I wouldn't. You can defend yourself against a bat or knife. I have survived being attacked by a knife. I'm very glad it wasn't a gun.
Here's one way to go about things. This Silicon Valley city is poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements
Yeah, that'll never be accepted nationally. In fact it will likely hurt the efforts at progress nationally. It'll be used as an example of government punishing gun owners... Good times.
I just don’t accept the basis of your arguments on this. The idea that you have to be a selected target to be a victim of violence, or that all people who’ve seen people shot, like you have, share your opinion. People are randomly victimized every single day and it’s not necessarily because someone was wanting vengeance on them. They may have just had something shiny, or simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are also members of the military who’ve served in the very branch you did, and seen violence at the end of a firearm, who support the second amendment and probably disagree with you on this. In fact if you surveyed all military veterans I think you’d find an overwhelming majority that are on the opposite side and support the right to own firearms.
It's the reality of the situation. It's just tit for tat, not actually working toward a solution. Because there can't be. On one side you have people who think guns are bad, and want no danger from guns. On the other side you have people who accept that guns are dangerous, but necessary tools, and who don't want their rights restricted. People's rights are codified into law. Most states will not overstep that, so the criminals in other states will continue to have guns. People will have their rights restricted and be no safer as a result. Money will flow in for both sides, and less time and money will be dedicated to causes which could actually make a much bigger difference than even the most strict gun control possibly could. End result is that the gun DEBATE results in inaction which actually costs hundreds of thousands to million of lives per year, as well as immeasurable suffering and negative economic impact.
Ive had several occasions where I was glad I had a firearm with me on the road. I know for a fact once, the threat to use it on dogs that were threatening my wife, granddaughter and I while camping. After the third time the 3 dogs, 1 pitbull an 2 Rott's came running into my camp freely and wanted our dog on a lease. I picked up a big stick and shoed them off and told their owners to keep them tied up. I love dogs ,but when they run in packs like that they are dangerous. Happened twice more same night so I went and told them, 1 more time and I just might shoot all three and they were aggressive. I had told the ranger earlier that there were campers not keeping their dogs under control, of course he addressed it but, they didnt give a shit. The dogs were tied up the rest of the night once they new I was serious.
So really what you are saying is that only your numbers, that meet your criteria, that fit your timeline matter and no other variables are worth considering. Everything else is political hogwash and emotional banter and the reason republicans win. You are only convincing the people who already agree with you.
Unfortunately nobody is going to be convinced of anything on this topic. That's my whole point. There isn't enough conclusive data to convince anybody of anything. That's why it's a waste of time and energy for our politicians. Gun control will never make a statistically significant difference in thw US. It didn't even make a statistically significant difference in the UK or Australia. No more so than doubling the number of guns made in the US. We already did an assault weapons ban in the US. It didn't do anything. You can't dispute my numbers which look at a bigger picture over a longer time frame than anything you can come up with. The Supreme Court is more gun friendly now than ever. Gun control is a waste of time, money, energy, and political capital. Unless you just want to say "my team is better than your team". Then it's great for both sides.
You're correct about the lack of data. That's why it's good if communities, cities, and states go ahead and try some different things if it's approved by the majority of voters in those areas.
I don't think we could get any sort of numbers for it, but I'd love to see the books for the NRA as well as whatever liberal gun control lobby I'm sure there is. I bet you there's more funding for the former, which you seem to leave out of your response. I only say that because NRA lawyers were quoted in the article. I'm personally not on either side, but like SPD said, I think it's a good idea for communities with high homicide numbers to try what they come up with that'll work for them. But like you said, it's the reality of the situation.
It's good for the majority to take things away from the minority that protect them from the majority? Guess it depends on if you're of the minority.
