectors to protect children, some of which have a higher chance of being murdered at school than the US troops in the Middle East, is normal, then all we can do is hope and prey (if you're religious)

My prediction is this year, gun registrations will rise, homicides and injuries will beat last years records, as will mass shootings, and the chances of being shot by a fellow citizen will increase even more. But still, all these murders of innocent people and children are obviously worth it to protect yourselves right? :D

Ooh, guns!

Criminals who want a gun won't give a flip about laws, leaving those of us who do less able.

But 2A isn't really about defense vs burglars.

Not according to past Supreme Court rulings.

What I still haven't seen is an explanation of how the honest citizens giving up their guns is going to help when the criminals, because, you know, they're criminals so they don't obey the laws, keep their guns is going to make anything better or safer. If that worked then Kennesaw vs. Morton Grove would be vastly different. The statistics prove otherwise though. ETA: Just found an illustration.

The vast majority of guns in criminals hands entered society legally. During the initial buy back, have a grace period of immunity to get some of those guns out of circulation. Also increase the penalties on having a gun while committing a crime to make using one less appealing.

With no more legal guns entering circulation, the number of illegal ones will drop. The few being smuggled in won't increase because their prices will go up.

Fully automatic weapons and suppressors already have stiff regulations on them, and the criminals aren't all kitted out with them.

Increase the penalty on the criminal, the one thing that makes any sense. It should be an automatic and absolute capital offense to be in possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony. Not a firearm, a weapon. In possession, exactly as that implies.

You mean the fact that the owner of the property can shoot a criminal to death, or 15 years behind bars for armed robbery or being electrocuted to death/drugged to death by the State isn't a deterrent? Somethings not adding up here...

Sorry, I said I was finished on this matter. I just wonder what particular set of circumstances a gun would be useful, what if the perpetrator shoots you first? What if his side kick shoots you after? What if they get in without waking you and shoot you in your sleep? What if you don't have time to wake, turn the light on, adjust your eyes to the light, go find your gun, load your gun before they shoot you? What if the criminal is stronger than you, overpowered you and used your gun on you and your family? What if you're away when this happens? What if someone shoots your kids or do they carry guns too? What if you've had a drink? Are people under the influence allowed to use guns too? At bars/clubs? Way too many what ifs for me, the chances of a gun being a useful tool must be a billion to one no?

Very many, too numerous to count. Get access to the publication The American Rifleman. There are a dozen or so in every issue as examples. And I guess in your world it's better to dial 911 and wait however long you have to wait than to have the possibility of immediately saving yourself. I might as well throw away my fire extinguishers too and just dial 911 and wait rather than trying to put out the fire myself.

I haven't really informed myself on SCOTUS rulings on the 2A, but that's kinda spurious if that's true. Self defense is a valid reason to choose to own a weapon but not as a basis for why it's your right to choose to do so. It was clearly written with Britain in mind, not having given up several forts as promised on our borderlands after the Revolutionary War, but also with an eye to the idea that an armed populace should cause the government to think twice about abuse of citizens. Heck, even the normally mild-mannered Ben Franklin said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, but liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. Though there's speculation on how literally he meant this, Thomas Jefferson stated that the tree of liberty must, from time to time, be replenished with the blood of patriots and tyrants. All of this fit into the general scheme of neat little checks and balances they provided.

The general idea that the 2A is somehow more for protection of your person or property, then, is a bit curious.

Ben Franklin, among his many civic pursuits in Philadelphia in the mid-1700s, was able to start a police brigade. The British were content to provide colonists with firearms, figuring it cheaper for colonists to defend themselves than to commit the British army, and supply chains via the British navy to do it. Obviously Mr. Franklin chose this over simply saying that "you're armed or can be armed, so we'll leave the protection to you".

That's the long way of saying I'm pro-2A, but not because of the same conventional wisdom as the NRA, etc. and if it's gotten all the way to SCOTUS, I'm really scratching my head.

"...the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


The Court is saying that self defense is in addition to the needs of a militia. The dissenting opinion pointed out that Pennsylvania's and Vermont's Declarations of Rights do specifically protect use of fire arms for hunting and self-defense.

I don't see the need for a gun as self protection, and the stats show it is more likely to cause harm than help. It is no longer the Wild West, and the people might have had less guns than they do now.

I like the idea of an armed populace as protection from tyranny, but the big money behind pro-gun fighting any tight of restrictions when the public supports them is more about greed than freedom.