Having so many civilians armed also means many more people will die by suicide and accident. These numbers far outstrip the number of would be home invaders who would have killed someone.
The majority of Americans will not give up their right to bear arms. This is evidenced in The State of Virginia. The governor will be forced to walk back his talk.
Only time will tell.
So you think there are very few potential home invaders? People in major cities would have a beef with that. It looks like there are few, but consider a criminal is just as concerned about his own life as we are, they won’t invade if they know the risk of armed resistance is there. Not many home invasion robberies, but a lot of burglaries is characteristic of said areas.
If those criminals knew nobody had guns, they’d feel more free to come inside even while we’re there. Heck one could pretty well expect gang invasions run amok at that point. Gangs consisting of members who pay no attention to the existing gun regulations or the new ones constantly being agitated for. Those gangs love people like you who want to disarm us. Make their lives easier for them.
Part of the motivation for carrying a gun around is feeling like an important hero. It’s all part of the desire for violence, and why these idiots shoot people for talking in the movies or parking somewhere they don’t like.
Relative to the number of suicides, the number of people killed in home invasions is tiny.
Here is a link without a pay wall.
Glad they caught them.
The picture is of Patrik Jordan Mathews (that’s how it is all spelled btw)
He is the Canadian I believe, who was in the army, kicked out of because of his ties to these groups and he actually, crossed the border into the USA, illegally. So, he wasn’t arrested in Canada but he was being investigated.
By the way, the Americans may be in trouble also for “transporting an illegal alien”, that being the Canadian. They have been charged with that offense.
You’re missing the number of criminals who were potentially deterred from attempting a home invasion in the first place. This is difficult to calculate, but it is not insignificant. Knowing a resident might be armed has a considerable deterrent effect on who might enter a home while someone is in it.
This number would be very low. Automatic weapons are illegal in the US. Only military personnel are allowed automatic weapons.
To be effective in your anti-gun argument it would be helpful if you knew exactly what you were talking about. Bump stocks do NOT make a firearms more dangerous, it only makes them LOOK more dangerous.
How many Mass killings have there been with automatic weapons?
Lol, then we would revert to 49 states and we would just have one Virginia again, seeing as how 90 something percent of Virginia counties have declared they will not comply with gun confiscations.
One day, perhaps, the gun grabbers will actually do their homework and be able to speak intelligently about firearms. But it is not this day.
Having so many cars in the US means that many more people will die of auto accidents, or suicide by asphyxiation. Ergo, we must ban automobiles.
Automobiles pose no particular threat to progressive authoritarian rule.
As usual, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. But even the automobiles have not been untouched by regulation. Think seat belts, mileage standards, where you are allowed to drive, who may drive, etc. In this sense it is analogous to gun regulations that do not ban them for everyone, but to place significant restrictions on their use.
redal . . .
no automatic weapons throwing knives resulted in the the deaths of 20 6 year olds like Sandy Hook Elementary.
Before I get into all the issues I had with your post redal, please show me where anyone at Sandy Hook Elementary had “automatic weapons”?
There are restrictions. No fully automatic weapons, for instance. Background checks on buyers. No firearm sales to convicted felons. Etc. The “common sense” restrictions being howled for at the moment amount to bans on the automatic transmission and the internal combustion engine. Which even now green socialists (but I repeat myself) are turning against. Banning semi-automatic function. Banning magazines. Banning adjustable stocks. Banning “pistol” grips. Etc. It’s silly.
But to the point, your argument that accidents happen is not a compelling reason for the government to refuse to uphold a natural right and an enumerated right in the constitution. Cost-benefit analysis and all that.
Two points…1) you already have gotten into it, simply by your retort, , so please don’t play coy with me; 2) OK, fair enough, if you lost one of those children, I doubt (hopefully) you would find solace in the fact that the guns that killed them were not automatic weapons.