How To Create a School Shooter

[myth-one.com]

Today it's reached my immediate neighborhood! Ten dead, ten wounded in the school shooting in Santa Fe -- yet we never edge closer to understanding why.

Let me propose an example of how we create school shooters:

A child is routinely bullied because he is different in some way. But schools have a "zero tolerance" for bullying. So the principal separates the student being bullied from those bullying him.

The effect is to ostracize the student even more as he sits alone at an assigned separate table during lunch -- his few "friends" remaining with the crowd.

He consoles himself during lunch and every other spare second with his only true friend -- as he remains bent over his smart phone playing video games.

His favorites are the combat games, in which the basic goal is to kill the most zombies, ghosts, aliens, or whatever. They are the enemy. He learns to excel at these games.

The more he plays, the more he views himself as a winner.

He has two worlds -- the real world and the video world. In one, he's an ostracized failure. In the other, he's always a winner.

If time moves on without some external change in his real world, there will always remain the possibility that he might switch his real miserable world with his pleasurable fantasy world.

Real guns are readily available, he knows the rules of the game, and the definition of winner and loser are well-defined!

It's simply a matter of execution on his part:

Do I have the "courage?" The entire world would be discussing my body count. I would go viral! I would be famous! I would no longer be ignored!

But one simple act by one individual might prevent one of these tragic events.

When you see someone alone, ask if you can join them. Shake their hand, try to say something complimentary, or even hug them!

And now abideth faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love.

Be that external change in someone's life. Love them.

================================================================

Another day, another school shooting.

Guns everywhere, government incompetent to do anything, and education has reached new lows.

I'm just a damn fool, and I had to say something.

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

[Clownboat]

Not for some people I presume.

Well is it an issue for you? You brought the issue of repelling an invading country up after all.

I do not own firearms for such a reason.
It would be good of you to acknowledge that there are those that do though. You don't have to appreciate their reasoning of course, just like you wouldn't have to appreciate a rape victim who now carries a firearm for protection from rape.

God beliefs kill far more than guns do, so why should a peron not be allowed to own a gun if it makes them feel more secure about the neighborhood they live in? Whether for gang/criminal reasons or competing gods that are causing hatred or what have you?

We do have laws against inciting violence, so "God beliefs" control is a thing.

We also have laws against murder.
If someone broke into your home, I seriously doubt quoting law at them would be effective.

Your argument needs to be better than 'so Bust Nak will feel safer' IMO.

And yet "so Clownboat will feel safer" is presented as a reason for keeping guns around.

This seems very disenenuis to me.
I have listed all sorts of reasons for why people own firearms. Litereally from zombie invasions to rape victims. So Clownboat feels safer was not one of them and on top of that, it has been made very clear that I don't even keep my firearms and ammo in the same building.

I can only assure you that I will never shoot you. Even if you were a burglar and broke into my home, I would not be shooting you though you may receive some holes.

Where are the holes (presumable bullet holes) coming form then?

A Sai most likely.
I have children in the house and do not have firearms available for protection currently. Clownboat doesn't need them to feel safe, but he acknowledges that some people do.

If things like that (me shooting you) keep you up at night, I cannot help this.

Sure you can, get rid of your guns.

That will not affect your safety, I'm sorry. Bust Nak will need to protect himself even if that is a harsh reality.
How disarming law abiding citizens and leaving governments and criminals with guns does that is lost on me though and even seems counter intuitive.

Doesn't follow. I could get rid of my guns today and the likelyhood for a criminal or the government using a gun on you would not change.

That one less reason for a criminal or the government to think I am armed and hence less likely to use a gun on me.

Bullies prey on the weak. I would caution you about how weak you present yourself. (In real life)
Either way, I don't believe you are thinking this through. Put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. Would you break into a home you knew had those in it that can't protect themselves well, or the home with an NRA (not even a gun mind you) sticker? Once again your words seem counter intuitive to your end goal IMO.

There is nothing to address as such because I fully acknowledge that would be the likely scenario and I think it's the better alternative. Said invader would be less likely to use his weapon if he is under the impression that his victims is unarmed.

I, and many like me do not share this victim mentality you seem to be presenting.
If you are not able to protect yourself, have you ever thought of owning a firearm? Maybe just an NRA sticker on your window will do in fact. Better to prevent the criminal before you and your family become a victims I would think.

Is it possible that your paranioa about guns doesn't allow you to acknowledge that lives are saved because of guns? Do you acknowledge that mass shootings have been stopped because of a citizen with a gun or how countless rapes/muggings do not take place due to nothing more than having said would be victim brandish their firearm?

I can acknowledge all that, it's just not worth it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have never been raped, judging by this comment. I believe your tune would be different if you were ever such a victim.

All you would be rape victims, no more brandising your firearm to stop the rape. Instead, take your rape like a good victim. Why would they even think that they should have the right to self defense?

Heck, the self confidence some women (and men) project because they feel safer is enough to stop countless rapes and muggins. It is the weak that are preyed upon and self defence classes will teach you to look a potential criminal in the eyes (to suggest you are not easy prey). Your way of thinking would take this tool away and would create more victims. It's just not worth it.

I'm not sure how it sounds to you to be honest, I can only read his words for what they are.

"They were coming for the peoples’ guns. They wanted to disarm the colonists before a rebellion began."

Sure, but it doesn't affect my point - the guns in question are military weapon, meant for armed forces.

That is not in question. Tyranical governments disarming their populace was.

People are going to kill, this is the world we live in. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not stop the killing.

Sure, not stop but it would lessen the killing.

I believe that there would be more killings in Americal if we disarm law abiding citizens and only allow criminals and our government to be armed. What you propose is turning people into helpless victims. Not everyone shares this mentality fortunetly. If our founding fathers had your mentality, we would still be under British control and would not be the free nation that we are.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/ ... 12a045edc5
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. - What you propose would stop the 500,000 to 3 million lawful uses and it would make the criminals committing 300,000 uses feel a lot safer. Are you a criminal Bust Nak! (Tongue and cheek as I assume you are a wonderful human in reality).

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs (defensive gun uses) per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere� excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,� (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed� if they “had not used a gun for protection.�

These would be deaths are not worth it, just so you can 'feel' safer I wouldn't think.

[2ndRateMind]

= My government could get me to give up my guns as I abide by the law, but criminals, I don't see why they would as they have already shown they don't abide by the law. So I hear you and even agree,..

One of the things I have noticed about law enforcement in the UK, is that since hand guns etc were made illegal, the law enforcement agencies don't have a complicated assessment to make as to who is, and who is not, a law abiding citizen. As far as they are concerned, anyone who has a proscribed gun is illegal, and they come down on them like a ton of bricks. It's safer for us ordinary people, and safer for them, and more dangerous for criminals. What better outcome might you want?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Equal footing. Why stop at removing guns from the general populace? Your point would be better made if all guns were removed, including from governments and criminals.

Now, here in the US, it is suppose to be 'WE THE PEOPLE' who is our government, yet here we have somone from the UK seemingly trying to argue to be less US and more UK. Couldn't a person move to the UK if that is what they wanted?
Odd approach, but let's keep going. Does the UK teach its children to be governed or to be the governors, because it sounds like you are quite content being ruled over. Perhaps this is a common mentality in the UK?

So let's allow the legislating side of our government to have the guns, but the 'people' side of our government, nah, let's treat them more like the populace of the UK. I'm just not super cool with that, sorry.

No one here, I think, is suggesting that criminals should be 'allowed' guns. On the contrary, that the thinking is that if guns were removed from the equation for the general populace, criminals would be deprived of them just like everyone else. And that would be the point of the whole exercise. Happy days, and peace and love, break out forever.

As for your issues about government, then in democratic states, such as the UK and the US, the government tends to be divided between the legislature, who make the laws, the executive, who implement them (including the police and the military), and the judiciary, who interpret the law that the legislature has passed and the executive are trying to impose, where there is any dispute.

It is not a matter of being ruled over; all branches of the government are subject to the same democratically derived laws as everyone else. It is simply a matter of due citizenship, and the inevitable compromises that arise out of living in a community; I don't like all the decisions my government takes, by any means, but I recognise that all UK citizens have input to the process, and that sometimes they might even be better qualified and more knowledgeable and therefore more accurate concerning the common good than I am.

I notice, however, that in the UK we are not so suspicious of our government as you tend to be in the US, and that we the people accept the responsibility for the government we the people have elected. And the responsibility to remove them, by peaceful means, if we the people don't like what they get up to. And we the people just don't need a personal arsenal of semi-automatic assault rifles to achieve that end, and neither, if you really thought about it, do you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

I do not own firearms for such a reason.
It would be good of you to acknowledge that there are those that do though. You don't have to appreciate their reasoning of course, just like you wouldn't have to appreciate a rape victim who now carries a firearm for protection from rape.

There are lots of reasons for owning guns, but if you are not presenting them as good reasons worthy for appreciation, why are you bringing them up at all?

We also have laws against murder.
If someone broke into your home, I seriously doubt quoting law at them would be effective.

But them not bringing a gun into my home in the first place would be effective.

This seems very disenenuis to me.
I have listed all sorts of reasons for why people own firearms. Litereally from zombie invasions to rape victims. So Clownboat feels safer was not one of them and on top of that, it has been made very clear that I don't even keep my firearms and ammo in the same building.

That's just feeling safe from zombies and feeling safe from rapists, various forms of feeling safe.

A Sai most likely.

Exotic.

I have children in the house and do not have firearms available for protection currently. Clownboat doesn't need them to feel safe, but he acknowledges that some people do.

So what do you keep guns for? You list many reasons for owning guns yet don't seem to appeal to said reasons for owning guns yourself.

That will not affect your safety, I'm sorry.

But it will affect my feeling of safety.

Bust Nak will need to protect himself even if that is a harsh reality.
How disarming law abiding citizens and leaving governments and criminals with guns does that is lost on me though and even seems counter intuitive.

The safer criminals feel, the less trigger happy they are.

Bullies prey on the weak. I would caution you about how weak you present yourself. (In real life)

That's where the police comes in, I allow them to have guns.

Either way, I don't believe you are thinking this through. Put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. Would you break into a home you knew had those in it that can't protect themselves well, or the home with an NRA (not even a gun mind you) sticker? Once again your words seem counter intuitive to your end goal IMO.

A criminal would obviously pick a home that is gun free, how would that be counter intuitive to my end goal?

I, and many like me do not share this victim mentality you seem to be presenting.

And gun death will remain prevalent until you change.

If you are not able to protect yourself, have you ever thought of owning a firearm?

No, not seriously.

Maybe just an NRA sticker on your window will do in fact. Better to prevent the criminal before you and your family become a victims I would think.

Or let the police handle it afterwards.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have never been raped, judging by this comment. I believe your tune would be different if you were ever such a victim.

Good guess, I've been robbed, and I never felt like owning a gun.

All you would be rape victims, no more brandising your firearm to stop the rape. Instead, take your rape like a good victim. Why would they even think that they should have the right to self defense?

Because unlike owning a gun, it's part of human right?

Heck, the self confidence some women (and men) project because they feel safer is enough to stop countless rapes and muggins. It is the weak that are preyed upon and self defence classes will teach you to look a potential criminal in the eyes (to suggest you are not easy prey). Your way of thinking would take this tool away and would create more victims. It's just not worth it.

Less gun deaths is worth it.

That is not in question. Tyranical governments disarming their populace was.

That was never in question either. The point was that's what the army is for, fighting Tyranical governments; and if they happen to be not on your side, you are screwed and is better off using chlorine and bleach.

I believe that there would be more killings in Americal if we disarm law abiding citizens and only allow criminals and our government to be armed. What you propose is turning people into helpless victims. Not everyone shares this mentality fortunetly. If our founding fathers had your mentality, we would still be under British control and would not be the free nation that we are.

Again, they have access to the military. I am all for giving the military the best equipment. This is about guns in the hands of civilians, this is not a reason for civilians to own guns. You talk of mentality, you can have keep the same fighting spirit mentality - join the army, join the police.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. - What you propose would stop the 500,000 to 3 million lawful uses and it would make the criminals committing 300,000 uses feel a lot safer.

A safe feeling criminal is not a trigger happy criminal.

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs (defensive gun uses) per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere� excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,� (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed� if they “had not used a gun for protection.�

But it doesn't take into account the mentality of the criminal, if they thought their potential victum are unarmed. Bottom line, if you could magically swap the US crime rate for that of say the UK, would you do it at the expense of guns?

[Clownboat]

No one here, I think, is suggesting that criminals should be 'allowed' guns. On the contrary, that the thinking is that if guns were removed from the equation for the general populace, criminals would be deprived of them just like everyone else. And that would be the point of the whole exercise. Happy days, and peace and love, break out forever.

What no one seems to understand it how easy it is for felons to get guns. See ghost guns for example. They are not traceable and can be assemble with needing nothing more than a dremal tool.
For example, here is one site:
https://80pbuilder.com/

Your attempts to disarm me, a law abiding citizen that owns guns for hunting is totally ineffective and only makes people who would defend themselves with a gun more vulnerable.

I would encourage you and others to seek to remove guns from criminals, but all I see is perceived gun paranoia where getting law abiding citizens to give up their guns is a step in the right direction somehow.

Ghost guns and such would be an actual benefit as it would help to keep guns out of the hands of felons and those predisposed to gun crimes. Your efforts are foolish and ineffective IMO because you are fighting the wrong battle.

Fight on, but I cannot be a part of what I see to be folly.

I notice, however, that in the UK we are not so suspicious of our government as you tend to be in the US

Like I suggested, a mentality of being 'ruled over'. This would explain your willingness to allow governments and criminals to have guns and why it is justifiable to not allow those being ruled over the option of owning a firearm. They are just the sheep after all, no?

And the responsibility to remove them, by peaceful means, if we the people don't like what they get up to.

If push ever came to shove, you would find yourself defenseless.
There are those that feel better about owning guns to give any such potential government pause. I personally don't share their fear, but just because I don't, I don't believe I should remove their feeling of security assuming they are not criminals harming others of course.

And we the people just don't need a personal arsenal of semi-automatic assault rifles to achieve that end, and neither, if you really thought about it, do you.

I also don't need a firearm to feel secure about not getting raped. However, I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that there are many such people that own a firearm for just that reason.

Rape victims or a single mother in a rough neighborhood be damned seems to be the theme. Whatever it takes to remove guns from law abiding citizens, right? I keep saying this because criminals can still get guns and will still have them if you take away guns from those that abide by the law. Your efforts are misplaced it seems.

[2ndRateMind]

Bottom line, if you could magically swap the US crime rate for that of say the UK, would you do it at the expense of guns?

Key point, well made. Is it better to have guns, and 179 more deaths per 100,000 population, or better not guns, and save those lives?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

There are lots of reasons for owning guns, but if you are not presenting them as good reasons worthy for appreciation, why are you bringing them up at all?

In vain it seems, but in an attempt to get you to understand that there are zillions of reasons for people to own firearms. Them being 'good' or not is subjective and therefore I have no desire to discuss their 'goodness', but we can still acknowledge the reasons for gun ownership. I do.

We also have laws against murder.
If someone broke into your home, I seriously doubt quoting law at them would be effective.

But them not bringing a gun into my home in the first place would be effective.

Here is where you lose me. I abide by the law. You can take my guns, but it would be foolish to think that criminals will then not use their tool (gun) to take advantage of those they perceive to be weaker.

So what do you keep guns for? You list many reasons for owning guns yet don't seem to appeal to said reasons for owning guns yourself.

I use to hunt with them. I had to put my bird dog of 15 years down (peace be upon him) last year though and haven't hunted since.
So I own them to hunt.
Others own them to prevent being raped again (or for the 1st time).
Some to help them feel safer in their own homes or when they are on the streets.
Some just enjoy target shooting. Ever shot clay pigeons? Lots o fun IMO.

But it will affect my feeling of safety.

And here is the divide.
Taking my guns and those from law abiding citizens will not actually make you any safer.
A rape victim that now carries a firearm is actually safer because of carrying the said firearm.
Your feeling safer seems to be imagined. A rape victim carrying a firearm does not need to imagine that they are safer. Just the self confidence of such a women carrying a weapon could stop a potential rape from happening.
I simpithize with your imagined feeling of safety, but I have a hard time seeing as meaningful when compared to real fears (rape victims for example).

The safer criminals feel, the less trigger happy they are.

I would need to see stats on that as my dealings with bullies would suggest just the opposite. Bullies prey on the weak after all.

That's where the police comes in, I allow them to have guns.

The police rarely prevent the crime though. They arrive after the fact to take a statement (assuming your still alive of course).
This gets back to the possible being ruled over mentality difference. Some need the government to take care of them for a feeling of safety and others see it as their responsibility to take care of themselves and their own and to actually be proactive with their security.
Why can't you have your police to feel safe while gun owners can have their gun to feel safe? You both get to feel safer and you both get to concider each others as fools for their way of going about feeling safe.

A criminal would obviously pick a home that is gun free, how would that be counter intuitive to my end goal?

Simple. You seem to have a desire to remove guns from law abiding citizens, thus making all homes (besides those of criminals) gun free and a preferred target for criminals.

I, and many like me do not share this victim mentality you seem to be presenting.

And gun death will remain prevalent until you change.

Please show that you speak the truth.
How would me getting this victim mentality change gun dealths? This seems wrought with emotion only.

If you are not able to protect yourself, have you ever thought of owning a firearm?

No, not seriously.

Do you acknowledge that millions of others do own guns for this reason and that you seek to remove this feeling of security that gun ownership can provide?

Maybe just an NRA sticker on your window will do in fact. Better to prevent the criminal before you and your family become a victims I would think.

Or let the police handle it afterwards.

I am not able to share this victim mentality with you. Apparently I'm just not capable. Do note something important here. I am not arguing that you should own a gun, but you are in fact seeking to remove that right from law abiding citizens.

Good guess, I've been robbed, and I never felt like owning a gun.

Did the police protect you and prevent the robbery, or did they come by after the fact and fill out paperwork?
Now imagine someone other than yourself. Imagine someone trained on how to use a firearm. Would the robbing have potentially not happened (maybe it would have in your scenario, but in others it surely would not have)?

Because unlike owning a gun, it's part of human right?

I would agree that self preservation is a human right and I acknowlege the hudreds of thousands if not millions that are preserved due to firearms. You are actively seeking to remove the best tool many have to protect themselves. Shame on you?

Less gun deaths is worth it.

More gun deaths in gun free zones would suggest just how wrong you are. It's also as if you are ignoring those that are killed after being raped. Preventing rapes and murders are in fact a very noble cause and are worth it.

That is not in question. Tyranical governments disarming their populace was.

That was never in question either.

False. Cut/paste from post 37:
"You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe there are reasons that dictators take guns away from those they are ruling over. "

(From the US Constitution)
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,� the limitation placed on the newly formed federal government itself could not be clearer: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.�

I believe that there would be more killings in America if we disarm law abiding citizens and only allow criminals and our government to be armed. What you propose is turning people into helpless victims. Not everyone shares this mentality fortunetly. If our founding fathers had your mentality, we would still be under British control and would not be the free nation that we are.

Again, they have access to the military. I am all for giving the military the best equipment. This is about guns in the hands of civilians, this is not a reason for civilians to own guns. You talk of mentality, you can have keep the same fighting spirit mentality - join the army, join the police.

I have repeatedly said that "I" don't own guns to repel my government nor any government. So why would you have me join the police or army?
I'm sorry, but your response doesn't seem to address what was said above now in bold.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. - What you propose would stop the 500,000 to 3 million lawful uses and it would make the criminals committing 300,000 uses feel a lot safer.

A safe feeling criminal is not a trigger happy criminal.

I suggest that you are not well informed on the mentality of bullies. The weaker the prey, the more confident the bully. A rape victim that you have removed of having their firearm is now weaker and this weakness will be projected to the bully.

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs (defensive gun uses) per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere� excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,� (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed� if they “had not used a gun for protection.�

But it doesn't take into account the mentality of the criminal, if they thought their potential victum are unarmed.

It was never claimed that it did, but should we just glance over the 162,000 lives that would have been ended if not for defensive gun use? I don't think so and I actually feel that empowering criminals is foolish.

Bottom line, if you could magically swap the US crime rate for that of say the UK, would you do it at the expense of guns?

I would need to look into this further. For example, it seems like New York's murder rates are heading in the right direction while London maybe not so much. (I have looked into this very little).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 86866.html
The Sunday Times compared the crime figures of London and New York, and found that for the first time in modern history the murder rate in the UK capital was higher than that in the Big Apple.

The tally of 290 New York murders in 2017 – while still much higher than London’s corresponding total – has been hailed in America as a hugely encouraging breakthrough. It is definitely the lowest annual murder total since comparable New York records began in 1994 and it is being reported as the city’s lowest number of homicides since the end of the Second World War.

Since then, of course, London’s annual murder totals have increased: from 93 in 2014 to 116 in 2017, a rise of nearly 25 per cent.

This is a bit off topic though and could probably deserve a thread of its own.

[2ndRateMind]

No one here, I think, is suggesting that criminals should be 'allowed' guns. On the contrary, that the thinking is that if guns were removed from the equation for the general populace, criminals would be deprived of them just like everyone else. And that would be the point of the whole exercise. Happy days, and peace and love, break out forever.

Like I suggested, a mentality of being 'ruled over'. This would explain your willingness to allow governments and criminals to have guns and why it is justifiable to not allow those being ruled over the option of owning a firearm. They are just the sheep after all, no?

And the responsibility to remove them, by peaceful means, if we the people don't like what they get up to.

If push ever came to shove, you would find yourself defenseless.

Hmmm. I have already attempted to explain that the whole purpose of banning small arms is to minimise the access criminals and the mentally disturbed might have to them.

And if you think a hunting rifle, or even a semi-automatic assault weapon, is some kind of guarantee of freedom, you are sadly deluded. Neither is much use against an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, or a cruise missile, or an F15E strike fighter jet. If 'push ever came to shove', US civilians are quite as defenseless as we are in the UK. It's just that you have the worst of both worlds, an inordinate amount of civil crime involving small arms, and a government that controls way more miltary might than you do, whereas we in the UK just have such a government.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

In vain it seems, but in an attempt to get you to understand that there are zillions of reasons for people to own firearms. Them being 'good' or not is subjective and therefore I have no desire to discuss their 'goodness', but we can still acknowledge the reasons for gun ownership. I do.

Okay I acknowledge there are reasons for gun ownership.

Here is where you lose me. I abide by the law. You can take my guns, but it would be foolish to think that criminals will then not use their tool (gun) to take advantage of those they perceive to be weaker.

But if they are caught with it they'd be in far more trouble, they have this one great reason to deescalate.

So I own them to hunt.

I will grant you, that's a good reason for owning guns.

Others own them to prevent being raped again (or for the 1st time).
Some to help them feel safer in their own homes or when they are on the streets.

So feeling safe then.

Some just enjoy target shooting. Ever shot clay pigeons? Lots o fun IMO.

That you can do without having access to them outside of specific locations.

Taking my guns and those from law abiding citizens will not actually make you any safer. A rape victim that now carries a firearm is actually safer because of carrying the said firearm.

Don't be so sure about these.

Just the self confidence of such a women carrying a weapon could stop a potential rape from happening.

Mace can do that too.

I would need to see stats on that as my dealings with bullies would suggest just the opposite. Bullies prey on the weak after all.

But they can prey just fine, now with less risk.

The police rarely prevent the crime though. They arrive after the fact to take a statement (assuming your still alive of course).

Presumablly then to try and apprehend the criminals.

This gets back to the possible being ruled over mentality difference. Some need the government to take care of them for a feeling of safety and others see it as their responsibility to take care of themselves and their own and to actually be proactive with their security.
Why can't you have your police to feel safe while gun owners can have their gun to feel safe?

Because that is less safe.

Simple. You seem to have a desire to remove guns from law abiding citizens, thus making all homes (besides those of criminals) gun free and a preferred target for criminals.

That doesn't answer my question, why does that seemed counter intuitive to my end goal?

Please show that you speak the truth.
How would me getting this victim mentality change gun dealths? This seems wrought with emotion only.

See gun death stats against comparable countries.

Do you acknowledge that millions of others do own guns for this reason and that you seek to remove this feeling of security that gun ownership can provide?

Yes and yes.

I am not able to share this victim mentality with you. Apparently I'm just not capable.

So fight him with your Sai.

I am not arguing that you should own a gun, but you are in fact seeking to remove that right from law abiding citizens.

Noted, I am seeking to do that.

Did the police protect you and prevent the robbery, or did they come by after the fact and fill out paperwork?

Afterwards plus paperwork, but they did end up catching the prep afterwards. My stuff was never recovered though.

Now imagine someone other than yourself. Imagine someone trained on how to use a firearm. Would the robbing have potentially not happened (maybe it would have in your scenario, but in others it surely would not have)?

Maybe, or maybe it would ended up in a deadly shooting.

I would agree that self preservation is a human right and I acknowlege the hudreds of thousands if not millions that are preserved due to firearms. You are actively seeking to remove the best tool many have to protect themselves. Shame on you?

Nah, I am just saying the cost is too great and the comparative better choice is to ban the access to said tool.

More gun deaths in gun free zones would suggest just how wrong you are.

You will notice that many of the guns involved in these mass shooting incidents are legally obtained.

False. Cut/paste from post 37...

Oh... Sorry, I get what you mean now. I was trying to say "your point that tyranical governments do like disarming their populace, was not being dispute." It's now clear that wasn't what you had in mind.

I have repeatedly said that "I" don't own guns to repel my government nor any government. So why would you have me join the police or army?

Because you kept talking about the mentality of not leaving others to do the protecting. And yet here you are, with the victim mentality of needing the government to take care of them for a feeling of safety.

I suggest that you are not well informed on the mentality of bullies. The weaker the prey, the more confident the bully. A rape victim that you have removed of having their firearm is now weaker and this weakness will be projected to the bully.

A confident bully is a less trigger happy bully too.

It was never claimed that it did, but should we just glance over the 162,000 lives that would have been ended if not for defensive gun use?

Yes, due to the cost involved.

I would need to look into this further...

Worth noting New York have some of the tougher gun control in the US.

[2ndRateMind]

No one here, I think, is suggesting that criminals should be 'allowed' guns. On the contrary, that the thinking is that if guns were removed from the equation for the general populace, criminals would be deprived of them just like everyone else. And that would be the point of the whole exercise. Happy days, and peace and love, break out forever.

I notice, however, that in the UK we are not so suspicious of our government as you tend to be in the US

Like I suggested, a mentality of being 'ruled over'. This would explain your willingness to allow governments and criminals to have guns and why it is justifiable to not allow those being ruled over the option of owning a firearm. They are just the sheep after all, no?

And the responsibility to remove them, by peaceful means, if we the people don't like what they get up to.

If push ever came to shove, you would find yourself defenseless.

Hmmm. The idea is, if we the people elect moral, ethical governments, the result will be moral, ethical, evidence based policies the people can support. And if such policies are not forthcoming, and repeatedly so, then that government will be dissolved by the people, and a new version take its place at the next election.

Maybe you have a similar system in the US?

Best wishes, 2RM

[Kenisaw]

I notice, however, that in the UK we are not so suspicious of our government as you tend to be in the US, and that we the people accept the responsibility for the government we the people have elected. And the responsibility to remove them, by peaceful means, if we the people don't like what they get up to. And we the people just don't need a personal arsenal of semi-automatic assault rifles to achieve that end, and neither, if you really thought about it, do you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It's like lawyers. No one thinks they are necessary....until they are, and then boy are they sure glad they've got one.

You want to bet the people of Venezuela wish they had the ability to fight their government right about now? Only they can't, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.