Private Gun ownership Save Lives.

[Shoey]

Since when is saving lives the purpose of owning a gun?

I own weapons to protect myself, my wife and my home not to save anyone's life.

You should probably read through that link. It just might be your doing the opposite of protecting.

One can say the same thing about waffle irons, weight sets, automatic garage door openers and pools.

Having a waffle iron in the home increases the risk of getting burned by one. Having a weight set in the home increases the risk of having one fall on your foot. Having an automated garage door opener increases the risk of having one crush you accidently, and having a pool increases your risk of drowning in one.

There is always a risk anything will be used the wrong way, and any of these items can be just as fatal as a gun.

The 2nd Amendment simply accommodates the means necessary for the use of deadly force if an individual's life is in imminent danger of threatened serious bodily harm by another person. Certainly the 2nd Amendment isn't a license to kill. We reserve the fundamental Right to defend ourselves from imminent threats of bodily harm or possible death with deadly force if necessary but that is the limit of our inalienable Right of Self-Defense. We have numerous inalienable Rights including the Right of Person and the Right of Property and there are sensible procedures we can take associated to the guardianship of both.

Title 10 › Chapter X › Part 1047 › Section 1047.7

Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

10 CFR 1047.7 - Use of deadly force. | Title 10 - Energy | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[martybegan]

Our problem is felons and loons buying guns...

and your solution is to make it harder or prevent everyone from buying guns, thus hoping to prevent felons and loons from getting them.

We all know it is futile, as a felon isnt going to follow just another law, and a loon can be damn persistent in getting what they want.

The end result is disarming law abiding citizens.

 

[Brain357]

You mean law abiding citizens keep their guns and some criminals actually get caught in the act of illegally buying a gun before they shoot people.

Our problem is felons and loons buying guns...

and your solution is to make it harder or prevent everyone from buying guns, thus hoping to prevent felons and loons from getting them.

We all know it is futile, as a felon isnt going to follow just another law, and a loon can be damn persistent in getting what they want.

The end result is disarming law abiding citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our problem is felons and loons buying guns...

They are banned by federal law from doing so.
It is impossible to enact a law to prevent them from breaking this law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Skull Pilot -

For you personally,I agree. But then you would pass a background test and safety test, I'm sure.

But what about that twenty-year old college student next door to you who suffers from depression and drinks too much? Would HE pass a psyche evaluation?

Psych evals?
There are no pscych evals required for gun ownership nor should there be.

Having to pass a test of any kind before you can exercise your rights infringes upon those rights.