Remember Ol’ Archie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE
And this:
Having a gun makes you feel safe, but what about the rest of the family?
^^^Re: the article above:
1)How do you “accidentally” fire 27 rounds?
and
2)How do you only hit the target once, in the leg??!?!?!?!
@Onward, I thought that was very funny, but if that were on TV today, a lot of the country wouldn’t realize it’s supposed to be humor. In fact he might win votes in Iowa.
how many crimes would Obama’s executive orders have stopped? Or is it just more laws for the sake of laws?
let’s hear a number.
How ironic, as I had a similar conversation three days ago with a lawmaker. And what is funny as heck is Obama’s executive actions probably have stopped in the neighborhood of at least couple million crimes, but not for the reason one thinks.
Well, it turns out that in the eight years of O, the gun inventory (sales) in private hands has increased over 30%. He has been the best salesman of guns ever - some 100M sold since 2008 because of him. And most of all, concealed carry permits have more than increased over 3X with the biggest increase among young woman - good no more standing around being a victim and waiting for police, which is too late anyway.
Anyway, as more guns have been sold, the violent crime rate has actually gone down and was at it lowest point last year - except for the Wild West which actually had a lower violent crime rate. And this is in face of a lower homicide conviction rate and lower conviction rates of crimes committed, while brandishing a gun. Furthermore, homicides are down only except in places where the usual suspects are at work (NY, Baltimore, LA, Chicago) and no gun law would stop these guys, as evidenced that these places have the toughest gun laws in the books already.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but the argument that more guns in private hands equal more crime has been shot full of holes because the predicted crime increase with increased gun sales has not occurred, went down in reality, and O is the one to thank for that.
Overall, if the defensive gun use stats remain consistent prior to O, then it is also true that more guns in private hands means more citizens are defending themselves against crimes with guns, so crimes have been stopped, not by O executive actions, but in spite of them.
I don’t even understand what argument you can be making, awc. The crime rate has been going down for two decades. It did not start going down at a steeper rate when the current President took office and more and more people started buying guns.
Correlation is not causation, but you haven’t even got a correlation between the guns in private hands and the crime rate.
Awc’s statistics here don’t match reality any more than his figure of one million incidents per year of felonies stopped by guns. According to Newsweek in March 2015, the number of households owning guns decreased over the period 2010 - 2014. What went up is the number of guns owned by the same individuals. In other words, households were less likely to own a gun, but if you owned a gun, you were more likely to own more of them than you did in 2010.
Let’s think this out. How do criminals get guns?
(1) By stealing them.
(2) By buying guns from other criminals.
(3) By buying guns legally from non-criminals, including straw buyers, who can legally sell their guns to criminals.
The executive orders won’t do anything about (1) and (2), but they will do something about (3), and a lot of criminals currently buy their guns legally. So they’ll make it harder for criminals to obtain guns. So, yeah, they’ll stop some crimes. A proposal that makes it harder for criminals to get guns, while not preventing law-abiding people from getting guns, is OK in my book.
Aw is claiming more statistics but providing no references to back it up. That’s unhelpful, IMO.
What is helpful is any attempt to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Its a start.
How are ordinary citizens a “well-regulated militia”? Back when they constructed the constitution, their militia was their military like ours is today.
I don’t know the specifics of any upcoming executive orders, but I do think that executive orders in general have the potential of overly expanding the powers of the president over that of the legislature which is an unconstitutional usurpation of power. One person should not hold so much power. You know that whatever executive order is issued it will be challenged in court.
I agree it’ll be challenged in court. That fact alone doesn’t provide any evidence for it being “an unconstitutional usurpation of power”, though.
Man with concealed carry gun stops armed robbery.
12 times shootings were stopped by a legal gun owner, some as recent as 2014.
A driver in Milwaukee shot a gunman who opened fire in a crowd. Other recent incidents where guns were successfully used to stop home invasions and such are also mentioned.
Sure, it won’t always work. Yes, terrible accidents happen when guns are handled carelessly. But it’s not entirely a myth that an armed citizen can stop a shooting. The casualty count was lower on those then in other shootings where there was no opposing guns until the cops got there.
Sorry about the first link not working, but it’s a video of the event. Gunman acts calmly and waits for a good opportunity to draw his weapon.
Wow someone has been sprung from jail 
^ With a bang! B-)
(Humor intended, that’s not literal.)
I don’t think anyone here has claimed that it’s a myth in the sense that it’s something that never happens, but rather that it’s a myth in that it’s a cultural assumption (among some groups) that it’s a more likely event than it actually is.
^^^ Yes, but would you rather take the chances of someone saving their life and others during a shooting from low to zero?
Depends—can you guarantee that the odds that they’d take out the wrong person are also zero?