This is a super complex problem that all the different sides can back up with statistics and data. Yes, there are some instances where you and your loved ones might be safer with you having a firearm, but I'm sure there are instances where there is far more danger because you do. No one can control their temper 100% of the time, nor completely prevent others from getting their weapons. I'd also be curious to see how useful a handgun is against a school shooter armed with assault rifles. I also don't blame the police for not running in guns blazing, it seems incredibly short-sighted.
I have no problems with your gun, or conceal carry, but you can't really blame people for wringing their hands and crying out for change when children in schools are being butchered in huge numbers. You have to admit the US can't keep going as it's going.
I can drive a car safely without getting road rage. I don't drive drunk. The same applies with handling guns. You trust people to drive tons of steel at insane speeds every day. You are familiar with the risk. It doesn't concern you. I suppose you would argue that government licenses offer a measure of protection, but really, that means nothing. people drive without licenses all the time. people with licenses drive poorly. Government wants to generate revenue and flex authority first and foremost, not ensure safety. A license is permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. Why has government declared so many things illegal? Because people believe in the mythology of politics, not because there was real necessity.
To my knowledge, there have been no school shootings with assault rifles in the US. None. Zero. An AR-type rifle is just a semi-automatic carbine made from modern materials. It may look like a military assault rifle, but it operates differently and has different internal components. It cannot fire multiple rounds from a single trigger press, a defining characteristic of machine guns and assault rifles. Legislating on appearances is stupid. But I also oppose the bans on machine guns, so that remains a moot point.
A handgun is very suitable for self-defense against someone with a rifle indoors. It can be carried at all times, and kept concealed until need arises. It is ideal for close range self-defense. A 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP loaded with hollow-point ammunition has ample power to reliably stop an assailant without significant risk of over-penetration endangering others. A rifle or shotgun would be preferable, but a handgun would work if they were not forbidden by law. Really, the ban on guns in schools only ensures a free fire zone for those with ill intent. And it is painfully obvious that police cannot be relied upon to aggressively respond to school shootings. The first responders are always those in the emergency.
Ah sorry, I don't know much about guns so wasn't aware of the difference between machine guns and the semi-automatic guns.
So, why don't you support the ban on these sorts of guns? The Las Vegas shooter caused the death or injury of 851 people... I doubt he would have been able to injure or kill as many people in a car.
People don't oppose cars because they're so useful. People use cars all the time safely.. it's not at all a fair comparison... even unlicensed people aren't trying to kill anyone. What's even the point of a semi-automatic weapon if not to kill hoards of people? And how is anyone okay with that?
I totally believe that you're a safe gun owner... but you can't guarantee that everyone who gets their hands on a gun is.
I've moved from Australia from the US, and trust me, there is definitely something way more sinister about the US government. So I totally agree it's out to flex rather than ensure safety. The fact that a Kinder Surprise is illegal and a handgun isn't... insanity. The whole pharmaceutical thing is bizarre in this country.
This data doesn't convince you that something should change?
True. Many people are unaware of the difference. And that confusion allows bad laws to be imposed with majority approval. Yellow journalism and political propaganda don't help at all.
The Las Vegas shooter did a terrible thing, but actual machine guns and assault rifles are available on the black market. Would more laws imposing arbitrary restrictions on peaceful people have stopped him? No. And the bump stock ban declaring thousands of innocent people "felons" was a stupid response.
People are used to cars, but cars are objectively far more dangerous than guns. So it's not a fair comparison at all, but not in the way you think, and that is the point.
You cite "gun-related deaths," but that is blatant cherry-picking of the data. Violent crime rates have plummeted in the US since the earlyn1990s before the Clinton-era ban on scary-looking guns and continued after that law sunsetted. Crime rates are primarily associated with the black markets arising from government prohibitions and impoverished inner cities where sociopolitical and economic turmoil is directly caused by government impositions. Blaming the guns is nonsense, and imposing restrictions on peaceful people won't prevent crime. And don't forget that countries report crime rates differently. If I am not mistaken, many report only convictions, and not victims, in homicide.
I do admit that there is a suicide problem in the US, but that is also a very complicated issue. Sure, guns are a fast and simple method, but so are poisons, carbon monoxide, and leaping from tall structures and bridges. Further, the US suicide rate overall is comparable to that of Europe and far lower than that of strict-gun-control Japan.
The world is a dangerous place, but placing arbitrary restrictions on peaceful people only makes it more so.
Again, I'm not at all an expert, so I'm happy for you to correct me, but I thought the Las Vegas shooter and the Church-shooter in Charleston bought their guns legally? I thought neither of them raised red flags, and so would have been deemed 'peaceful people' until they weren't.
I'm not at all saying I have the solution to this incredibly complex problem, and I'm sure that you're aware that the US has a reputation around the world for being 'gun crazy' but I would have thought that banning all guns except single shot rifles would at least help with all the shootings and massacres. Obviously the black market would need to be stamped out, and again, it might all be too complex for the US to resolve, but I guess my overall point is that I think it's entirely practical for someone in the US to be nervous about guns, because lots of people seem to get shot. Maybe the data is wrong, but at least from a PR point of view, my half-brother and half-sister in Australia go to school without ever having to worry about a shooter. I just don't think kids in the US can say the same... it's hard not to blame the guns in that comparison.
"the Las Vegas shooter and the Church-shooter in Charleston bought their guns legally?"
They very well could in a private sale anyway as this article confirms. Since they can get this in a black market and anyone with serious mental issues can as well, why not just legalize it all and make it a wild west again? Let's remove speeding laws and allow everyone drive to 100 or as far as their odometer, since a few will keep breaking the law anyway. The law can't stop it from happening. That's the argument some make.
Very insightful reading this thread all the same.
This is why I think we need 15 billion guns... two for each person. Then we'll all be safe.
You're building a strawman argument and making an error in reasoning by appealing to authority. That is not the argument I made, and legality does not have rational or moral aughority.
Consider speed limits, as you asserted. When the natural rate of traffic flow as determined by the drivers on the road exceeds an arbitrary government limit, they are all "criminals," but no crime was committed. No harm to life, liberty, or property is an inherent or necessary consequence of driving 70 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. It is not automatically reckless endangerment, aggression, or any other form of clear and present danger. Just move to the outside lane and let faster traffic pass you.
When people buy and sell guns without following arbitrary government restrictions, they are "criminals," again despite the absence of real crime. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. It's that simple.
Using what-if scenarios is a poor way to establish norms in society and using government guns to impose your opinions on others is far from a peaceful amd rational position.