Has anyone else ever mentioned to you that your posts are too long and is often redundant?
those who compare prohibition of drugs/alcohol with prohibition of guns. Quite frankly, the comparison is retarded.
The comparison is made to show the backlash that would occur and otherwise futile attempt should gun rights be severely diminished.
This isn't a segue into the War on Drugs.
Restricted availability for guns translates directly to reduced gun violence, which means fewer deaths.
In theory one might expect this. However, the reality is often the inverse.
How do you explain why gun violence decreased when the SCOTUS shot down the unconstitutional ban in Washington D.C. or why Australia's gun rate versus homicide increased when they disarmed their citizens?
A recent UC Davis study shows that gun shows are the leading source of guns used in crimes. Many of the transactions are illegal, but take place in an environment where undocumented sales will not be noticed, right out in the open.
Then it would behoove the federal authorities, spearheaded by the ATF in particular, to crack down on illegal arms sales. That still does nothing to overshadow the basic premise of the Bill of Rights.
Weapons will need to be imported...and while you most definitely cannot stop the supply of guns, you can very effectively reduce their numbers.
You still are missing the gigantic elephant sitting in the room. To purchase a handgun, one must first pass a criminal backround check, the serial number is documented to the owner/purchaser of the weapon, etc. The barrels of handguns are so unique with their lands and grooves that the forensic evidence left behind on a bullet is as damning as any biophysical evidence (semen, fingerprints, blood, etc).
In fact, ways to circumvent this is through shotguns (sawed-off shotguns in particular) which you seem to think is fine for sporting reasons. They leave no discernable way to trace the weapon of origin in a homicide quite the same way as with a handgun.
Many criminals are quite aware of how easy it is to be caught now or days with the forensic sciences so advanced. It would be suicide to buy a serialized handgun in your name and murder somebody with it.
So what does that mean? That means the people who do purchase weapons used in homicides most often buy off the black market, which is exactly what the laws you promote don't do anything against.
Again, your laws only hurt the average consummer who is by all accounts a law-abiding, responsible gun owner. You keep bringing up firearm homicides, most of which are committed by common street criminals who don't purchase weapons in stores 1. because they can't pass a background check, 2. they are aware of how a fiream can lead back to them even supposing they could.
So, much like criminals in other nations they do resort to imported weapons already, in which case, again, you affect law-abiding, responsible gun owners and NOT the criminals.
Let's be honest in this debate: this is an argument driven completely by fear. Irrational fear. Fear blown far out of proportion to actual risk.
Agreed. Fear on the side of gun owners who risk having their rights stripped from them, and fear on the side of gun control advocates of even seeing a gun.
You are significantly more likely to die in a car accident than to be murdered
Exactly my point a few pages ago... By your rationale we should stop driving vehicles because they're so darn dangerous.
the chances of being murdered are insanely small.
That really is of little consolation to the victims and their families, now isn't it?
And yet we're terrified, to the point that we're debating what to do when this oh-so-certain event takes place. "Home defense" is not a defensible position - statistically, you're not likely to be burglarized, and you're far less likely to be killed in a home invasion.
Immaterial. What kind of odds was it that a plane would have been hijacked and flown in to important nationally symbolic buildings? Maybe 1 in a googleplex? but hey, it happened. However, unlikely you think it is, again, doesn't overshadow the fact that not only does it happen, but it is also a right in the United States that shall not be infringed upon.
According to you, you were burgled. So much for the game of odds to minimize the situation. Besides, you're further undermining your own premise by saying that it's all so unlikely. If it's just all so unlikely then why are you so concerned with gun violence?
But those instincts evolved at a time when "home invasion" meant a rival tribe trying to steal our food, or a mountain lion in the camp. A weapon and a strong defense were good ideas, and would save the lives of tribe members.
WTF?
We don't live in those circumstances any more (well, certain rural areas may need defense against a coyote or mountain lion - but those are easily handled with hunting rifles, and not very effectively defended against with handguns; assault rifles are just a bit of overkill). In a home invasion, rather than facing a rival tribe who's trying to steal all of your food, kill the men and rape the women, a home invasion is almost always just a simple thief. Even if he's armed, he doesn't want to kill you - he'd rather you weren't home, and may not even realize you're there. Your best bet is to hide and avoid a confrontation - you're both more likely to walk away from the situation alive.
Look if you want to cower in a corner somewhere, that's on you. But don't take away my right to defend my home in the legal manner I see fitting. That's all I'm saying. You don't want guns, don't buy any. But I'm afforded that right and would like to continue enjoying a simple, personal freedom.
And let's be honest: scary as it is, a home invasion is not justification for taking a life.
Depending on the subject's actions, it very well could be for the simple fact that you have no way of knowing whether or not the intruder is there to rob you, rape you, torture you, or kill you. Even if they are there to rob you, you also have no idea what they would resort to in the event that were discovered. A simple B&E could turn in to homicide.
That irrational, exaggerated response is yet another reason "home defense" just translates to more death
It's "irrational" and "exaggerated" to defend yourself in your OWN home?!?! I can't even believe the absurdity of your logic. It's time to stop the tea party and put down the Barbie dolls, Mary, and let your testicles finally descend the way nature intended.
Guns for "self-defense" just mean more people dead at the end of the day, not less.
Well, then let it be a lesson would-be criminals everywhere. Stay in your own fucking house and you won't run the risk of being shot! I'm scared to hear what your advice to rape victims would be. "Just let him finish what he came here to do!"
The rest of the post is just far too long to respond piecemeal.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
™ Version 4.2
