NRA member? Yes. Republican? No. I'm an independent with strong Libertarian beliefs.
Exactly where are you getting your 35% estimate? There is no gun registry, so the exact number of gun owners is impossible to calculate. Even more so since the number of gun owners have sky rocketed in recent years (based on the rise in the number of background checks done through NICS)
According to the FBI US Government, and the Centers for Disease Control, the weapon used the most in violent crimes is not a gun. It's a baseball bat.
Firearm Homicides - 11,463
NON Firearm Homicides - 16,799
Unintentional Falls - 24,792
Drug Abuse - 25,500
Unintentional Poisoning - 31,758
Motor Vehicle Accident - 34,485
Alcohol Abuse - 107,400
Unintentional Injuries - 118,021
Medical Errors - 195,000
Tobacco - 529,000
You are MUCH more likely to be killed by your own doctor, than you are by a gun.
Now then, as for Australia. Are you aware that Australia's violent crime rate is much greater than that of the USA's? Are you aware that there was a distinctive spike in crime after the gun bans were passed? Are you aware that the police are currently having trouble with criminals getting machine guns?
Criminals don't follow laws. Only law abiding citizens do.
Did you know that people who go through the process of getting a CCL (Concealed Carry License) are usually some of the most responsible citizens? The overwhelming majority (around 99%) will never commit a violent crime.
Pulling a gun on someone for not giving me what I want? That's call armed robbery, and is one of the reasons I carry a gun. See, we Americans have the right to defend ourselves. If we are put into a situation like that where are lives are in danger, we have the right to neutralize that threat. Most of the time, the presence of the gun is enough to defuse the situation. A CCL holder will rarely have to fire a shot.
Are you aware that in America, that guns are used 80x more to protect a life than to take one?
Here's a few more facts for you.
Women use guns 200,000 times a year to prevent sexual assault.
60% of Felons say they would not mess with an armed citizen.
An analysis of FBI statistics have shown that laws allowing concealed carry have reduced the number of murders by 8.5%, the number of rapes by 5%, the number of aggravated assaults by 7% and the number of robberies by 3%.
Gun free zones create an easy target for mass shooters. The vast majority of mass shootings (almost all) have taken place in a gun free zone where it is illegal for a law abiding citizen to arm themselves for their protection. Funny how mass shooters never target gun rich environments like gun shows, NRA conventions, and gun ranges.
Police vs Citizens
There are 794,300 police officers in America, and untold millions of gun owners.
The police have an 11.3% error rate. Citizens have a 2% error rate.
The average number of deaths caused by a shooting rampage when stopped by police is 14.3. The average number of deaths caused by a shooting rampage when stopped by a citizen is 2.3.
Police kill 606 violent criminals each year. Citizens kill 1,527 violent criminals each year.
I could go on, but I think you get the point of my argument.
Overgrown spoiled brats? Idiots? Ahh, person insults. That's REALLY making your argument strong :insert sarcasm:
Why don't you try being respectful instead?
8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.
For this one, you just can't ignore the fact that ONLY countries worse in firearm related deaths are those with strong drug cartels. Even countries as former Yugoslavia, who had civil war and have extremely high number of personal firearms have lower death rate than USA. If that is not troubling, I don't know what is.
Good news is, you are getting better in driving. Bad news is, you still don't know how to handle a gun.
This one speaks for itself.
And here's the last fact to consider - we're only talking about DEATHS here. How many more were wounded, sometimes quite seriously but survived? I believe that would significantly increase number of people who suffered due to lax gun laws.
Live long and prosper.
So what makes you think that owning more than one gun means your crazy? Millions of people on more than one gun. They use them for sport, hunting, and fun. I own plenty (including the type you want banned). I don't want to hurt anyone.
They also use them for self defense. I know plenty of people who have multiple guns for concealed carry. They'll chose larger ones in the winters when their choice of clothing makes them easier to conceal, and they'll choose smaller ones in the summer.
"Assault Weapons" are NOT an issue. The media presents them in a false light. The are rarely used in crimes, used a lot for self defense, and used mostly for sporting purposes.
Most police officers agree with me.
That figure you called BS? That came from the FBI.
(BTW, look at the numbers. California which has extremely strict gun laws and an "assault weapons" ban has more murders, and more murders caused by rifles (including ALL types of rifle) than Texas which has no "assault weapons" ban or strict antigun laws.)
California - 1,790 murders. 45 caused by rifles.
Texas - 1,089 murders. 37 caused by rifles.
More guns equal more homicide? The facts prove that to be pure BS.
Gun ownership has skyrocketed since the 1990s. Gun are being produced faster than ever before. Using your logic, this means that violent crime and murder has also skyrocketed. Let's look at the numbers.
1993 - Violent crime rate was 747.1 per 100,000 and the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 9.5 per 100,000.
2000 - Violent crime rate was 506.5 per 100,000 and the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 5.5 per 100,000.
2011 - Violent crime rate was 386.3 per 100,000 and the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 4.7 per 100,000.
Wikipedia? Not what I'd call reliable. Most of those countries you talk about have strict gun control too. As for the cartels, I wonder why they are able to kill so many people. Maybe because the citizens can't arm themselves and defend themselves?
Smartgunlaws.org? Extremely biased source (notice I'm using the FBI, other federal agencies, and police sites for my sources. They aren't biased.). I will like to point out that while guns are used in a lot of suicides, they do not cause them. Look at Japan as an example. They have extremely strict gun laws and a higher suicide rate than the USA. If people want to kill themselves, they will find a way.
Bloomberg? Take out the stats for suicide (see above) and that number changes drastically.
A semi-auto pistol can't mow down an oncoming mob. The limit is where your money ends. Why is it legal for companies to have automatic weapons but not individuals? The laws for gun control says one thing: the people can not govern themselves and must be governed by a strong, central government.
Explain how I am a sheep. Is it because I think that if a big company can have automatics it should be legal for individuals? Or because I believe that putting a limit on what you can use to defend yourself is wrong? Or is it because I disagree with your viewpoint? I do not like the idea of a strong, central government. Is that what makes me a sheep?
I support the division of the population of America into small, manageable units that govern themselves. Each one would contribute to our national defense should the need arise (invasion, the government trying to seize power (We've never seen that happen. Especially in Germany.) riots, etc) just as it was done in when my country was founded. The military is divided in that form. Anyone who owns a weapon for any purpose than personal defense would be ingrained into the military system, so if he has the money to do so, he can buy a tank and it could be used to help quell a riot in, say, Montana. The neighborhoods would have their own militia, funded by the neighborhood as they see fit, for the purpose of defending the neighborhood. Weapons would be bought by families to defend the families. Each city would have its own military leaders and funding. They would be part of counties with the same thing. This would continue up to the national level where the leader of these militias would be the commander in chief. The president SHOULD BE our commander in chief.
You honestly think the police should be trusted above citizens? Either you don't live in a police state or you support their brutality.
Average humans don't need a baseball bat, the most used weapon in assault or a car, which leads to far more deaths than guns.
So I am a sheep because I don't agree with your viewpoint. I am a sheep for believing that the majority of people are responsible for their own actions and that those who use their free agency wrong should be forced to pay the consequences by losing what they have taken or paying back the one that they harmed. (murder? lose life. Steal? pay back double what you would have taken. Rape? Well, that just isn't something that should be discussed in an open chat like this.)
And where do mass shootings happen? Gun free zones. Oh, so gun free zones lead to mass shootings? Let's make it harder for the law abiding citizens to get them. Yeah, "Real fuckin' genius." By the way, using said language makes you look less intelligent. By insulting me, you lost respect. By cussing at me, you have lost any credibility I previously had credited you.
Mass shootings are on the decline, not rise. Police often turn a single murder into a mass shooting.
You are stupid. You are honestly the dumbest person I have ever met. The country WOULD BE UNITED, YOU IDIOT! DOMESTIC DEFENSE IS HANDLED LOCALLY! ARE YOU TRULY DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT I WANT TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY INTO SMALLER PIECES!?!?!?! THE MILITARY IS ALREADY DIVIDED INTO SMALL, MANAGABLE UNITS! I AM SAYING ALLOW PEOPLE TO FUND THE DEFENSE OF THEIR CITY WITH THE MONEY THEY WANT TO USE, AS IS DECIDED IN A REPUBLIC SYSTEM!
"You and your ilk still live in the 1700s" because human nature NEVER CHANGES! OF COURSE IT ISN'T EVERY CAVE MAN FOR HIMSELF! I AM TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM IN ........ Oh, wait. A troll. No, a rock. A rock so dumb that the rocks are sad at the very idea of being part of the same reality as you. I am disgusted by your ignorance and you insistence in ignoring reality. Anyone with anything close to a semblance of the intelligence found in steel would realize that each state controlling it's own domestic defense instead of relying on foreign aid is better than what YOU plan, which is to pull your pants down below your knees and take it up the tailpipe.
I'm done talking to you. You are too stupid to be reasoned with.