Is this a legitimate feeling though? Like, are there any studies that say people are safer by owning a gun versus not? Genuinely curious.
I think for me I need to understand more the appeal of guns in this country. I’ve never even held a gun, let alone had the desire to have one so I’m always interested in these debates because I have virtually no perspective. Eastern Massachusetts isn’t really awash in the hunting aspect of gun ownership. I honestly don’t even know if I know anyone who owns a gun.
Not a big area for me either, but I suspect studies would probably show that people who own guns are less safe, but I don’t know how they can control for the likelihood that people who live in unsafe areas are more likely to own guns. I don’t own a gun because I don’t feel any need to have one. If I lived in a dangerous area and moving wasn’t an option, I would probably own a gun. Would that mean I’m less safe because I own a gun or that I own a gun because I’m less safe? Although not a huge portion of the population, there are a lot of people who live 30+ minutes away from any type of law enforcement. I suspect the majority of those people own guns because they know that in the unlikely event of a home invasion or armed robbery, they’re pretty much on their own. Even taking crime out of the equation, and probably a more likely scenario, those people might live among potentially dangerous wildlife and need guns to protect themselves, pets and livestock.
Again, I have no problem with beefing up background checks, extending waiting periods, requiring gun safety classes, etc., but I don’t think it’s okay to take "reasonable’ guns away from people who own them legally and use them responsibly. I respect your right to think otherwise.
Some good data at the links below. I’d say based on this that the most likely fatal victim of a gun is the gun owner. The majority of gun deaths are suicides. People are rational and reasonable right up until they’re not.
No. Every study I’ve seen indicates that people who own guns are more likely to be injured by guns. However, I’m not sure how they control for factors like accidental shootings and gun owners in high-risk areas.
But then yes, because you have individual stories like this:
You probably do. Most gun owners are not NRA nutjobs walking around with a .44 Magnum on their hip and “2nd Amendment” and “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper stickers.
Where I was raised, we were not on the top of the food chain. Guns were for protection of both ourselves and livestock. Hunting was a minor consideration; my dad and I went deer and dove hunting a few times, but fishing was more my speed.
Then I grew up, and guns became a necessity for protection against the true apex predators: people with evil intentions. For a long time, I only had my duty weapon. Then one day I noticed that I was being followed home from work. It was kinda fun at the time, because I was single and childless and looked forward to proving myself. I took a lot of risks that I’m just not willing to take anymore.
2nd ammendment is clear? It’s been debated for 75 years. The founders likely left it intentionally vague both so it would pass and so future generations could adopt in the most appropriate ay given the environment at the time.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
They could have easily have said “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” Instead they talk about a Militia and necessity for security. Entire books have been written on the what this means from both sides.
The meaning of the word terrorist is quite clear: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The article even acknowledges that the last few words are a key distinction. However, chooses to ignore meaning and wants to apply the term anyway to put crazy whites on an equal level. I certainly agree with very strict gun laws, but this just seems illogical and won’t solve anything. Terrorists have some semblance of a recognizable pattern. This guy and many other, dare I say it, “lone wolfs” (of any color) often do not. This line of thinking does not help the discussion and just polarizes everyone further.
Anyway, I digress. This guy should not have been able to get hold of guns like this. Awful.
It’s really infuriating how politicized these events become. Instead of focusing on the fact that citizens shouldn’t have access to weapons designed to mow down enemy soldiers by the dozen, we have the left trying to label the shooter as a terrorist and the right trying to refocus the conversation on mental health instead of common sense gun control.
There has been some helpful discussion here in my opinion. Kind of hard to “solve” something in two days that has been at a stalemate for decades. Is this the same issue you had with the protests, you don’t like seeing it? If you’re so uncomfortable with discussing certain things you have the ability to edit/ban us or simply not click on a topic.
Slow your roll homie. That was more of a call back to multiple threads we’ve had over the years on gun control that last for a dozen pages and really don’t accomplish anything other than causing BS to lose what little hair he had left. I’m following along and (perhaps because we are lacking some of the more extreme views we’ve had in the past) this has been a remarkably civil discussion.
This is really where I just wonder what planet I’m living on. The GOP spent all summer trying to ram through a variety of healh bills that woudl effectively remove mental health care for millions. They tell us that all lives matter in response to racial inequality protests. All lives are precious in the abortion debate. But when it comes to gun violence? Lives become statistics that paint the picture that mass shootings are just a drop in the bucket. Statistically insignificant really.
Higgs, I know, dems are no better. Not trying to make the case that they are. I’m not even a democrat. Thanks in advance.
Black Swan made strong points and defended them vigorously but It seemed like any debate he participated in inevitably devolved into name calling and ad hominem attacks.