There are many hypothetical situations that allow guns to be used in a defensive way.
Please try to remember that hypothetical and realistic are not the same thing. The only fact is is that non-qualified personnel have problems understanding the benefits of defensive gun use by trained users.....the fact is they can't....are you trained in the use of firearms? If not, your not even qualified to make your above statement, much less use a firearm.
A- By that logic, only drug users and dealers would be qualified to provide input into the structure of drug laws.
B- I have a class A/B longarms license and several longarms.
I just sold my 9mm Luger last year.
C-Guns a tool for amplifying personal power. "Do what i want or i will perforate your body." Its not that complicated.
More kids are killed by the guns their parents buy to protect them than are saved by them.
Really,Please provide your bona fide source & statistical proof
Extrapolated from the fact the 61% of child murders are committed by their parents(google fillicide then take you pick). Since most children are murdered by their parents it seems obvious that guns owned by the parents are more likely used to kill rather than save their children.
Obviously this relates to the notoriously difficult to quantify category of non-homicidal defensive gun use so i am not going to argue thus point.
Rationally the safest thing for your kids is to keep guns the hell away.
People have an infinite capacity for self delusion though.
In your mind you possessing a gun makes it less probable that your daughter will be raped (and a hats off to the fine marketing departments of NRA and Co for that notion).
People go to extreme lengths to protect their family from strangers but
most violent crimes against children are perpetrated by their own families. Possessing guns does little to prevent this. That's idiotic. You wouldn't buy a motorcycle to hit a cricket ball, so why would you expect a gun to eliminate child abuse. (even though a teen well trained in the use of a firearm can make an abusive dad take his belt & back off, probably without firing a shot)
Bottom line, guns are not meant to, they are meant to be used correctly against external threats. Enforce established laws if you want to eradicate more child abuse.
I agree with you. Guns do not prevent child abuse or murder. The only reason I mentioned it was because it was salient to the point YOU made about defending your daughter from a would be rapist.
Most threats to children are from inside the family, giving the family guns does not remove the threat. As stated, your example, not mine.
If easy availability of guns prevented or reduced crime the US would have significantly lower levels of violent crime compared with similar countries.
They have......violent crime has been on the decline in the USA for years, you seem to only read the front page tabloid headlines.....meant to sell media, rather than actual government statistics which will prove you wrong.
As far as comparing to "similar countries", there are none that are truly comparative (historically, politically, & culturally)
A- I am comparing the US to countries like AUS//NZ/CAN. They are not identical, but they are close enough to draw comparisons. If you refuse to compare the US to those countries I would like to know why.
B- I'm not comparing the US to its own historical violence rates, or commenting on such a relationship. I'm comparing it to countries with similar economic status, cultural make up, with widespread use of firearms.
It has elevated levels of violent crime compared to other developed countries. Wrong, See previous above.
Oh, please correct me by naming one developed country with higher murder rate than the US. I looked at the stats and I couldn't find one.
Thus to state: Guns = Less crime would be patently absurd. Statistically, you are absolutely incorrect.
Please share these statistics that correlate an increase of gun ownership with a decrease in gun violence.
I dont like violent crime. Thus I support gun control.Show me a specific law on the books that will absolutely stop anyone from getting a firearm illegally.
Erroneous logic. If a law prevents 99% of the population from committing an action, it is an effective law. The fact that 1% of the population ignores it does not make the law pointless.
If you followed that logic their would be no laws.
Forum
Pages: 
