What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Wry Catcher]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

The Republican solution is simple:

If everyone would shoot everyone else until there was just one person left...then mass shootings would come to and end.

The problem with you on the left is we offered solutions, but none to your liking.

We say have more security in schools, allow willing teachers to arm themselves, get rid of gun-free zones, but as the Lost in Space robot used to say "That does not compute."

So whats the lefts solution? More gun regulations that make it harder on the law abiding citizens to get guns. Get rid of the scary looking weapons, and make sure a mass murderer has to change magazines more often to kill the people he desires to kill.

More guns in the hands of more persons is not a solution to gun violence.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What I said was the AR was designed for WAR. And it's pretty good at it. The same features that makes it good for a battle field also makes it the best choice for mass shootings and a poor choice for home defense.

But you keep telling me what I think and say.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of

A. Defending themselves and their State against a tyrannical government (War)

B. Defend their individual homes against common criminals

A. Yes, at the time but many things have changed. That part of the 2nd Amendment is long since needing to be upended. With the creation of the US National Guard that meant that the Feds pretty well controls most well trained and ready personnel. And for the first time, the Guards got the really good toys that only the Feds had. There is a loophole where the State can form a State's Guard and X number of them cannot be called to Federal Duty. But the State's Guard doesn't get the really neat toys that go really, really BOOM in the night. Before the 1917 Act, the State Guards (there was no National Guard) clearly out numbered the Feds in every way. The Feds were limited to 150,000. If a group of states decided that the Government was Tyrannical, they had the power to do something about it if only threatening the Feds to make change. But WWI changed all that. The Toys that go Boom got really, really big and expensive. The States could not afford those toys. Hence, just one of the Reason for the National Guard Act.

B. You know, nowhere in the 2nd does it say that. It gives a very blanket statement. The Right to Bear Arms. But due to a few Court Rulings, that right IS protected for Hang Guns only. Hand Guns in the home is the only Firearms that the State cannot rule against. But the State can make you have to have a permit to have one in the home (Heller V). All others can be regulated or even banned by the state.
And another exception is the really Nasty "Go Boom in the Night" weapons like full automatics and explosives that are not banned but are highly regulated by the Feds. But the State can require you to have special licensing to own these. Or they might ban it completely. This is a special case.

You automatically assume that you can possess or bear any firearm. Not so. The Feds take care of the big stuff while the states are free to regulate the smaller stuff. But outside of the Big Stuff, the State has to regulate rather than Ban. And they do have the right to name a specific firearm and outright ban it with the exception of hand guns.

You are going to scream to high heaven, "That's against the Constitution". No, it's not. That comes directly from our Constitution under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then what you are talking about is outlawing gun manufacturing and sales which is completely unconstitutional. Gun manufactures are not going to stop making them on their own. A law would have to be passed prohibiting their industry which again, would be stopped by a federal court or eventually the Supreme Court.

The assault weapons ban was Constitutional

No, it wasn't.....D.C. v Heller, Friedman v Highland Park, Caetano v Massachusetts, and several other rulings.......... said it isn't.....the lower courts are ignoring the Supreme Court rulings...that should concern you...

Wow, more fake news. The Lower Courts are ruling using the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment. Even the Supreme Court can't change those.

If you mean in the 19th and early 20th century, you would be right. But in the last 80 years, the lower courts have NOT disregarded the Supreme Court Rulings for Firearms. You keep spewing this same nonsense and it's

FAKE NEWS ALERT!!!!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, that pretty well sums things up. The Right Guncrazies don't have any input to any solutions other than "More Guns". The people willing to discuss things about the OP just gets yelled down. And you wonder why things are so screwed up. And then you wonder why the voters don't take you seriously. You aren't right, you are just LOUD!!!!!

wow, you didn't read any of the thread I see.

I did. I saw one group yelling down the other group. If you (the group) didn't like what the other person had to say, it was "Pile On". I saw only one guncraze willing to discuss things in a civilized manner and I commented on that. Him we all could work with. But for the most part, the others need a lesson in manners and civics. And so do you.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Gun control is a part of the great American Heritage - Ordinance 9:

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia

 

[pismoe]

Okaa well armed society y, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

They wont take ownership of flooding the market with guns and killing as many laws as possible. They apparently want everyone to have guns. What a fun world that will be.

-------------------------------------- the more guns in Americans hands the better . Lots of guns where i am at and its nice GBelly .

 

[beautress]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Well, Billy, since people don't have to use a firearm to shoot themselves in the foot... we really don't know who's gonna shoot and who isn't until it's too late.

 

[12icer]

A. Yes, at the time but many things have changed. That part of the 2nd Amendment is long since needing to be upended. With the creation of the US National Guard that meant that the Feds pretty well controls most well trained and ready personnel. And for the first time, the Guards got the really good toys that only the Feds had. There is a loophole where the State can form a State's Guard and X number of them cannot be called to Federal Duty. But the State's Guard doesn't get the really neat toys that go really, really BOOM in the night. Before the 1917 Act, the State Guards (there was no National Guard) clearly out numbered the Feds in every way. The Feds were limited to 150,000. If a group of states decided that the Government was Tyrannical, they had the power to do something about it if only threatening the Feds to make change. But WWI changed all that. The Toys that go Boom got really, really big and expensive. The States could not afford those toys. Hence, just one of the Reason for the National Guard Act.

B. You know, nowhere in the 2nd does it say that. It gives a very blanket statement. The Right to Bear Arms. But due to a few Court Rulings, that right IS protected for Hang Guns only. Hand Guns in the home is the only Firearms that the State cannot rule against. But the State can make you have to have a permit to have one in the home (Heller V). All others can be regulated or even banned by the state.
And another exception is the really Nasty "Go Boom in the Night" weapons like full automatics and explosives that are not banned but are highly regulated by the Feds. But the State can require you to have special licensing to own these. Or they might ban it completely. This is a special case.

You automatically assume that you can possess or bear any firearm. Not so. The Feds take care of the big stuff while the states are free to regulate the smaller stuff. But outside of the Big Stuff, the State has to regulate rather than Ban. And they do have the right to name a specific firearm and outright ban it with the exception of hand guns.

You are going to scream to high heaven, "That's against the Constitution". No, it's not. That comes directly from our Constitution under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments.

Explain the errant reasoning that brings your fantasy to tha assumption. Facts are not congruent with any dimshit liberal leftist post I have seen in this or any of the OPers threads just like all of his genre lost in fantasy and space. Now give us a linear single faceted view of the inference for our multiplanic muti faceted intellect.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

The Republican solution is simple:

If everyone would shoot everyone else until there was just one person left...then mass shootings would come to and end.

The problem with you on the left is we offered solutions, but none to your liking.

We say have more security in schools, allow willing teachers to arm themselves, get rid of gun-free zones, but as the Lost in Space robot used to say "That does not compute."

So whats the lefts solution? More gun regulations that make it harder on the law abiding citizens to get guns. Get rid of the scary looking weapons, and make sure a mass murderer has to change magazines more often to kill the people he desires to kill.

Care to tell me where I am guilty of that? I have been called "Traitor" and "Liberal" and "Commie Bastard" just to name few by people claiming to already given the fix. And each time, that fix pretty well has been "More Guns".

But on many of the issues or preventions, we do a agree on.

BTW, I do want the AR-15 more highly regulated. Not banned but placed in it's own class. Even if only to make others feel good about themselves. Yes, it's ugly. But it looks that way because it's not into being sexy but into being 100% functional. Not one inch is used for cosmetics. And that function is for an Assault Rifle on the Battle Field. Not one ounce was in the original (and current) design for putting meat on the table. It's design and function is for a scared 18 year old with shaking hands, Adrenalined to the Max can operate it without dropping half the loaded Mags on the ground trying to reload in the pitch of battle. Think of this, the record holder for the longest single shot sniper shot goes to the M-2 Mah Deuce 50 cal and one really hot shot gunner. While the M-2 does not have a semi auto counterpart, it could have if enough people wanted it. Can you imagine hunting with a Mah Deuce bolted on the back of your Jeep? Talk about the Rat patrol. Even the Saw M-249 is offered in a single shot configuration. Would you like to see the reaction when you show up at a Ground Hog shoot with that puppy, but it's legal. Unless you change the design of the AR you will never change it's heritage or it's designed use. And it's damned good at it being more sought by 3rd world countries than the
AK. But for a quarter of the cost, they settle for the AK and there is supposed to be someone keeping tabs on the AR/M-16/M-4 but sometimes there isn't for sales to 2rd world armies and rebels.

Now, try that on for size.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A. Yes, at the time but many things have changed. That part of the 2nd Amendment is long since needing to be upended. With the creation of the US National Guard that meant that the Feds pretty well controls most well trained and ready personnel. And for the first time, the Guards got the really good toys that only the Feds had. There is a loophole where the State can form a State's Guard and X number of them cannot be called to Federal Duty. But the State's Guard doesn't get the really neat toys that go really, really BOOM in the night. Before the 1917 Act, the State Guards (there was no National Guard) clearly out numbered the Feds in every way. The Feds were limited to 150,000. If a group of states decided that the Government was Tyrannical, they had the power to do something about it if only threatening the Feds to make change. But WWI changed all that. The Toys that go Boom got really, really big and expensive. The States could not afford those toys. Hence, just one of the Reason for the National Guard Act.

B. You know, nowhere in the 2nd does it say that. It gives a very blanket statement. The Right to Bear Arms. But due to a few Court Rulings, that right IS protected for Hang Guns only. Hand Guns in the home is the only Firearms that the State cannot rule against. But the State can make you have to have a permit to have one in the home (Heller V). All others can be regulated or even banned by the state.
And another exception is the really Nasty "Go Boom in the Night" weapons like full automatics and explosives that are not banned but are highly regulated by the Feds. But the State can require you to have special licensing to own these. Or they might ban it completely. This is a special case.

You automatically assume that you can possess or bear any firearm. Not so. The Feds take care of the big stuff while the states are free to regulate the smaller stuff. But outside of the Big Stuff, the State has to regulate rather than Ban. And they do have the right to name a specific firearm and outright ban it with the exception of hand guns.

You are going to scream to high heaven, "That's against the Constitution". No, it's not. That comes directly from our Constitution under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments.

Explain the errant reasoning that brings your fantasy to tha assumption. Facts are not congruent with any dimshit liberal leftist post I have seen in this or any of the OPers threads just like all of his genre lost in fantasy and space. Now give us a linear single faceted view of the inference for our multiplanic muti faceted intellect.

I already did. I used the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment as justification. And so has the Courts. You want to use only 5 words from the Constitution. But truth be told, it's not just those 5 words, it's many words and amendments. This is why you keep seeing the losses in the Courts today. The States are getting smarter and learning how to word it so it's complies with those 3 Constitutional Amendments. We don't just use 5 words out of the Constitution, we use the whole thing. And since you seem to not respect anyone else, I don't feel the need to expand this conversation with you at this time.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gun control is a part of the great American Heritage - Ordinance 9:

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia

The Earps were playing well with others that day. Most Town Marshals would have given one warning and them shot the where they stood when they saw they were armed. "Marshal, why'd you shoot him in the back"....."Because his front wasn't facing me".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As can be seen, those obsessed with their lethal toys have no inclination to discuss the victims of gun violence, because they have this self proclaimed Right.

Self-proclaimed?

You motherfucking idiot!!!!!


Move to another country. You know SHIT about your own.

.

Punk, a cowardly person who uses fowl language and fighting words when safely confined in a cage, or hiding behind a keyboard. Aptly applies to you Mr. BLF. You would not have the balls to say this to my face (unless of course you came armed and ready to commit a felony).

So that was bird language?

I didn't know birds could cuss

Parrots can, thus they're foul fowl.

I don’t buy it til I see the statistics. It doesn’t really make any sense though. There’s no reason why that would be.

Sure there's a reason. Most of the sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers. As such, they are (by law) required to do a background check be it at a gun show or in their place of business. Even people who sell their personal firearms usually ask for ID of some sort. It would kind of be stupid not to because if that weapon is used in a crime, the detectives will trace it back to the last owner and they would have to answer questions about it.

Guns used in crimes are statistically stolen or purchased from straw buyers.

No actually. At gun shows, they are exempt from needing background checks. As long as the dealer doesn’t have previous knowledge that someone is a dangerous felon, they can sell it.

Anyone with an FFL MUST run a background check the only people who don't are people who enter into private sales

And private sales are a problem, should they be regulated?

how are private sales an issue? name an incident from a gun bought on a private sale.

Pick a street corner in Chicago. Those "Illegal Weapons" started out as legal sales at a gun show in Texas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Care to tell me where I am guilty of that? I have been called "Traitor" and "Liberal" and "Commie Bastard" just to name few by people claiming to already given the fix. And each time, that fix pretty well has been "More Guns".

Who said I was talking about you specifically?

 

[pismoe]

i wouldn't call you names but i do see YOU as an 'unamerican' type Daryl Hunt .

 

[2aguy]

Gun control is a part of the great American Heritage - Ordinance 9:

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia

And what you fail to see is that it was a failure....you do realize that the criminals in Tombstone had guns, and in fact murdered one Earp, and crippled the other one....do you understand that? And Doc Holiday ignored that rule every single day....

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

But these cowboys had no intention of doing so as they strolled around town with Colt revolvers and Winchester rifles in plain sight. Earlier on this fateful day, Virgil had disarmed one cowboy forcefully, while Wyatt confronted another and county sheriff Johnny Behan failed to persuade two more to turn in their firearms.

When the Earps and Holliday met the cowboys on Fremont Street in the early afternoon, Virgil once again called on them to disarm. Nobody knows who fired first. Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who were unarmed, ran at the start of the fight and survived. Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers, who stood and fought, were killed by the lawmen, all of whom walked away.

----

Gun Control, 1881

The ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective. As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had “demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”
------------
This reliance is misplaced. A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”

 

[2aguy]

A. Yes, at the time but many things have changed. That part of the 2nd Amendment is long since needing to be upended. With the creation of the US National Guard that meant that the Feds pretty well controls most well trained and ready personnel. And for the first time, the Guards got the really good toys that only the Feds had. There is a loophole where the State can form a State's Guard and X number of them cannot be called to Federal Duty. But the State's Guard doesn't get the really neat toys that go really, really BOOM in the night. Before the 1917 Act, the State Guards (there was no National Guard) clearly out numbered the Feds in every way. The Feds were limited to 150,000. If a group of states decided that the Government was Tyrannical, they had the power to do something about it if only threatening the Feds to make change. But WWI changed all that. The Toys that go Boom got really, really big and expensive. The States could not afford those toys. Hence, just one of the Reason for the National Guard Act.

B. You know, nowhere in the 2nd does it say that. It gives a very blanket statement. The Right to Bear Arms. But due to a few Court Rulings, that right IS protected for Hang Guns only. Hand Guns in the home is the only Firearms that the State cannot rule against. But the State can make you have to have a permit to have one in the home (Heller V). All others can be regulated or even banned by the state.
And another exception is the really Nasty "Go Boom in the Night" weapons like full automatics and explosives that are not banned but are highly regulated by the Feds. But the State can require you to have special licensing to own these. Or they might ban it completely. This is a special case.

You automatically assume that you can possess or bear any firearm. Not so. The Feds take care of the big stuff while the states are free to regulate the smaller stuff. But outside of the Big Stuff, the State has to regulate rather than Ban. And they do have the right to name a specific firearm and outright ban it with the exception of hand guns.

You are going to scream to high heaven, "That's against the Constitution". No, it's not. That comes directly from our Constitution under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments.

Explain the errant reasoning that brings your fantasy to tha assumption. Facts are not congruent with any dimshit liberal leftist post I have seen in this or any of the OPers threads just like all of his genre lost in fantasy and space. Now give us a linear single faceted view of the inference for our multiplanic muti faceted intellect.

I already did. I used the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment as justification. And so has the Courts. You want to use only 5 words from the Constitution. But truth be told, it's not just those 5 words, it's many words and amendments. This is why you keep seeing the losses in the Courts today. The States are getting smarter and learning how to word it so it's complies with those 3 Constitutional Amendments. We don't just use 5 words out of the Constitution, we use the whole thing. And since you seem to not respect anyone else, I don't feel the need to expand this conversation with you at this time.

No...we keep seeing losses in the courts because left wing judges ignore the Supreme Court ruling and while Kennedy was on the bench there wasn't enough intelligent Justices on the SC to trust getting the decision right.......so they let the lower courts break the law, and are simply waiting for Kavanaugh and ginsburg's replacement....

 

[2aguy]

Self-proclaimed?

You motherfucking idiot!!!!!


Move to another country. You know SHIT about your own.

.

Punk, a cowardly person who uses fowl language and fighting words when safely confined in a cage, or hiding behind a keyboard. Aptly applies to you Mr. BLF. You would not have the balls to say this to my face (unless of course you came armed and ready to commit a felony).

So that was bird language?

I didn't know birds could cuss

Parrots can, thus they're foul fowl.

Sure there's a reason. Most of the sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers. As such, they are (by law) required to do a background check be it at a gun show or in their place of business. Even people who sell their personal firearms usually ask for ID of some sort. It would kind of be stupid not to because if that weapon is used in a crime, the detectives will trace it back to the last owner and they would have to answer questions about it.

Guns used in crimes are statistically stolen or purchased from straw buyers.

No actually. At gun shows, they are exempt from needing background checks. As long as the dealer doesn’t have previous knowledge that someone is a dangerous felon, they can sell it.

Anyone with an FFL MUST run a background check the only people who don't are people who enter into private sales

And private sales are a problem, should they be regulated?

how are private sales an issue? name an incident from a gun bought on a private sale.

Pick a street corner in Chicago. Those "Illegal Weapons" started out as legal sales at a gun show in Texas.

Yes.....and then the straw buyer, after passing background checks, and following the rules...sold the guns to felons....

 

[2aguy]

probably a small amount eh, its the price we Americans pay to have the RIGHT and Freedom to own guns Lesh .

Ohhh...so eventslike Parkland and Sandy Hook and Vegas and Orlando...are just the "price we pay" for you to have your squirrel guns huh?

I'm sure that comforts the loved ones of those victims

No.... the 1.1 million times a year Americans use their legal guns to stop criminals from raping, robbing and murdering them is the benefit we get from guns...guns save lives.....in fact, as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rates went down, not up.....another benefit....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Newsflash...violent crime has been decreasing steadily since the end of the crack epidemic in ....wait for it....the early 90s

And at the same time, more Americans began to own and carry guns....proving that your total argument.... more guns = more gun crimes, is completely and utterly wrong..... since what you predicted as more Americans own and carry guns did not happen, the exact opposite happened.......which you can't explain with your theories...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

They wont take ownership of flooding the market with guns and killing as many laws as possible. They apparently want everyone to have guns. What a fun world that will be.

It would be much safer.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Why do I care? 'cause I have empathy.

The rest of your post is confusing.

What does, "again, nothing that has happened is outside the ask from the left", mean?

I have no evidence to support what? Common sense suggests some guns are stolen, some guns are purchased legally and some illegally.

You do now a gun owner can have empathy and still not want to give up his guns don't you?

Some of us realize that law abiding gun owners giving up their guns or the prohibiting of them from buying certain guns will do absolutely nothing to prevent anyone else from being a victim of violence.

Not one person will be spared from being murdered if I melted down my guns today.

When have I ever claimed I supported a law abiding, sane and sober person from buying a defensive gun.

Now, we can argue all day about what is and what is not a defensive gun.

ALL guns can be used for defense its not up to you to tell people what is or is not the best choice for them.

sure it is, ask him. He's got it all solved. he's a fking genius. He prefers to let people die though since he can't actually put in motion a solution.

You logic is amazing, as much so as it's absurdity.

More unregulated guns will equate to more deaths of innocent people.

I do not prefer to have people die and in fact I have little to do to create an environment which fits my principles.

That you and others attack my comments as a gun grabber, is just one more BIG LIE. Anyone can review my comments which I have held since Columbine.

[My niece and nephew grew up in Littleton Co. and attended Columbine before the mass killing. My brother-in-law moved the family to Texas the year before the murder of students one of whom was a friend of my niece]

I first fired a firearm when I was 8 years old, my grandfather was a police officer and he trained me on the basic safety issues. We didn't shoot at a target, but in a sort of canyon in San Mateo County. That was not my first lesson on gun safety, when my grandfather came home from work the gun belt was placed in the center of the dinning room table, so was a candy dish.

I made a move towad the candy and got a smack on the butt before I got close to the gun or the candy.

In 25 years nothing you predicted has happened....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.