“People who live with a gun present face twice the risk of death by homicide”

Then you should probably seek more education on this topic. People have been hunting ducks and other birds with semi-automatic shotguns since semi-automatic shotguns existed.

There are plenty of gun ranges in this country. There's one about four miles away from me and then if I wanted to drive to the next county there are several there as well. Ironically, there is no bowling alley here

Have you ever heard of the Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle? It's probably one of the most popular squirrel hunting guns in the entire nation. It's called a 10/22 because it is a 22 caliber that holds 10 rounds.

 

very true, owning a gun may make you safer, it also may not

that is why each person decides for themselves

 

Knives nor shovels don't massacre people in seconds, and killing someone with either takes a whole lot more work that grabbing the readily available gun and ending it in seconds

And I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, no one is talking about "removing guns" from anyone, rather, here, pointing out the idiocy of guns, and if you want a recommendation, regulate the access to guns, in America, nearly anyone who wants a gun can get a gun

 

So now let me ask you, is hunting ducks and squirrels with semi automatic weapons considered a sport?

I'd have to say if one could take a poll I believe the vast majority of Americans would not find hunting ducks and squirrels with semi automatic weapons a rationale for justifying semi automatic weapons

 

@archives
Also you do not seem to know very much about hunting.... Hunting is not a sport it's a harvesting of meat.

Ethical hunting uses the most efficient weapon to make sure that death is Swift and clean. People who don't know anything about hunting things that you should go out and shoot at deer from a half a mile away to give them a "sporting chance".... When in all actuality, such tomfoolery is unethical it is as it increases the chances of wounding game. So now you have an animal that you are much less likely to recover who goes off to suffer and die slow death.

 

Which was fine at one point, but when gun ownership makes it a danger to go to a mall, spa, concert, club, or attend school or church, it goes beyond everyone deciding for themselves

 

Poking at strawmen. No where did I mention about 'taking guns'.

Of course just about anyone can get a gun illegally. That means they commit a crime when they obtain it illegally. There are already dozens of laws 'regulating access' to guns, which are abided by law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care what laws or regulations are existing or yet to be enacted, because they are criminals.

So your complaint is apparently that even though law abiding citizens abide by the laws, and criminals do not, you want more laws enacted so that law abiding citizens have to abide by them and there are more laws and regulations that criminals can ignore. That about cover it?

By the by, nice tap dance around your support miss. I gave credit for you even attempting.

 

Right, and how many Americans do you think have to "harvest" their food to survive?

And if you carry it to its logical conclusion, if you want don't want to be unethical to the animal, do all your hunting at your local butcher or supermarket

 

millions of Americans hunt every year, millions of them. Are you also anti fishing? After all you can go to the store and buy that too.
Yes..... Let someone else do your killing and butchering for you..... With a farm-raised animal who in some cases has a cage that it barely had room to turn around in and and it was fed a steady diet of hormones and antibiotics and GMO feeds.

Just assume that meat magically appears in that package on the shelf. If you had ever hunted and processed your own animal you would have more respect for what it takes to bring meat to market.

 

agree, any crime with a gun needs to be taken serious and people put in prison, I would make it an add-on crime, mandatory 5 years

 

My "complaint" is that illogically too many Americans are losing their lives unnecessarily from gun violence when solutions are readily available, we are the only developed nation in the world where that is a reality. It is such a problem that Americans have become desensitized to mass shootings and especially school shootings, they've become as American as apple pie

Steven Paddock was a "law biding" gun owner till the moment he pulled the trigger, outside of the gang bangers, what you are labeling as criminals usually follow the same narrative, and the common denominator, legal or illegal, is that there are way too many guns our there, and way too easy access to too many guns out there

 

You keep moving the goal posts, never said anything about banning hunting, although I never saw the sport in it other than perhaps with a bow and arrow, and millions of Americans probably do hunt every year, but sure as hell they don't do it cause they need to, to harvest their protein, and it either case, it doesn't justify the opportunity costs of forty thousand plus dead Americans every year unnecessarily

 

We can also live without driving cars.... Humanity got along just fine for 99% of its existence without them.

And by the way it's closer to 30,000 who died annually and most of those are suicides and the rest of the remainder are mostly gang violence.

About the same number of people die every year because of automobiles but you don't want to get rid of them do you?


360 million people give or take in the United States so what percentage of that is 30 or 40,000 a year?

McDonald's kills more people every year but we're not talking about banning them.

And I know the story you don't actually want to ban guns just make them damn near impossible to own.

Did you know archery hunting is much more likely to result in wounded and lost game then with a firearm.

There's nothing sporting about wounding game that you cannot recover

 

So you believe that the mass majority who do not commit crimes with legally obtained guns, who have followed laws and regulations, should be prevented from owning guns?

I can't speak for others, but I don't like the loss of innocent lives. If we were to remove anything and everything that causes those losses, civilization would be back in swaddling clothes. So we mitigate, and the regulations in place are supposed to function to support that mitigation.

If you are so determined to reduce the use of guns by the minority of people with murder on their minds, then maybe you should demand that laws be followed, rather than additional ineffective laws and regulations on people who haven't murder on their minds and haven't broken any laws.

Your frustration is better vented on actually addressing the societal issues such as mental health and the use of psychotropic drugs and it's effect on youth, so that there is less imbalance in society for people who do not know how to deal with life's speed bumps.

 

Bow and arrow hunting can and does injure and maim wildlife, and most often does not provide a clean kill. THAT is inhumane.

 

Amen to that!

We already have laws that make it illegal to go and shoot someone with a gun for no good reason. So the pretzel logic of the people who wish to ban guns is that we should make more laws which will be similarly unable to be enforced but will only burden those who already follow gun laws.

 

You can automatically tell when someone has no idea about what ethical hunting is about when they start talking about "sporting chances" and bow and arrows and perhaps we should go out and try to run down deer with a sharpened stick!

Or if you're going to use a deer rifle that you should shoot at them from 3/4 of a mile away!

Nope, you get as close as you possibly can that you know that your skill level will allow you to make a clean kill shot. Anything beyond that is unethical and irresponsible.

 

Your post is classic projection..... It is not me that is moving the goal post as you assert...

You're the one who brought up the topic of hunting.

Also I never said anything about banning hunting.

 

Do They? Whats your source? Cuz it doesnt look like it to me... Looks more to me like there's no correlation at all...

 

We have two herds totaling about 30 deer each, and each and every year we have had injured/lame deer. Several have obviously been from bow hunters. Last year, we watched one yearling hobble about with part of an arrow sticking out of his haunch. It got to the point he was moving on three legs, then the herd started moving around without him, and after about 6 weeks or so of grazing on our property and hobbling down to the lake to drink, he died on the lake bed.

While I dislike hunting, I accept that people will do it. Most of the time a gun shot will be a clean kill, or at least the chance for a second shot to make it so is more likely then bow or a second shot from a bow.

 

I have only killed one large game animal in my life, a feral hog. I spotted them from around 150 yards across the river. They went behind a slough channel and I crossed the river ( it was low water) and stalked up within a 100 ft of them. I shot it with A .44 cap and ball.

The round penetrated both lungs, the hog ran 15 ft and dropped dead.

Bow hunting would not be my first choice. I think to many take shots beyond their ability to humanely kill.

I'm fairly decent with a bow but certainly not anywhere near ready to hunt ethically with one.

 

Thanks for showing how information can be manipulated to deceive in order to forward an unconstitutional and counterproductive agenda.

The individuals and groups that work tirelessly to eviscerate our 2nd Amendment and disarm the law abiding are the last people who should pontificate on the manifold uses of firearms.

Not only are they indispensable as a means for self defense when the police you rely on are far away but they are more and more frequently used in competitive sport shooting and putting food on the table.

The OP would have us believe that we are in greater danger with a gun in the house than not yet it has been my experience that such is not the case
There are, however, people who are irresponsible and dangerous with anything from guns to chainsaws but I do not believe that those individuals should be legally prohibited from owning either.

Our's is still a democracy in which free citizens should be allowed to own and operate dangerous tools without government intervention even when there are risks that may sometimes prove to be fatal.

Finally, it is simply my opinion that people who chose to own and operate dangerous tools should voluntarily seek some sort of instruction or training but I do not think that it should be a government mandated requirement.

 

Again, the well documented Inconvenient Truth:

Crime, including gun crime accelerates after the people are disarmed for reasons that should be obvious.

THE GUARDIAN, Rise in recorded crime is accelerating in England and Wales, Police figures show offences up 14% in a year, with knife and gun crime rising even more steeply, Alan Travis Home affairs editor, Thu 25 Jan 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales

 

The whole point is some people choose to have a gun in their nightstand for protection, assuming that they could use it if a home invader threatened their life. The idea is that if somebody breaks in, they'll be sorry. But the usual reality is nobody ever breaks in, and the gun is much more likely to be used in domestic violence or suicide.

Otherwise though, what you say isn't entirely true. The best is probably to be a non-gun owner in a place notorious for having armed people, so that the burglars would assume you would be armed and so take extra care to avoid confrontation. (though this is ironic for me to say, since the closest call I've had is a neighbor accidently discharging his gun through a wall into my living room). If I were a burglar in Texas, I would be much more concerned about finding a victim with a gun than if I were a burglar in white suburban California.

 

How, exactly, does the gun make one more likely to commit domestic violence or suicide?