Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

(03-21-2018, 11:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-21-2018, 08:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The points being, that it has in fact often happened that a gun owner HAS shot a neighbor or other non-dangerous person by mistake. And second, a burglar does not threaten your life, only your property, while you would be executing him without trial. And third, of course, as has been made clear, it is OUR side that upholds American values, NOT yours.

Mistakes happen. Point taken and accepted as a known danger associated with gun ownership.

Thanks for taking my point. Dialogue happens sometimes

Quote: However, I also accept mistakes happen with automobiles and accept it as a danger associated with automobile owners. Why are accidents and suicides related to guns lumped in with the gun deaths related to gun violence? I keep hearing liberals using vague statistics associated with gun deaths as if they're all related to gun violence when they're not. How do you know a burglar isn't going to threaten my life or the life of someone else? How do you know which burglar is dangerous and which one is not? Me, I wouldn't claim to know their full intent. I wouldn't take the time to ask them and I wouldn't assume that they're only interested in property or assume that they're going to be decent either.

The difference between guns and automobiles is clear. There are accidents that happen with all tools, just about. The purpose of a car is to get from one place to another. Accidents are incidental. The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. Fatal "accidents" are the result of using a gun every time (excepting practice, of course; but what are you practicing for?).

A burglar doesn't threaten your life per se, only your property. If the burglar is also a murderer, (s)he will be armed with something. Killing a burglar is taking the law into your hands instead of taking them to Court. It is illegal. If they threaten your life, or you have good cause to think that they do, then you have cause to use your gun. However, our point is that using the gun is dangerous and often useless. Having a gun is unsafe unless it is unloaded and locked up. Otherwise, kids or robbers can take it and use it, or murders can happen in fits of passion, mistakes, etc. But a locked and unloaded gun probably can't be used for self-defense in time. Other methods work better against burglars who are not armed, at least.

Your gun may work, but the result is a shootout in which you are at least as much at risk as the burglar. So, it's better to use other methods of defense even against robbers armed with guns. There are many other methods of defense, as I have pointed out. But since rural people think that calling the police is not an option, and wild animals threaten their farm animals, they still want to have their guns. Compromise on this is better for the time being. But that does not mean a farmer or rancher needs an AR-15 or some other semi-automatic with a large magazine.

Really, the only reason gun violence is higher in rural red states is because of so many guns around, and liberal carry laws. Otherwise, they have less crime than urban states. In 2nd-amendment America, the most-violent developed country in the world, and the country with by far the most guns per capita, the difference between red and blue states is clear. The facts are clear. More murders, suicides and gun violence happens in states and countries with permissive guns laws, than in states and countries with gun laws and bans.