Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte1
(Post 2113013)
The problem is that when someone responds with an answer, if certain folks do not like the solution, it is immediately discounted as "that will never work."
Some folks say that they answer is guns in the hands of the good guys. I agree. I also believe that stricter penalties is a good deterrent. Unfortunately, then you have to consider that many "mass murderers" are merely performing a suicide by COP and no deterrent will work. Before anyone says that guns carried by good guys does not work, how about looking up the stats on how many lives have been saved every year by someone in possession of a gun. I believe it averages about a million per year are saved by a "good guy" with a gun.
When someone tell me that guns should be limited so they cannot be used to kill so many people in such a short time, I refer them to the fact that a revolver generally holds six rounds (bullets) and fires every time you pull the trigger until empty. A speed loader gives one the ability to reload in seconds. So, then you have someone like a certain person in D.C. that says a shot gun is all that is needed and that a warning shot in the air will solve the problem. Shot guns are also manufactured in the semi-automatic version, the pump version and the breech loaded style.
Now, consider home defense. If you home is being broken into by more than one perp. don't you want to even the odds of survival by having the ability to fire without reloading as much as you would if restricted by a six shot revolver or a shot gun? If the bad guys only had revolvers and were numbered two or more, they they would have twice the ability as you would, even if they were restricted by carrying only a revolver. Capacity of the gun the "good guy" is limited to, is not the answer either.
The fact really is that there is a very low number of folks killed by guns in America compared to the number of folks saved by guns, considering the amount of guns owned in the U.S. If not killed by guns, then by knives, cars, doctors, cancer, heart disease, etc. The only way to lower the killings is to scare the perpetrators into submission. Take away one instrument of murder and you only cause the person to find another. Blah, blah, blah, etc.
|
Thank you for an answer.
First, the thread, like so many lately, is about mass shootings. I agree the discussion of guns in general is much broader, but for mass shootings, I don't think there have been any cases of mass shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun. It might have happened, but it is't often compared to the 300+ mass shootings this year. There were a LOT of good guys standing around with gun at Uvalde and it didn't stop them, there were A LOT of good guys with guns in Illinois and he shot and got away (until chased down).
So, while I will agree there is certainly a valid argument to say that guns in the hands of good guys can help in self protection, but in mass shooting I don't know of any evidence - please correct me if I am wrong.
I think I have read many studies that show laws and law enforcement do not provide any deterrent to mass shootings. Personally, I would not be opposed to making sure we catch them alive, then lowering them slowly feet first into tree shredder and streaming the execution live on Youtube and on OTA TV. But, I expect we are too civilized to do that, but I expect it would have a deterrent on some of the shooters thinking about it. But, I expect they would be sure to commit suicide by cop before being caught.
Most murders are committed with hand guns, and most mass shootings are commit with AR-15's. I will agree before anyone pounces that if we somehow magically snapped our fingers and removed all AR-15s, the mass shooters would simply change to a new weapon of choice.
What I do know is that 8 of the top 10 states in the murders per capita race are Red and have the least amount of gun controls. What I don't know is how that relates, if it does to mass shootings.
What I don't see is any reason for NOT implementing universal gun controls that are designed to not restrict responsible law biding citizens from obtaining guns, if not more than say a short cooling off period. I am NOT saying this is a cure all, but I am saying it is something we could try without restricting people from getting guns while weeding out mental health issues, rage buying and shooting, domestic violence issues, etc.
I also see no reason why a person should not be able to be held accountable for a private sell to a person that can't pass a background check. Transfer of registration could require a background check at the expense of the buyer. So gun provenance being tracked to hold sellers responsible for selling illegally. Again that would have NO impact on legal lawful responsible buyers.