College Liberal

Now I have the song in my head lol

Either it's More Defenceless People or More Armed People
Pick your poison

I think the point he's making has to do with the fact that gun control measures reduce access to guns from law-abiding citizens much more than they reduce access by criminals or terrorists to them, and also with the fact that law-abiding citizens with weapons are the best defense against a number of situations.

while that is true, by making it easier to get a gun, then more crazy people can get them.
Look at Australia. They're doing well.

Actually, Australia is NOT doing well. Neither is most of Europe. Much higher violent assault rates, raipe is up. No one can defend themselves properly anymore.

I don't know about you, but i'd rather have less people get hurt than have 50 people die in a short span of time.

That's the problem. More people are being assaulted violently and being raiped with no means to fight back.

There are more people being violently attacked and raiped and it will only get worse. Big reason Britain left the EU; they're being flooded with people who aren't being screened and vetted and people committing violent crimes.

Having guns makes that easier. If you give a rapist a gun, they will use that gun. If you give an angry person a gun, they will shoot someone. They may not be able to fight back, but at least they wont be killed instantly.

You can't fight back if you get shot, so thats a thing.

Under Obama, 52,000 guns PER DAY have been purchased. Yet government and FBI crime statistics reveal that there is less gun violence than ever. Let that sink in. Criminals don't want to get shot and if there are more people with that ability (52,000 per DAY remember), then it follows that there would be fewer violent crimes ... which is exactly what's happening.

You have to look at real statistics and be wary of how certain terms are defined too. The left defines 19 year old gang bangers as children, suicide as murder, justified gun shooting be police as "gun violence", and "mass" shootings as anytime more than two people get shot in a single incident (granny shoots two burglars in her home).

While that is true, what if they do shoot? If you have an assault rifle, you can kill a tonne of people in a room.
Nobody needs an assault rifle. Give everyone pistols or something.

You have to have a Federal Firearms License to own an assault rifle. An AR-15 isn't a true assault rifle.

Just becuase you CAN have it, doesnt mean you should. If you can shoot a lot of people easily, you don't need it. You can't exactly bring an AR-15 around with you, either. It's rather big.
Pistols can be held on your person in case of emergencies. AR-15s have to be stored somewhere, like in the truck of a car. If you're being attacked, you can't say "One sec, let me get my gun" and go to your car, or go come.

I know a lot of angry people and they dont shoot anyone. Hell, I get angry and I don't shoot anyone. I like that thing the liberals tell rape victims... If you're about to be raped, p!ss yourself and cry like a baby, cause rapists don't want soiled women. Yeah, that'll work. Pffft!

With a gun to protect yourself, it evens the playing field. Without a gun, your chance at being a victim goes up 100%.

I hope you realize in the light of these mass shooting, the first instinct everyone has is to get paranoid and buy more guns. Giving guns to paranoid and often trigger happy people isn't the way to go. Nothing is black and white, but we can always look at other countries and see what they are doing right.

No, the first instinct is to not be the victim. These mass shootings are always happening in gun free zones, not areas where everyone is packing heat. Think about that for a moment.

If regular, law abiding citizens are a danger to society with their guns, you'd know it.

"Trigger happy" ... if that were the case, we'd be seeing increasing amounts of Joe and Jane Average just shooting people ... but we don't. The truly paranoid are those who fear something that isn't happening but want rights restricted and laws enacted 'just in case.'

"The truly paranoid are those who fear something that isn't happening"
But it does happen... a lot.
I dont even care if you only get rid of a few guns. Just get rid of assault rifles. Nobody needs those for anything unless you want to kill a lot of people. Pistols im fine with, but once you can kill a lot of people with ease, thats when its a problem. Even pistols can do that, but only to a certain extent.

The AR-15 is functionally the same as many hunting rifles. I could take my grandfathers autoloader rifle (or 12 ga shotgun loaded with buckshot) and do a LOT more damage than a shooter with an AR-15. The only difference is cosmetic.

Over a 35 year period, the number of mass public shootings in the USA rose during the violence escalation decades of the 1970s and 1980, then leveled off, despite a growing population and greater availability for firearms (more people, more guns).

The FBI created a study of what they labeled “active shooter” events from 2000-2013, but they merged both ASEs and MPSs. Combined, this data shows an increase whereas other studies that separate the two do not. Their study starts in the year 2000, which had a low number of public shootings (only one).

Though the raw number of mass public shootings has risen VERY slightly over three decades, the number of people killed has fallen as a function of the population. Mass public shooting deaths make up less than 1% of all gun homicides, making them a small part of the problem.

Just a few "assault weapons" facts:
In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”
In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%.
Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%.
Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.
Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem.
In one survey of criminals in Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons.
Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
source: Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999

gunfacts.info

Its all a matter of perspective. You don't see the times a gun is used to prevent or thwart a murder, rape or robbery but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

So... give guns to police and not the general public? Regardless of how often a gun is used to prevent a crime, they are still used to kill.
Its Gun vs Gun in many parts of the world. One finger, and a person falls.

They are also used to defend. I've used mine twice to prevent a carjacking and a robbery without having to fire a shot. Without my gun, I may have been killed. Interestingly, most cops want an armed populace as well because when seconds count, most cops are at least 20 minutes away.

Obama can't even control the border. How is he supposed to control 400,000,000 guns. Oh yeah, there's also that Constitution thing...

Response time in my neck of the woods is + or - 30 minutes... I keep a bedside bio vault loaded with the S&W Governor and a flashlight... Because I Can't wait for the police.

Yes, they can be used to defend, but thats if you're not shot first.
Im assuming you used some sort of pistol rather than an assault rifle. I don't mind pistols, but assault rifles are overkill.

I don't know anyone who owns an 'assault rifle' ... I know plenty of people who own AR-15's though (me included - I use it for wild hog hunting). Assault rifles are fully automatic and those have been outlawed for several decades. The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle ... it's the name of the manufacturer.

No one owns "automatic stuff" ... and I can shoot just as many bullets with my grandfather's autoloading deer rifle as anyone with an AR-15 ... and I'll do FAR more damage because the bullets are larger and heavier than those little bitty .223 or 5.56 cartridges.

I think Minimum was refering to automatic stuff...

Stuff like that, too. Anything that can shoot a lot of people in a short time. It's not needed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
Just knowing this happens is enough for me.
Don't think murder is a modern problem. It's a human problem.

even when fully trained law enforcement couldnt do it. Not saying thats what is being said here, but I am tired of hearing people say that they could definitely prevent a mass shooting if they only had handguns on them. PLEASE. And by the way, many people die each year by being shot accidentally by armed citizens.

Then why does anyone bother to call the cops if "they can't do it?" That argument really doesn't make sense ... why are cops even armed if they're so inept at using their weapon?

According to Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kelck, guns are used for self-defense 2,500,000 times a year in the United States. Guns save lives. A gun saved mine (twice) because I knew how to use it and was more than willing to draw it. The mere sight of an armed citizen (me) made the perps back up rather quickly, then turn and run. I carry my two handguns everywhere I go ... except in places that carrying one could get me arrested.

NO one really knows how they'll react when the situation calls for it but hands down, I'd rather have the fighting chance a handgun gives me than to be a cowering victim letting some lunatic shoot me because I had no way to fight back.

My guns give me options when things turn south.

I didnt saw cops cant do anything, I said in that situation they couldnt. At the Orlando club, there was an armed, uniformed officer at the club. He attempted to engage but was beaten back by the shear fire power of the perp. It wasnt until backup arrived and several officers went in with rifles of their own, that they attempted to engage again. Law enforcement recognizes when "many" situations could be made worse by gunfire from heavily trained LEO's, let alone a citizen that most likely does not have that training. Thats why many LE departments are pro gun control, and gun free zones.

I dont discount for a minute that you have a right to carry in most places, and a right to defend yourself in any situation. Please dont derail my comment. My comment was specific, about people who claim that "if only those people in the club were armed" is both statistically, factually, and ideally incorrect.
In the last 3 mass shootings, there were at least 1 person who was armed at the scene. At the Oregon college shooting, there were several. However those people in these shootings were either beaten back, or chose not to engage for reasons cited as "not in a position to fire back", "out of fear", or "chose to stay with loved ones or friends". So its pretty safe to say that one cannot make the statement that if you had a weapon, you would stop a mass shooter in many situations.

Further, how would you feel if during your exchange of fire, you shot someone who was about to escape out the door, killing them? Or 2 or 3? If people are rushing out the door behind the perp as they were in Aurora Colo, or Orlando, you could certainly hit them too.

I understand your point ... really, I do. Like Mike Tyson says, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." I believe it's all in your personal mindset and your training. "Not in a position to fire back" just can't be helped unless we know the full situation. "Out of fear" I just don't understand ... not when you're seeing people die and you know you have the means to stop or at least interrupt it. "Chose to stay with loved ones or friends" IIRC, those people were a pretty good distance away anyway.

But ... from the Orlando Sentinel: An off-duty police officer working security at the club was outside investigating an underage drinker when he heard gunshots inside the club. The off-duty officer then proceeded to run inside the club and exchange gunfire with Mateen, with three additional officers soon arriving to back up the off-duty cop, law enforcement sources told WFAA-ABC 8. AS THE OFFICERS FIRED AT MATEEN HE RETREATED INTO A BATHROOM toward the rear of the club with a number of hostages.

“Those additional officers made entry while the suspect was shooting,” Mina said. “THEY FORCED HIM TO STOP SHOOTING and retreat to the bathroom where we believe he had several hostages.”

A different report said: An off-duty Orlando Police Department officer in the nightclub's parking lot heard shots fired and saw Omar Mateen near the entrance (not inside like the other report). They exchanged fire, but the officer realized he was "outgunned" and retreated to call for backup. Mateen went inside.

All you can really do is train, train, train and make sure your mind is in the right place. Or you can go through life hoping nothing ever happens to you and keep your life insurance paid up.

I personally do all of the above.

I upvoted your comments btw. You're passionate without being a jerk and I appreciate that -- even if we may disagree.

pic was featured in an editorial... props to BobParker http://marketslant.com/articles/just-say-no-guns

Holy Guacamole!

THIS POST GAVE ME PTSD.

You are so naive.... :)

LOL ... "naïve"