to the law-abiding gun owners
Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.
Nobody is blaming law-abiding gun owners. They’re not facing charges, they’re not going to jail for anything. Law-abiding citizens in general don’t want to accept the consequences of the acts of violent or deranged criminals, which is why limiting access (via control) to firearms will reduce the number of these acts by violent and deranged criminals.
Let’s consider the second sentence. If you think it’s necessary to have your own personal nuclear weapon arsenal, just in case you don’t agree with your government’s stance regarding Iran or North Korea, and want to have the means to protect your own family, would that be okay? The people you and your fellow countrymen elect to govern your country should certainly be capable of examining evidence for necessity and risk, and making sensible decisions about how to protect society in general from yet more unnecessary acts of violent or deranged criminals. Given that all the evidence shows that there is less violent gun crime in countries where there is more gun control, surely if you genuinely care about the safety of your family, you would be supporting gun control!
I think it’s fair to say that empty statements like this appeal to some strange base instincts without having any need to make sense. If you declare ‘we will not accept the blame!’, ‘we will not be dictated to!’, ‘we want to protect our families!’ anywhere, about anything, no-one would disagree, and, in fact, we may feel the urge to join in. The fact is that the context round about these statements makes the base ‘justified’ emotions totally and utterly meaningless.
(My opinions are based on common sense. If there are any studies out there that demonstrate that the possession of firearms reduce the likelihood of death by firearms, I would be very interested. And eat my hat.)
Mmm. Automatic weapons with large magazines. Protect their families from an army?
Well, it would be useful, you know, just in case …
These are not automatic weapons. Machine guns have been effectively banned since the 30’s. These are semi-automatic rifles that fire once per trigger pull. Hunting rifles and shotguns have been available like this for over 100 years.
Standard magazines for these rifles are 30 rounds. It takes, on average, 2 rounds hits to the torso to disable/stop an attacker. A rule of thumb for many gunfights is 5 rounds per attacker to be able to get those two hits. Often times it takes more since they usually don’t stand still for you. Typical home invasion involve 3-5 attackers so a fully loaded magazine. on average, will allow a homeowner to stop the attackers and have five rounds as a further margin of error. There are numerous documented gunfights where police fired upwards of 50 rounds and hit nothing.
Just to note as well. The .223 round that has been described as “high power” is very common with law enforcement as well as people who choose to defend their homes because it does not “overpenetrate.” In other words it wont go through walls and continue to be deadly. You may not go to prison for shooting an intruder but you will if you shoot your neighbor in the process.
Just trying to make sure people have the facts that the news tends to gloss over.
I’m sure all those details about guns are interesting to someone. The fact remains that, as we have already discussed, your home isn’t actually safer with guns in it.
“Nobody is blaming law-abiding gun owners.”
Yes they were:
You don’t need a nuclear weapon to stop someone getting into your house. A gun does quite nicely.
I think you didn’t read the quote I was commenting on. There’s no reference in that link to them being blamed for the ‘acts of violent and deranged criminals’.
A gun may successfully stop an intruder getting into your house, I don’t know. Decent locks and a dog might be just as successful. There is no evidence that it reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during a break-in. I do know that having a gun increases the risk for you, and those near you, of death or injury due to accident or suicide.
Question: What consequences did law abiding gardeners, farmers and box truck renters face after Oklahoma City?
The point was that people are leaking and publishing gun ownership data because they are unhappy with gun owners in the wake of mass shootings, because they blame these episodes on the people who want to own guns and want some kind of retribution. They really do blame gun owners for the crime.
“I do know that having a gun increases the risk for you, and those near you, of death or injury due to accident or suicide.”
Not as much as having a swimming pool does… do we ban those too ?