A Well Regulated Militia

I got ya. I think I’m fairly moderate on guns. But we were talking about AR15s and other rifles versus knuckle sandwiches.

 

I didn’t mean to quote you. I’m not sure how that happened. I meant to only quote the post you quoted. Fat fingers maybe?

 

Oh no problem at all. I enjoy the discussion.

 

It’s probably fewer guns than that since some guns were used for killing more than one person.

 

And knuckle sandwiches kill more people than AR15s.

 

Regardless of the the true meaning of 2A, it’s insane to me that our elected representatives can’t even regulate guns more to attempt to prevent these killings due to the politics of it, despite the majority approval of common sense gun control measure by citizens.

 

Do you have a point here, or are you just trying to be morbidly funny? I am not aware of anyone walking into an elementary school and knuckle sandwiching more than 20 kids and staff to death.

 

Florida Senate approves permitless carry bill

 

Definitely not joking. I was putting it into perspective. There seems to be people in this thread that live in fear of being the victim of a mass shooter. They are scared to send their children to school. Some describe our country as already gone down the toilet. Others call it an extremely dangerous place to live.

But what does the science tell us? 3.5 million people die in this country every year. 15,000 to 20,000 are murdered. 10,000+ are killed by drunk drivers. Roughly 500 are victims of mass shooters.

Every mass shooting is a horrible, heinous crime, especially when the victims are children. But looking at the statistics, mass shooters are not the most dangerous things we face in life. We should consider this fact when people are discussing draconian measures that impact millions of people.

 

It’s not draconian to ban assault weapons. For that matter, it’s also not draconian to ban weapons on the streets. Unfortunately, there are way to many selfish a-holes who are unwilling to make small sacrifices for the greater good.

 

Do you think you can get people to sacrifice when you call them a-holes?

Who decides whether sacrifice is small or not?

What are you willing to sacrifice to save the lives of children?

 

I don’t think that I can get people to sacrifice whether I call them A-holes or angels. Each individual needs to decide whether something is a small or large sacrifice, but, ultimately, it’s the voters and the elected officials who make the laws, subject to judicial oversight. As to what I am willing to sacrifice to save the lives of children? A lot. I will do what’s asked of me to reverse climate change. I will restrict my ownership of firearms to non-assault weapons used for home protection, hunting and recreation and will support any other reasonable rules, including gun storage, safety features that keep other people from using my firearms, etc. I will wear a mask and take a jab in the arm to keep from spreading pandemic-type viruses. I will pay increased taxes so that kids can get quality healthcare, eat healthy food, get a good education and have a roof over their heads. And that’s just the obvious things that I am willing to do.

 

Those are all excellent things to do. Have you stopped using an air conditioner? That might be one of our largest contributions to global warming.

 

I still use my AC/heat pump, but I set it at 100 during the warm weather and at 40 during the cold weather.

 

Police have no duty to protect - see Uvalde. Therefore I choose not to outsource the protection of my family when we go out into the world. I carry a weapon and a reload, and have been through several dozen hours of professional training.

In the same sense, I know EMS is 5-10 minutes away, and a femoral bleed is fatal in 90 seconds. So I carry a tourniquet amd other lifesaving equipment and have extensively trained in its use (10 or so hours of classroom and field training by EM professionals).

So yes, to us and those like us, banning weapons in public is draconian.

Your opinion doesn’t make it fact any more than my opinion makes it fact. They are opinions.

 

I understand the reason, but how many of us have had the need to use a gun when we were out in public? In the meantime, when you have millions of guns on the streets, it’s more likely that criminals and nut jobs will use them, and it makes the job of law enforcement practically impossible to administer. I have little doubt that if guns on the street were illegal and backed up by severe punishment for violating the no guns on the street laws, we would get rid of guns on the street. Think about it, if a street hood is caught with a gun, regardless of whether he is otherwise committing a crime, he goes to jail for a mandatory 5 years the first time around and worse if he is a repeat offender. The chances are that he is not going to be carrying guns in the street. Is it a sacrifice to give up the carrying of guns on the street for protection? Sure it is. However, IMO, it’s a small sacrifice to make to get guns out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs.

 

So you’re saying you set your thermostat to 100…..
okay

 

I’d love to see a 5 year mandatory for illegal possession of a firearm.
Doubt it would get near a vote let alone off the floor.

It would called racist.

 

I was joking.

 

I didn’t quite say that, did I. I said ban the public carrying of firearms. In other words, the current concealed carry and open carry laws would be abolished. You wouldn’t be able to have a gun outside your home with exceptions for hunting , law enforcement, some businesses, etc., and you back it up with the 5-year sentence type of punishments. That doesn’t seem racist to me.