The grassroots movement you want to see has been going on for at least a century--learn how to safely use a gun, and don't let bad people have one.
Yes, there are chinks in the process, and those holes need to be filled in. Soon.
But these screeds about seizing all the guns and repealing the second amendment and making it a felony to own an unlicensed firearm aren't doing anything to remedy the problems.
Fair enough, but that is just as anecdotal because what they are studying in that context is an anecdote: "Do you fear someone may have a gun?". Sure, criminals do have some fear of the life they choose to pursue as it isn't exactly a safe and pleasant profession to be a criminal of any sort. But so does the average citizen who is aware of these matters (for whatever reason) know that it is best to assume someone may have a gun and not start a physical confrontation.It wasn't particularly clear to me that you were referring to the presence of guns as a deterrent to any attempt of a crime, but then again, there are studies that show that criminals do often fear armed citizens and that may impact their choice of victim, despite anecdotal evidence that you cite.
Yes. This was from the interviews and investigation. This was specifically discussed because the local TV news made a big to do that maybe people should have guns to protect themselves, etc. The local newspaper however later showed that 36 of the 40 victims had guns somewhere in their house, etc. but due to the technique and timing the assailant used, they could, not get to them to be of any use. Which is a point I always make with the random attacker scenario need for guns. SK also pointed this out in the essay, citing "In Cold Blood" as a prime example. The archives of the story I presented are not online anywhere I could find as this was 30+ years ago.Is there evidence that 36 out of 40 of the specific Oklahoma victims were gun owners or is this an extrapolation?
Here is the issue: your last statement. Speaking in absolutes. When you do that, be liberal or conservative... you instantly turn the debate off. I know that many Americans are raised to think this is a sign of strength and character to not waver. I can tell you from my life experience, the opposite is true. The ability to evolve and adapt is what indicates strength.No, I'm not in disbelief that others might want guns restricted or outlawed, we already have restrictions and just because I don't believe in further bans on ownership by law abiding citizens, doesn't mean that I don't see possible merit in other proposals, like improvements in the NCIS, secure storage proposals, increased penalties for stolen gun trafficking, etc, but if people insist on labeling me as some no compromise extremist because I refuse to capitulate to any gun bans, then so be it.
If something needs to be banned to make a difference, then so be it. But we can't even begin to analyze if that would work because we have folks who are so rigid. It's as if they believe they have already thought of it in every single way and no human could possibly have an idea that shows why a ban, etc., is the best idea. I am not saying it is. I am saying it has to be debated.
When you start from a position of "I will never back down and all your ideas are invalid" well... let's just say that isn't debate posture.