You misunderstand. And to correct, it was 492 in 6 months.
Seems like the most protected restaurant and grocery store around. Like the "old west" less crime cause everyone carried and the death penalty was quick without costing tax payers money cause it only cost the price of a bullet
I give up man. You guys will just have to live with the fact that 10,000+ people will die every year because you fail to see that the main reason they die from gun shots, is because a gun fired them.
This is true. I cant tell you how many people I shot at that I felt better about during daytime than I did nighttime
If we were having this discussion then, id agree. But in this age we have so many social issues and other issues that a wild west environment wouldnt work.
I 100% agree with open carry over concealed carry. If they know others are carrying they are less likely to attack. Specially when they are out numbered
Why because to many people would rather forget and destroy history than remember it and carry on its traditions
Dude, I don't think we're saying to do absolutely nothing. Several of us have agreed on at least a few first-steps. Also, you're presenting somewhat of a false picture that we would actually prevent 10,000 killings each year by banning guns. That would mean that every killing that involved a gun would not have happened, that not even one person would have attempted and been successful killing anyone with anything other than a gun. Yes, the US does have a higher murder rate than other countries you bring up (like New Zealand but NOT Brazil), but considering that murders still happen in countries with very few guns, it doesn't seem accurate to assume that eliminating guns will lead to an overall reduction in murder equal to the amount of firearm murders expected to be prevented, as there will still be at least some murders using a variety of other weapons. To clarify, we have already agreed that we should do SOMETHING, and even on a few ideas, such as the obvious ban on bumpfire stocks, increased penalties for repeated violent gun-related crimes (to at least keep them off the streets and not able to shoot more people), and better focus on actual mental health issues.
I can respect your opinion, but I can tell you I'd much rather carry concealed than open, and I'd admittedly be at least a little on guard if I see someone walk into a store with an AR or AK on their back, even if they have no ill intentions. It's a natural and healthy reaction. Police would likely react similarly, and I'd rather not attract a lot of unwanted attention and suspicion, and put myself in a potentially dangerous situation with law enforcement officers who would logically be on guard and suspicious of someone walking around with an AK, even if they have no ill intentions and open carry is completely legal. I just think it creates a lot of unnecessary attention and potentially hostility. Also, I think you need at least to keep concealed carry legal. Having ONLY open carry and no concealed carry would essentially make it crystal clear to criminals that anyone not openly displaying a gun is unarmed, and therefore an easier target. The potential of concealed carry at least gives a criminal some level of doubt or concern as to if a potential target is armed. I think open carry does have its reasons and benefits, particularly for store owners, but I think that outlawing concealed carry in favor of only open carry would be a terrible idea.
I never said anything about AR's or AK's. Just pistols brother. Even 1 guy with an AK walks into a bank with 20 people with pistols. Hes gonna think twice. Just saying. Also, I would never outlaw concealed carry either. Again if 20 people have pistols, and another 20 are possibly carrying and you walk in to rob a bank with an AK. whats gonna be your thoughts?
Ok, some of those pics are of ARs or AKs. I'm not saying that we should outlaw concealed carry, just that, one, I personally would rather carry concealed, and two, outlawing concealed carry in favor of ONLY open carry would effectively allow criminals to know at a even cursory glance who is armed and unarmed. Due to this, a potential armed criminal could see a person on the street, or a small store full of people, and immediately know if they are all unarmed, allowing them GREATER confidence in targeting them. Yes, open carry can help deter crime when an a criminal sees people with guns, but the potential of concealed carry can also help prevent some level of crime. Without concealed carry, you're essentially making it crystal clear who is unarmed and therefore an easy target. You can have open AND concealed, but ONLY concealed would likely have some rather unfavorable consequences, particularly for people who chose not to carry.
Of course they should you muppet.the issue is with them having a gun in the first place
Exactly, while I have seen a few talk about Europe and how its safer, and people dont carry weapons. Well I know from Experience in Germany and most EU countries Police carry sub machine guns. Not 9mm pistols, and they have no problem using them if you have a weapon. Or their repeater beater batons if not carrying a weapon. I knpw from personal experience about repeater beaters in Germany but I rather not say why? Lol
If thats how you read it, then you can believe whatever you like
I think he's trying to say that the mere possibility of criminals being armed, or more accurately having a reason to believe so, necessitates the police neutralizing the threat (believing the criminal is armed even if they turn out not to be is what I mean), often with lethal force. Reducing the number of criminals with guns would make police less likely to expect someone to be armed, and also make it more difficult for a criminal to have a gun to threaten an officer with. The key is how best to do this, to actually keep guns away from criminals, and still allow peaceful citizens to keep their guns. Disarming only law abiding citizens would not work, not saying that anyone is proposing an outright ban, as we have agree on several ideas/laws to at least start.
It is 10,000+ non-suicide gun deaths. Accidental gun deaths are also relevant here IMO. The main argument/counter to reduce the significance of that figure is that it is unlikely that every killing caused by a gun would not be carried out by any other means. That's not to say that we can't stand to reduce gun violence, because we can, but being objective and not twisting the facts is also important.
How many of those where justifiable homicides too. And dont forget, guns dont kill people. People kill people. My gun by itself has never killed anyone. Myself on the other hand I can not say the same thing, and I have to live with those decisions for the rest of my life. No matter if someone else told me I needed to kill them or not
oh only half that. Well that's better then isnt it.
Bingo!
Yes, the chances of being killed by a gun is infinitely higher in the US, but the chances of being killed PERIOD are only somewhat higher, I think 10-20% IIRC. Honestly, being killed is being killed; if you're dead you're dead. Do guns kill the soul or something? We're not in disagreement that we need to get guns out of the hands of criminals and insane people, but assuming that since there are 10k gun deaths, banning guns would prevent 10k deaths is incorrect, as that assumes (incorrectly) than none of these deaths would simply use an alternate weapon. It may cut down on total deaths somewhat, as the US does have somewhat higher murder rates, but it would NOT magically solve all crime and murder in the US.
A significantly greater percent of deaths by firearm are suicides relative to the percent of vehicle deaths by suicide. I don't even think the CDC tracks vehicle suicide, as its a very uncommon form of suicide. I just did the math, and it's something like 93% of suicides come from poisoning, suffocation, and firearms. That leaves at most 7% for EVERYTHING else. You guys in favor of reducing guns have some reasonable arguments, but perverting data to exaggerate these points only makes you look bad and makes it easy to discount the rest of what you say, even if it may be true.
So we logically then need some way to prevent these people who shouldn't, and can't legally, have guns from having guns. Locking repeat offenders up for longer would at least help keep them off the street, and from committing further crimes, and may help to deter at least some portion of gang/robbery/etc related crime. I in no way think a ban is the right answer by the way.
The only thing this proves is that your country isn't very good at enforcing the law.
You seem proud of this fact.
