Dumbest Thing I've read today, via the internet......

PA-PLAYA

"Illogical rational." Interesting. What's logically rational about justifying having a gun in your home when statistically the odds of being invaded by an intruder are much lower than someone known to the household being shot? Reading your posts you have a lot of irrational fear of being home invaded.

Why don't I read anywhere here from gun rights advocates why civilized countries with less guns / tougher gun laws have fewer gun deaths, and countries like ours with more guns and weak gun laws have more gun deaths? Again, I guess we Americans are inherently more violent.

Isn't it logically rational to conclude that the ever more escalation of gun violence / deaths in this country is directly related to the amount of guns out there and the easy access to them?

raggmann54

You're confused as to my post. I was using sarcasm with the arsenal comment.

However IMO the Second Amendment is out dated. There is no threat from a foreign militia. We now have the National Guard, Armed Forces, Police etc.. There's no need for rural farmers to be armed in order to form a militia and fight the British in a minutes notice with musket rifles. And the fighting tyranny argument became a moot point years ago. Good luck fighting tyranny against the arsenal of the Armed Forces.

Having said that the Heller case is the law, but there can be limits imposed. I would argue one common sense limit would be not being able to amass an arsenal the likes of the Las Vegas shooter amassed in such a short time.

Along with enhanced background checks it seems reasonable for some red flags to go up when someone buys so many assault weapons in such a short time period. This is just the type common sense thing that gun rights advocates and gun safety people could agree on.

But the NRA is only interested in one thing. Selling more guns. So, don't hold your breath.

johnnydoom

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/?utm_term=.6a139346da17

"Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime."

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

puttnfool

Oh I forgot. The NRA represents the Hot Dog manufacturing industry.

I believe I heard the Las Vegas shooter bought most of his 40 plus guns found in his room in October of 2016. So, just like if you withdraw $10,000 the government is notified, same thing with purchasing a large amount of guns.

Reasonable people could agree on how many etc..

PA-PLAYA

Who ,when and where did anybody say there should be an across the board ban on firearms? We don't have up here only that it's prohibited to carry a concealed firearm or any firearm.

The point was invaders cannot tell who or who doesn't own a gun so they dont decide where they break in based on that they decide 99 percent of the time to break in when nobody is home. That's consistent to both our great countries. Our self defense laws in a home break in are different however it seems. We can only use reasonable force to quell the situation. Its much more complicated than that mind you but essentially cannot kill an intruder unless we are at imminent risk of death ourselves. Because the majority of break ins never involve an intruder with a firearm , we can't just shoot or kill somebody for enterring our home unwanted. That would result in charges, quite possibly murder. Break ins happen all the time just like in other places I can't recall a recent situation where the homeowner shot or killed the invader. When it ever does happen it's all over the news as its such a rare an event. break ins are usually kids looking for cash and items to flip quickly. The kid up the street is a good kid, was troubled but a nice kid. He had apparently broken into a few garages and cars. He 's 16 , no weapons and id hate to have seen him shot by an overzealous gun owner. He's now clean and back in school , so far so good. Despite this unique approach we don't have more break ins , Violent home invasions remain exceedingly rare as are gun related deaths in general are some of the lowest in the world. So as a peaceful society by nature we are far from perfect but content and proud with our low gun death rate. It's perhaps why we react with such strong emotion when these senseless and tragic mass shootings happen anywhere or raise an eyebrow to the high number of accidental and suicidal gun deaths per capita and gang related killings versus what we experience.

Weirfan

The NRA in several states like Florida have been able to get passed 'shoot first ask questions later laws'. Here in Florida it's called 'Stand Your Ground'.

It basically allows a person to use deadly force when they 'feel' an imminent threat to their life or bodily harm. They don't have to retreat. They even have a phone number to call if you shoot and kill someone. They'll tell you exactly what to say in order to invoke the law as your defense.

It's a dumb law. It gives gun toters a reason to shoot first because they know they have a law to fall back on.

Sneakylong reasonable people could agree on how many etc.

Reasonable people already agreed that the government has no right to infringe on a U.S. citizen's right to bear arms yet unreasonable people continue to try more and more to infringe on that very right.