Are personally owned guns a net negative for modern society?

Imagine the different tune that Bloomberg and our anti gun congress critters would sing if they were responsible for their own personal protection.

Some of the most strident pro 2nd Amendment people I know were former anti gun people who have recently been mugged.

 

False, if a person has a clean record they can own a fully automatic firearm.

 

All over the counter firearm sales are background checked.

 

Again false, they are not banned.

 

There are no federal laws exempting retired LEO's from state and local firearm laws.

 

Has a study been done that those that killed their significant other by shooting them, would have still killed them with another object or knife?

If someone is bent on murder, they will grab the nearest 'tool'.

 

"Common sense" gun laws "for the children" do nothing to stop a determined killer.

If anything, they may endanger even more people as determined killers resort to crude but deadly WMDs that kill far more people than just the original target victim.

The following is just one example I've cited frequently:

"Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED

 

This is what some people don't seem to grasp. A gun is a tool. It doesn't act on it's own, regardless of what Baldwin may claim.

There are supposedly 200-350 million legal guns in the US. Yes, it's unfortunate that there are deaths (other than suicide) of roughly 20,000 in 2020. I haven't found the separation between legal and illegal ownership, but at 1% the percentage of deaths is not the horrifying level some promote.

 

Wrong. LEOSA, i.e., Law Enforcement Officer safety act passed in 2004.

Here you can read about it on the CBP web site.
https://www.cbp.gov/about/leosa

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA), exempts a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” carrying a LEOSA photographic identification, such as CBP LEOSA Identification or CBP retired/separated LEO credentials, along with an annual state firearms test certification, from most state and local laws prohibiting the carriage of concealed firearms.

 

A perfect argument for women, as well as men, to carry a gun.

 

Still incorrect, LEO's are not exempt, they still must follow all applicable laws as related to firearms.

Furthermore if they have been convicted of the crime of domestic violence their qualification to possess a firearm or ammo is revoked.

Try to get a full understanding of all the laws not the ones you cherry pick to prove an on-existent point.

 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18 section:926C editionrelim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section926C)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

Go read the actual law. The word notwithstanding of course means despite.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm

 

false

You mean this:

I agree. The government needs to be disarmed.

So you support anarchy-tyranny. Tyranny over the law abiding and anarchy for criminals.

No it isn't. Once you have decided that self-defense is evil, you have decided that any gun which can be used for self defense should be illegal. So, that only leaves the guns which can only marginally be used for self-defense - like single-barrel shotguns, bolt-action rifles which can only hold a single bullet in the chamber, etc.

Wow! You're really for the leftist path of full government control and punishing taxes. I don't see either as a net negative.

 

Oh boy! Quoting a propaganda website funded by Bloomberg. That should convince people . . .

 

Everyone's life would be so much better if those women were stabbed to death instead . . .
https://www.foxnews.com/story/fathe...tions-bushs-support-to-halt-killers-execution
On second thought, maybe you'd rather they do it with her own shoelaces.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/i-sav...m-five-would-be-robbers-shooting-at-least-one
Personally, I'd rather the woman be able to defend herself. But I'm sure you have a different opinion.

 

Regarding whether its a net negative or not... in order to answer that objectively, we'd need a solid figure on how much violent crime is prevented by people being armed. We can easily count how many defensive shootings there are, but its much harder to determine how frequently a criminal decides not to commit a crime because they're worried their victim might shoot them. We do know for a fact that it happens, as DOJ studies show that a majority of incarcerated felons surveyed report having avoided committing a crime in the past due to fear of a possibly armed victim. But we dont know how often it actually happens, and very little serious effort has been put into trying to find out, certainly nowhere near as much as the effort that goes into researching gun crimes that do occur.

What it amounts to is that we dont have the data because the institutions that typically collect data are not interested in this data, which to my mind suggests they probably already know what they'll find and they dont like it.

 

When did public opinion, human experience and reality get usurped by "academic studies"? Its sad.

 

Probably not. But if it turns out that I do, I would rather it was there, then if I was being carjacked with nothing but my johnson in my hand to defend myself with.

 

I Don't have a problem with responsible carrying firearms. It's the crazies I think about. I really don't feel the need for a firearm.

 

Folks in certain neighborhoods probably DO need guns. I don't live in one of those so I don't NEED a gun. But its not about NEED. No one NEEDS to VOTE either. But it is our RIGHT to do so. No one suggests welose our RIGHT to vote because we don't NEED to vote. Its the same with guns. Voting and and gun ownership are RIGHTS.

 

Nonsense

The issue is government has never and will not punish those who use weapons they illegally possess in the first place.

When you decide to get Medieval on illegal handgun usage, the problem will end.

Anyone prosecuted as an adult for illegally possessing a fire arm does minimum mandatory 25-to-Life.

Anyone prosecuted as an adult who uses a weapon in the commission of any crime does mandatory Life.

Any juvenile (and the age varies by State as do automatic and judicial waivers) does minimum mandatory 10 years for possession and minimum mandatory 20 years when committing a crime.

When you make it a nightmare for those who illegally possess/use weapons, then the restivus will be much safer.

 

What's a restivus?

 

Gun Control: A theory that assumes a woman lying dead in an alleyway, strangled with her own underwear, is somehow morally superior to another woman in the same back alley explaining to police how her attacker got that bullet hole in him.

 

Wow. Am I glad I live in Texas where gun ownership is a right and not a burden.

 

I agree in principle. In practice, I think we need to be a little more specific. Jaywalking with a gun, for example, should not be a weapons crime, nor should falsifying a federal document or carrying marijuana with a gun be weapons crimes. I figure you prolly meant committing felonies with firearms or something along those lines but we need to be clear given that ordinary people who believe themselves to be law abiding citizens nonetheless commit 'crimes' they dont even know about on adaily basis. I would see all violent attacks carry long prison sentences, whether a gun is involved or not.