5 Home Invaders Stopped by AR-15

[asaratis]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

When a proposed law intended to remove a God given right punishes only law abiding citizens, it should not be passed.

There is no God given right that says you can have any weaponry you want.

And the Constitution doesn't allow it either.

 

[asaratis]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

To arrest and punish people caught violating them.

And to act as a deterrent as well as to establish codes of conduct and public safety.

Codes of conduct mean nothing to criminals. One deterrent to crime is a criminal knowing that a dog is in the house. Another is a criminal knowing that the targeted victims of his/her crime may be armed.

 

[asaratis]

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

Deterrence is not needed regarding law abiding citizens (except for the existence of written laws to provide understanding of what the laws are). Deterrence regarding criminals by way of law is a pipe dream....virtually impossible.

 

[asaratis]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

All laws do is provide a method of determining punishment for bad behavior. Laws don't prevent that behavior. If they did, there would be no murder, no rape, no kidnapping etc. Just look at all of those countries that have the laws you want. They still have gun crime, and in the case of Europe the recent influx of refugees has seen a coincidental massive increase in gun crimes. It ain't the gun Coyote, it is the person who decides to use it.

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. Looks don't mean shit!

 

[asaratis]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

You must be hanging with the wrong crowd.

 

[asaratis]

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

these happenings mostly happen in unarmed areas

you see unlike the criminal the law abiding do not carry in gun frees zones such as this restaurant

This one (me) does. I ignore the signs in all except government buildings.

 

[westwall]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

All laws do is provide a method of determining punishment for bad behavior. Laws don't prevent that behavior. If they did, there would be no murder, no rape, no kidnapping etc. Just look at all of those countries that have the laws you want. They still have gun crime, and in the case of Europe the recent influx of refugees has seen a coincidental massive increase in gun crimes. It ain't the gun Coyote, it is the person who decides to use it.

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

Here's the deal Coyote, Latin America has 9% of the worlds population, but commits 27% of the worlds murders. It is those transplants to the USA who are committing the gun crime here. Europe has never had that issue. They do now. Now they are importing refugees from country's that are far more violent and lo and behold, their gun crime rate is skyrocketing. In countries that have long had the gun bans that are even more extreme then what you want here. It makes no difference. Violent people will ALWAYS get the tools they want, and the gun bans only make their crimes easier to commit.

As far as the military guns in the hands of the civilian population, the Founders of this country disagree with you, and so does the Supreme Court. The 1934 ruling in US Vs Miller explicitly stated that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to firearms that have a military purpose. Those who claim the Founders couldn't have imagined these sorts of weapons in the hands of the civilian population ignore the fact that cannons were readily available to the civilians of that era, in fact the first artillery unit ever fielded in the USA was a private Company. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston, founded in the 1600's.

 

[2aguy]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Only to those who would be predisposed to obeying them.

Those same people who obey laws would never even think of taking a weapon to a school and shooting up children.

So, we see that laws do NOT prevent killers from killing.

I disagree. Many of those mass shooters were never before in trouble with the law. They were predisposed to obey the law...until they didn’t.

Of the gun murders committed in the country, mass shooters only exceeded over 100 deaths in one year, 2017..... out of 11,004 gun murders in 2016...... mass public shooters are not a problem, they are the rarest of rare shootings....lawn mowers kill more people every single year than mass shooters do..... the majority of shooters are career criminals murdering other career criminals.... yet you don't want to focus on actually stopping them...in fact, you support a political party that keeps letting violent, repeat gun offenders out of prison over and over again.... and then you pass gun laws that target law abiding gun owners, the ones not shooting anyone....

Do you see why we think you are irrational morons?

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(Lawn Mower Accidents Rise This Time of Year | MU News Bureau)


2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

You keep ignoring a difference. Lawn mowers are not made for the purpose of killing people. AR15’s are. That is their only purpose.

And yet lawn mowers kill more people each year than all mass shooters...which means lawn mowers kill more people than AR-15 civilain rifles do in mass shootings....

Lawn mowers are deadlier than AR-15s....do you want to ban them?

 

[westwall]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

All laws do is provide a method of determining punishment for bad behavior. Laws don't prevent that behavior. If they did, there would be no murder, no rape, no kidnapping etc. Just look at all of those countries that have the laws you want. They still have gun crime, and in the case of Europe the recent influx of refugees has seen a coincidental massive increase in gun crimes. It ain't the gun Coyote, it is the person who decides to use it.

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

The AR-15 civilian rifle and semi automatic rifles that civilians use are not military weapons, have never been used by the military and are actually specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment...

See D.C v. Heller, the dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park, Caeatano v. Massachusestts, Miller v. United States ........ oh, and the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights...

 

[asaratis]

Jam

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

no not as a condition to keep and bear arms

that resides with the people

The 2nd Amendment is simple, as such people add loads of interpretation.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? | The New Yorker

Apparently, Jeffrey Toobin is full of shit. He sprinkles his writings with a bit of truth, then lies in his conclusions.

 

[2aguy]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Coyote]

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

 

[2aguy]

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

Gun crime is going up in Britain, it is going down in the United States...you can compare that.....dittos Australia and Sweden........it is culture and values that drive crime, not guns.....gun crime is going up in Britain, Sweden, Austalia, Canada as their welfare states fail to raise young men, and continue to import violent 3rd world criminals...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

these happenings mostly happen in unarmed areas

you see unlike the criminal the law abiding do not carry in gun frees zones such as this restaurant

This one (me) does. I ignore the signs in all except government buildings.

actually you can only get told to leave if you do in a private business

 

[jon_berzerk]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

indeed no picking and choosing

 

[jon_berzerk]

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except for the Girandoni

 

[Coyote]

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

 

[jon_berzerk]

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

 

[Coyote]

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.