Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

You're assuming that all of those people who support abortion rights would join the pro-life movement to actively protest Roe v Wade being overturned. Did you also assume that all Democrats would get out and vote for Clinton in 2016?

 

Again, you don't actually think that all farming contexts are identical do you?

What part of the Constitution is the right to health care?

Aren't you arguing that even people who do not have mental health issues should require instruction before being allowed to own a gun?

What the hell do you mean "not really being there?" Haven't you ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?

 

NICS data. Also, the results that generated your graph rely on people self reporting during a survey. I for one would never answer such questions honestly. Most gun owners with whom I've discussed this have said the same.

FBI data, which unlike your raw numbers actually takes population changes into account. (And is freely available at fbi.gov). Raw numbers vs. RATES per population (as shown in your chart) are useless.

 

Good thing that a majority can't impose their will on the rest especially when they are trying to remove a person's rights.

 

This why it is important to vote for Trump and the Republicans. They protect us from progressives who are out to violate our civil liberties.

Check the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is in fact really there.

Our rights do not cost a single life.

But even if they did, our freedom would in fact be worth it.

 

You have the right to pleasure yourself with firearms if you behave yourself, but the American people, under democratic self-governance, have the right to protect themselves from the tragic consequences of your permissiveness. Reasonable regulations are inevitable as the public will is enacted by elected representatives.

 

And yet it is an accurate assessment of the situation, based on all available information pertaining to the united states.

 

And if there were a significant absence of firearms that necessitated the use of other implements, the empirical data would confirm that more knives mean more are killed with knives.

The desire to murder will remain present regardless of what weapons are commonly available, as it cannot be made to go away. That desire to murder others does not simply recede on the basis of whether or not firearms are available, as the desire is a basic part of human nature. The desire would simply motivate looking into alternatives in order to be fulfilled.

 

Except there is no actual evidence the number of firearm owners has decreased. The above citation pertains only to the number of individuals who are willing to admit to owning firearms, when they are subjected to a random and invasive questionnaire by total strangers. Further, there is no way of actually verifying the answers that are given, as there is no nationwide registration of firearms in place.

 

Following such logic where the untied states constitution is disregarded as being important, screw the right to life and the right to be safe that is held by those who ultimately become victims of mass murder.

 

I'm thinking there is more to the 'opening a lighter' story than you have related here.

 

Please present your empirical data that establishes that, e.g., if the shooter in Las Vegas in October 2017 had been armed with a dagger rather than his .308-caliber AR-10 rifle, his AK-47-type rifle, four Daniel Defense DDM4 rifles, three FN-15s and other rifles made by Sig Sauer, 59 would have been killed and 527 wounded anyway.

 

If you have any reliable sources to support your opinion, please provide a link to them.

 

The NRA isn’t even in the top 20 donors.

 

Of State legislatures?

They will now, and they would if Roe was overturned. People get upset when you actually take their rights away, they don't take you seriously when you just threaten

 

There may have been, all I ever heard was that the guy heard that distinctive click and thought a gun was being cocked. My point was that this could happen with anyone, anytime and there's really no way to prevent it EXCEPT by not having anyone have any guns there in the first place.

 

BTW, if you want to discuss abortion, please start another thread. I apologise for starting this.

 

I thought you said the shooter was a cop? You want their guns too?

 

I was trying to point out that this kind of thing can happen even when the person is trained, how much more should we fear Joe Gunnie, who fired the gun 10 times at the range when he bought it.

Many police throughout the world don't carry firearms. London "bobbies" were famous for it, although I don't know if that applies any more.

 

Those are not enumerated Constitutional rights, and you are the one making those basic rights subservient to the enumerated 'right' to have a gun.. Thank you for making my point for me.

 

No it's not. We are not Guatemala or Honduras.

 

No such claim was presented on the part of myself. Do not attempt to change the subject to an entirely unrelated matter that has no relevance to what is actually being discussed.

The claim on the part of yourself, that evidence shows more firearms means more individuals are killed with firearms than any other implement. If firearms were no longer widely available, the evidence would show more knives means more individuals are killed with knives that any other implement.

What is not understood on the part of yourself, and countless others, is that the desire to commit murder exists independently of whatever implement is available. It does not go away or otherwise lost its influence simply because firearms are not readily available for use at any given moment. There will always be a commonly utilized implement for the purpose of committing murder, that will be the lead cause above all other implements.

 

Would you care to patrol the streets on Chicago's south side like a Bobbie in London? How about running around Odessa chasing a mad man with an AK?

 

Are all firearms in the united states registered into a centralized database, to confirm as fact the number of legally owned firearms has decreased significantly over time?

If not, if no such database exists, there is no evidence to show whether the number of legally owned firearms has increased or decreased. As no actual evidence exists, the only information available is the accounts of those who are willing to answer whether or not they legally own any firearms.

 

Which is why I argue that there shouldn't be ANY guns