The Facts About Mass Shootings Support Gun Ownership, Not Gun Control

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A majority of Americans do not agree with Democrats’ gun violence demagoguery. According to a March 2018 poll, 58 percent of Americans believe that gun ownership “increase public safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.”

James Craig, who returned to his native Detroit as its chief of police in June 2013, believes in the strength of a legally armed populace. After working as a police officer for nearly three decades in Los Angeles, “where ‘it took an act of Congress’ to get permission to carry a gun,” Craig transferred to Portland, Maine. There, he discovered a vastly safer city, and one where gun ownership was common. It was in Portland that Craig realized “the effect…good Americans who are armed can have on reducing violence.”

Prior to Craig’s arrival, Detroit was among the most violent cities in the country. According to FBI statistics, 80 in 1000 Detroit residents “became victims of violent or property crime each year.” In 2012, 386 criminal homicides had been reported in the city. To bring down crime rates, the new chief of police urged Detroit residents to legally and safely arm themselves.

In 2014, Craig’s department issued 1,100 handgun permits. That year, the number of home invasions decreased by 38 percent, with the numbers of shootings and robberies likewise decreasing. Of the 1,800 felons queried in a 2015 survey, 57 percent identified their biggest fear as “armed citizens.”


 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Just to point out the stunningly obvious....

1. Crime stats for acts perpetrated against individuals has nothing to do with mass shootings.

2. The concept of having a gun for personal safety in one's home and gun control policies intended/designed to reduce the likelihood of mass shooting are not mutually exclusive. In deference to those who don't understand, it is very plausible to be for personal, legal and responsible gun ownership and at the same time be for laws that are intended/designed to reduce the potential for mass shootings or get guns out of the hands of unstable people.

3. Polling data also shows that the majority of American support better background checks and preventing those who are mentally unstable from possessing/owning firearms.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Just to point out the stunningly obvious....

1. Crime stats for acts perpetrated against individuals has nothing to do with mass shootings.

2. The concept of having a gun for personal safety in one's home and gun control policies intended/designed to reduce the likelihood of mass shooting are not mutually exclusive. In deference to those who don't understand, it is very plausible to be for personal, legal and responsible gun ownership and at the same time be for laws that are intended/designed to reduce the potential for mass shootings or get guns out of the hands of unstable people.

3. Polling data also shows that the majority of American support better background checks and preventing those who are mentally unstable from possessing/owning firearms.
We can certainly agree on #3. Please provide an example of #2.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
We can certainly agree on #3. Please provide an example of #2.
Seriously? Who gets to decide the level of instability that reaches the point to allow for the denying of this right and exactly what would that level be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

This_person

Well-Known Member
Seriously? Who gets to decide the level of instability that reaches the point to allow for the denying of this right and exactly what would that level be?
That's a huge question, to be sure. To me, if you have used a weapon at least two times to perform an illegal act, you're too unstable to be allowed to own guns. Or, if you can be adjudicated to be unsafe to the public, you should be involuntarily institutionalized, and thus disallowed from possessing weapons.

That kind of thing.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Seriously? Who gets to decide the level of instability that reaches the point to allow for the denying of this right and exactly what would that level be?
Also, I am perfectly fine with ensuring someone is a legal citizen of the US before allowing gun ownership. Citizens are who are protected by the Constitution....
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
That's a huge question, to be sure. To me, if you have used a weapon at least two times to perform an illegal act, you're too unstable to be allowed to own guns. Or, if you can be adjudicated to be unsafe to the public, you should be involuntarily institutionalized, and thus disallowed from possessing weapons.

That kind of thing.
Well, for me, if you don't want someone to regain their right to own/possess firearms after using them illegally you sentence them to life or the death penalty. As to being adjudicated, who does this, a doctor, a court, some state run panel, etc.. Does anyone seeking a firearm purchase go through this prior to being able to make the purchase, because after the fact doesn't seem very useful in preventing anything bad from happening. How about those that get a DUI, should they be barred from ownership/possessing a firearm as they have displayed that they can't follow the rules of law to safely operate a vehicle.
Also, I am perfectly fine with ensuring someone is a legal citizen of the US before allowing gun ownership. Citizens are who are protected by the Constitution....
So those legal immigrants that are here shouldn't enjoy the right to protect themselves or hunt or plink targets.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Well, for me, if you don't want someone to regain their right to own/possess firearms after using them illegally you sentence them to life or the death penalty.

I think it is reasonable to say that three armed robberies having the death penalty is cruel or unreasonable punishment. I think many years in jail (increasing for each crime) followed by the removal of the right to bear arms is more reasonable. Now, if they violate that with another crime, maybe it is not cruel or unusual to have life in prison.

As to being adjudicated, who does this, a doctor, a court, some state run panel, etc.. Does anyone seeking a firearm purchase go through this prior to being able to make the purchase, because after the fact doesn't seem very useful in preventing anything bad from happening.

'Adjudicated", to me, means that a judge does it with due process and the ability to challenge any evidence against you (like having your own psychiatrists challenge the results of the state's psychiatrists, for example).

I am not trying to stop bad things from happening a first time. We are free people, and along with freedom comes risks. Walk softly and carry your own big stick. What I am trying to stop is bad things from RE-occurring. Would you give a three-year old a Derringer in a crowded mall and turn your back on him/her? Of course not, because a three-year old cannot be reasonably expected to exercise judgement and intelligence in how to use the weapon. However, we don't put three year olds in jail for life. We use good judgement ourselves. The same should be done for someone with serious mental issues who could not be reasonably expected to exercise good judgement and intelligence in using weapons, but is not any more of a real threat to society than a three year old.

How about those that get a DUI, should they be barred from ownership/possessing a firearm as they have displayed that they can't follow the rules of law to safely operate a vehicle.

No more than someone who uses a weapon should be barred from having a driver's license. I don't even understand the point of the question.

So those legal immigrants that are here shouldn't enjoy the right to protect themselves or hunt or plink targets.

They do not have the right, in my opinion, as they are not citizens of the United States. I'm not saying the states should prohibit them, I'm saying that is up to each state to handle as they see fit, because the unalienable rights afforded citizens, and protection from government interference against those rights, should not apply equally to non-citizens as it does to citizens.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
after a 3rd offense they are obviously not redeemable

Devil's Island seems appropriate
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The death penalty argument is null and void in most states.because most Governors of states who have the death penalty do not have the courage to use it. I give California as an example. They have the death penalty and they have over 700 people they are feeding and giving a cot to who are on death row and will certainly die of old age before being executed.

As for the states who have the death penalty and cannot carry it out because they need a special cocktail of drugs to do it that is the biggest batch of horsesh*t I have ever heard. They can go to Lexington Park and buy heroin laced with fentanyl right off the street. The locals love it so it must be good stuff
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
How many times do we endanger the lives of citizens before we end or lock this dirtbag up for life?
It would seem I'm in the middle of an argument between you and Gurps, who wants to kill them.

Or, rather, between you, Gurps, and the Constitution which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. It is my read of our population that most people would not consider armed robbery - where no one is killed (because that would change it to "murder") - not a crime that justifies life in prison nor the death penalty.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Well, for me, if you don't want someone to regain their right to own/possess firearms after using them illegally you sentence them to life or the death penalty. As to being adjudicated, who does this, a doctor, a court, some state run panel, etc.. Does anyone seeking a firearm purchase go through this prior to being able to make the purchase, because after the fact doesn't seem very useful in preventing anything bad from happening. How about those that get a DUI, should they be barred from ownership/possessing a firearm as they have displayed that they can't follow the rules of law to safely operate a vehicle.

So those legal immigrants that are here shouldn't enjoy the right to protect themselves or hunt or plink targets.

I'm not sure about taking their 2A rights away for this, but their ability to have a vehicle and license should be curtailed.
 
Last edited:

black dog

Free America
Just to point out the stunningly obvious....

1. Crime stats for acts perpetrated against individuals has nothing to do with mass shootings.

2. The concept of having a gun for personal safety in one's home and gun control policies intended/designed to reduce the likelihood of mass shooting are not mutually exclusive. In deference to those who don't understand, it is very plausible to be for personal, legal and responsible gun ownership and at the same time be for laws that are intended/designed to reduce the potential for mass shootings or get guns out of the hands of unstable people.

3. Polling data also shows that the majority of American support better background checks and preventing those who are mentally unstable from possessing/owning firearms.

Name one new gun law since 1968 that has stopped a mass shooting
 
Top