Dude, the vast majority of gun death in the U.S. are gang related shootings. You have this foolish misconception that everyone who owns a gun busts it out whenever they get angry and starts blasting. Not an uncommon thing from a gun-control advocate to think that all guns owners are ready for a wild-west duel when they're mad. 99.9% of gun owners are responsible, but these gang bangers that prop up these gun-deaths aren't gonna go away when you make guns illegal. You really think those guys are just gonna turn in their pistols because the law says so? Maybe you have extreme anger issues and can't control yourself, so yes I definitely don't advise someone like you to own a gun, but most of us aren't like this. BTW do you live in Texas? It seems someone with such naive misconceptions about gun owners could only live somewhere like California or the northeast where they've never shot a gun/been around them in their life.
The vast majority of those homicides are gang shootings. You REALLY think that these criminals, who by very definition DONT follow the law, will hand over all their pistols because the govt says so? All you are doing is disarming the responsible gun owners who have them for protection (who are 99% of gun owners) and keeping the criminals armed. Why people can't understand such a simple concept is baffling to me.
"According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns" Some stats here that should end this debate. Sorry guys, but pull your head out of your ass on this one.
I'm still scratching my head on how non-lethals can be as effective as lethals, when the point of a gun is to kill things. By definition, non-lethals can never be as effective. I'm opposed to gun rights. I wish it was never in the constitution. I don't want anyone owning any. I know that's not going to happen, but that's fine because neither am I actively agitating for policy change. I just don't like it. Even so, I don't see how 'effective' non-lethals change the formula any. The interpretation of the Constitution wouldn't change as a result. The supposed deterrent of tyranny could not be preserved (insofar as it was ever effective) with non-lethals.
It would be a better discussion...if gun control advocates had the foggiest idea about what actually is dangerous, something they have proven over and over again that they don't. See: NY Safe Act.
If a group of men storm your home with the intent of robbing you and raping your wife, I doubt you'd be squeamish about pulling the trigger.
Okay, how many gang shootings occurred without a gun? There's also a severe disconnect in believing that more guns stop gang shootings.
It's a great example of how gun grabbers think and why their schemes consistently fail. The problem for them is gun owners are smarter about guns than non gun owners. When they "re-frame" arguments by using weasel words like loophole and "universal" background checks, gun owners can see right through it. Gun owners have actually purchased guns and know first hand about the laws.
No one is saying more guns stops gang shooting, you completely missing the point. The point is, those gangs will have those guns whether they are legal or illegal. They are criminals, they don't follow the law. All you would do by banning guns is arm the bad guys, and un-arm the 99.9% of law abiding citizens. You really think that is a good idea?
No I didn't miss the point. The NRA constantly lobbies and argues that more good guys with guns stops bad guys with guns. It doesn't. You having a gun isn't going to stop a gang shooting. No gang shootings occur without guns. It's not more guns that stops shootings, it's limited access to guns that stops shootings. Nobody is advocating disarming people, this is a complete red herring. They're advocating making it more difficult for people to get guns. And I would advocate tougher penalties for crimes with guns as well as required training for people before they're allowed to buy guns and in that training, the importance of securing your gun so it can't be stolen. Gangs probably don't show up at Academy to buy guns but they're getting them from somewhere. That is the problem. They're stealing them or people are selling to them because checks aren't required on gun sales person to person. If you're selling guns to gang members you should go to prison and there has to be a way to verify where that gun came from. This is straight forward stuff. You're not trying to solve the problem of gun violence, let's be honest. You're simply trying to maintain unfettered access to any and all guns for everyone.
Dude. There's no need to project your own vision of the extremist libruhl gun-grabbers onto every poster who bothers to respond to you. There are people taking the time to make some nuanced arguments in this thread, you don't need to toss red herrings and slaughter straw men every time you hit the keyboard. Just to re-cap: My answer: Yes. I took the time to type something a lot longer than that though, in order to back up my argument, and in response you shoot down arguments I never made. The entire premise of my post can be summarized by your quoted question above, and my quoted response. The entire first paragraph of your ensuing response... wtf does that have to do with anything I said? I correct your mistaken assertion that all people with intent to kill will do so regardless of access to a gun, and you get so defensive you have to put words in my mouth? You come across as very emotional and sensitive. Relax. The fact that murders as crimes of passion occur less often than by organized crime doesn't make my point less true. Could you try to discuss one point at a time, and not make a bunch of personal comments?
