well if people are told they are going to jail unless they turn their guns in they ought to fight back. That clearly would be a move that signals we no longer have a valid government
Not from who, for you. It's like John Sedgwick in the War of Northern Aggression when under sniper fire said, "They couldn't hit an elephant as this dis........... " Likely done with Whitworth rifle, claimed distance of 800 to 1000 yards. Most likely at 550.
I can attest to the knowledge that even though a firearm can be used in suicide successfully, I have arrived at fewer suicides by firearms in an Official capacity. Hanging was the most common method used, jumping in front of a subway train was another method, I saved one such attempt, poisons, and buses, trucks, and defenestration, to commit suicide by jumping off high places is another common form of suicide. I know this from observation, not from a stupid online source of information, when I was in NYC, not so many Guns, yet people still committed suicide, sadly one victim was a Cousin, funny how someone from Australia will pretend to know Anything about suicide or Firearms in America...
Then there's the fact that the NICS system is pretty much running at full capacity, and can barely keep up demand now. Throw every person-to-person transaction in the country onto the system and it will break.
Considering that fatalities attributed to motor vehicles exceed the number of firearm-related homicides, it is safe to conclude that training, testing, and registration does not in any way reduce accidents. It has never been argued that it does. Because the training, testing, and registration is for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on property owned and operated by the states.
Actually, that is why Multnomah County in Oregon started issuing concealed carry licenses again, since people started getting them in other Counties, they found out how much money they were losing every year. And yes, Oregon requires mandatory training available at the Clack-A-Moose Public Safety Training Center.
You are free to cite whatever statistical analysis brings you comfort. But nothing you cite changes or addresses the fact that someone who is suicidal has no incentive to abide by unenforceable storage mandates. What is their underlying motivation to abide by the law, when their only desire is to end their lives? Just as you have some hope of surviving being shot. Motor vehicles are far more deadly than firearms. The terror attack in the city of Nice in the nation of France proves such. Being struck by a motor vehicle by a suicidal driver proves far more risk than simply being shot.
Thus meaning the mandates would have no underlying basis in public safety, or crime reduction, but would rather be motivated by generating revenue. There is little reason to believe that such would not quickly be ruled unconstitutional.
In whose opinion ? People enter life, and have a Right to dignity in life, and have a Right to exit life too. Liberals want to take away that Right to Choose.
Yes. Telling People, sure, you can carry a concealed weapon, as long as you pay for a License. And you can defend yourself, as long as you have purchased a License. It is OK, as long as you pay money.
It was never argued otherwise. However operation of a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege afforded to you by government, while firearms ownership is not.
Oh I forgot, sure as long as you participate in mandatory training so Yargo the Vegan Parrot can feel all warm and fuzzy about it.
First place I like to point out that Mexico has a worse gun problem and they don't allow people to own guns so they aren't on the top list of gun ownership. Secondly most of the gun deaths comes from anti gun democratic large cities like Chicago. A third to answer the thread my solution is harsher punishments for crimes committed with guns up to and including the death penalty. Also more law abiding citizens should carry and this includes disbanding gun free zones which are free kill zones. Have the government to do more in encouraging lawful gun ownership.
No it didn't. For one the crime rate sky rocketed after the ban, for another Australia had 11 massacres since the ban, and third Australia's gun ownership is almost back to its original rate.
Don't forget, while Gun Ownership is virtually banned in Mexico, every Drug Cartel murdering Criminal have access to Military weapons and Rocket propelled Grenades and even modern Military Helicopters.
Wrong, wrong and almost right We have had only one mass shooting (family murder suicide) since 1996 - not bad really and the 11 "massacres" include two deliberately set fires and a bush fire - none of which have any evidence that murder was the original intent - in fact in one case the fire was lit so that the arsonist could act the hero and rescue everyone. The Wiki entry that this is based on is biased also including one example of a serial killer (Snowtown) post 1996 whilst at the same time leaving out serial killers prior to 1996 - in particular Ivan Milat who used a shotgun. It also includes numerous examples that do not fit the FBI definition of a mass shooting/massacre
Yes/no Yes I do think it worked well here but no I do not think it will work in America - sorry!!! Two things though DID seem to have a bigger impact than the simple banning and restriction of certain guns 1) Really strict background checks and waiting times 2) Firearm safes The background checks eliminated a lot of people from owning firearms - people with a history of violence or domestic violence, mentally ill etc I believe these two initiatives, which would leave firearms in the hands of the majority of Americans, would work there without "banning guns"
