Not only has the issue come full circle, but will do so again. As long as smart people really believe that restricting a good guys ability to own a gun makes everyone safer. The idea that standing next to me, an armed citizen, in line at the grocery store makes it unsafe for you is rediculous. The idea that more guns means less crime is just so far from reality for some, yet in all studies done on the subject, it's actually true. Now if you change the question, would we be safer if by some magic wand all guns were somehow eliminated, yes number of gun deaths would drop. What would never drop is the number of those dying in one way or another. Hammers kill more than guns. Knives and car accidents always lead to many deaths. What isn't discussed is the number of lives saved by legal gun ownership. Even when the right question gets asked, the answer isn't what some want to hear. When Obama asked the FBI to answer that question, that answer was hidden from the public for many years. Yes in that study, one million lives were saved just because a gun was present and available for the potential victim of a crime. You can't count how many times an armed citizen with one strapped on his side changes a bad guy's mind about committing a crime or choosing a different victim. Yet it happens all the time. The theater killer drove by 7 theaters because they posted no restrictions on guns in their theater. The one he picked was furthest away and loudly proclaimed it was a gun free zone. Gun free for the bad guy who killed many that night.
I follow the law. That's a prerequisite to gun ownership. Legal gun ownership. Not just law abiding, but not looking for conflict of any kind. The smallest confrontation can cost you your ability to carry. A simple bumping of one's chest into another is battery and can cost you your right to carry. When many abusers of the firearms laws find themselves in plea deals with no mention of the gun violation they face. Chicago in 2013 had prosecutors who decided that prosecution for young blacks males were unfair and racist so very few federal gun crimes made it before a judge. I wonder how many of those let off easy were part of the fast increase of gun violence in Chicago over the next 8 or more years were part of that. Probably.
They said here in Arizona in 2010 that constitutional carry would lead to gun battles in the streets, that we were facing the return of the wild west and open warfare. That as long as you could legally carry, legally buy a gun. You could choose the way you wanted to do that. Concealed, open or in the glove box. It was up to you. At the time, Arizona was dealing with a Spike in violent crime of their own. The new constitutional law would finish us off. Just the opposite happened and violent crime came down. I'm fact most crime that envolves guns , is connected to the elicit drug trades. Most of the names associated with the crimes commited in the 2 biggest cities have Hispanic surnames and many if not most are foreign actors here illegally. Not to disparage immigrants but that coun has 2 sides. Those looking for a better life and those taking advantage of our lucrative drug market and the ease of coming into the country and back out fairly easy to do. If we ever get a handle on drug and human trafficing in Arizona wedsee a very low crime rate.
Gun ownership and ones ability to protect their loved ones, along with national defense and keeping corrupt government officials at bay when in pursuit of our freedoms, the loss of life is relatively low when compared to the good good guys with guns play in society. The responsible gun owner whether in 1883 or 2023 have a justified position and protected by our rights as a citizen. As far as I'm concerned, if you can legally vote in America, you posses the right to arm and defend your life and property.
It's usually the politician with a cause or an agenda looking for votes while surrounded by armed security making the case for less gun and gun ownership. Ironic isn't it?
Driver Ray, greetings! We are in agreement, only I go farther. The Constitution, not the 2nd guarantee’s the right to carry. Government can’t regulate it, touch it, ban it, or do anything with it. Constitutional carry is just that. Government can though, write law based on what one does against another outside of self-defense. That’s the part of life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness people have apparently lost sight of. Like you, I have no desire to harm another. I will leave others alone, but I ask the same. And I have the right to ensure the right knowing the police are always ten minutes away when needed. And no, I do not profess the flagrant use of weapons. I also know the best way for the government to achieve absolute power (autarchy) is to outlaw weapons. Biden clearly defined an “assault weapon” on Thanksgiving Day in his comments about semi-automatics. That should have been a wake up call to everyone, even those who voted for him. Thank you for commenting and Regards!
The "immediate remedy" proposed in the Tombstone Daily Times does not work.
Reagan was right: Less government is better government.
Otto, exactly!!!!!
Not only has the issue come full circle, but will do so again. As long as smart people really believe that restricting a good guys ability to own a gun makes everyone safer. The idea that standing next to me, an armed citizen, in line at the grocery store makes it unsafe for you is rediculous. The idea that more guns means less crime is just so far from reality for some, yet in all studies done on the subject, it's actually true. Now if you change the question, would we be safer if by some magic wand all guns were somehow eliminated, yes number of gun deaths would drop. What would never drop is the number of those dying in one way or another. Hammers kill more than guns. Knives and car accidents always lead to many deaths. What isn't discussed is the number of lives saved by legal gun ownership. Even when the right question gets asked, the answer isn't what some want to hear. When Obama asked the FBI to answer that question, that answer was hidden from the public for many years. Yes in that study, one million lives were saved just because a gun was present and available for the potential victim of a crime. You can't count how many times an armed citizen with one strapped on his side changes a bad guy's mind about committing a crime or choosing a different victim. Yet it happens all the time. The theater killer drove by 7 theaters because they posted no restrictions on guns in their theater. The one he picked was furthest away and loudly proclaimed it was a gun free zone. Gun free for the bad guy who killed many that night.
I follow the law. That's a prerequisite to gun ownership. Legal gun ownership. Not just law abiding, but not looking for conflict of any kind. The smallest confrontation can cost you your ability to carry. A simple bumping of one's chest into another is battery and can cost you your right to carry. When many abusers of the firearms laws find themselves in plea deals with no mention of the gun violation they face. Chicago in 2013 had prosecutors who decided that prosecution for young blacks males were unfair and racist so very few federal gun crimes made it before a judge. I wonder how many of those let off easy were part of the fast increase of gun violence in Chicago over the next 8 or more years were part of that. Probably.
They said here in Arizona in 2010 that constitutional carry would lead to gun battles in the streets, that we were facing the return of the wild west and open warfare. That as long as you could legally carry, legally buy a gun. You could choose the way you wanted to do that. Concealed, open or in the glove box. It was up to you. At the time, Arizona was dealing with a Spike in violent crime of their own. The new constitutional law would finish us off. Just the opposite happened and violent crime came down. I'm fact most crime that envolves guns , is connected to the elicit drug trades. Most of the names associated with the crimes commited in the 2 biggest cities have Hispanic surnames and many if not most are foreign actors here illegally. Not to disparage immigrants but that coun has 2 sides. Those looking for a better life and those taking advantage of our lucrative drug market and the ease of coming into the country and back out fairly easy to do. If we ever get a handle on drug and human trafficing in Arizona wedsee a very low crime rate.
Gun ownership and ones ability to protect their loved ones, along with national defense and keeping corrupt government officials at bay when in pursuit of our freedoms, the loss of life is relatively low when compared to the good good guys with guns play in society. The responsible gun owner whether in 1883 or 2023 have a justified position and protected by our rights as a citizen. As far as I'm concerned, if you can legally vote in America, you posses the right to arm and defend your life and property.
It's usually the politician with a cause or an agenda looking for votes while surrounded by armed security making the case for less gun and gun ownership. Ironic isn't it?
Driver Ray, greetings! We are in agreement, only I go farther. The Constitution, not the 2nd guarantee’s the right to carry. Government can’t regulate it, touch it, ban it, or do anything with it. Constitutional carry is just that. Government can though, write law based on what one does against another outside of self-defense. That’s the part of life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness people have apparently lost sight of. Like you, I have no desire to harm another. I will leave others alone, but I ask the same. And I have the right to ensure the right knowing the police are always ten minutes away when needed. And no, I do not profess the flagrant use of weapons. I also know the best way for the government to achieve absolute power (autarchy) is to outlaw weapons. Biden clearly defined an “assault weapon” on Thanksgiving Day in his comments about semi-automatics. That should have been a wake up call to everyone, even those who voted for him. Thank you for commenting and Regards!