<p>Common sense is when your mind comes to those conclusions without having to run those numbers but when those numbers are run, the same conclusion is reached. Other wise it isn’t common sense but delusion. Yes, it is delusional to believe if you have a rack of semi automatic weapons that you like to take shooting that can go 20-30 shots very quickly, and you keep them locked up as you should with the ammo separate, that you are more likely to get an intruder with those weapons than 1) have someone in your family get their hands on both weapons and ammo 2) have them stolen by someone who breaks into your house and finds them, or even breaks into your house to get them specifically. the latter happens far more times. It isn’t even close. It’s just an ego stoker and a false sense of security to believe that you are safer with those weapons. You aren’t. Absolutely you are not. Nor are you safer sleeping with a loaded gun under your pillow. The brain you are most likely to blow up is your own with that gun. The stats don’t lie. The gun owner is the person most often shot by his weapon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually most of the gun crime is gang related, and occur in regions that have strict gun laws like inner cities. Of course you’re never gong to admit it, so.</p>
<p>Bl4ke, Have you been reading what I have written and what others have? The area of CT where the shootings occurred is a HAVEN for those who own those rapid fire semi automatic rifles. Shooting ranges everywhere. A lot of people there own those guns. Nancy Lanza was not a kooky gun lady. She lived in an area where she could legally enjoy those guns as could her son. There were people Carrying guns on their person in the Aurora CO theater and at the GIfford event. It didn’t help. It happend too fast and there were too many innocent people in the way to shoot the perps, even if those who had those guns were able to get into shooting form in time. Heck, for all I know, a gun holder could have been shot. They were watching a movie when they were shot. To react even when you know there is a danger is tough. I am trained in weaponry—many years ago, and I would not trust myself to be able to move accurately, safely with a gun. Life is not an action movie. You are truly more likely to hurt yourself or another innocent unless you are trained, focused and ready.</p>
<p>Convincing people to give up their guns is difficult, because even though owning one creates a risk (of dying from one’s own gun) that would not have otherwise existed, the chance of that happening is so small. The peace of mind derived from owning a weapon for self-defense, especially for people who live in dangerous areas, or the pleasure derived from sport shooting, outweighs the chances one will be killed by one’s own gun. This is the same cost-benefit analysis we apply to all decision-making that involves risk, like driving a car and skydiving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So where are the stats for these ridiculous fear mongering statements? Haven’t seen them. I’ve also never seen somebody or heard of anybody accidentally shoot themselves, but I have heard of people who successfully used their gun to save their life. That’s why we have the 2nd amendment, and that’s why I’m glad our founders had much more foresight than you do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Semi automatic rifles aren’t rapid fire by definition. There you go again mistaking semi auto and full auto.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why are you against gun owners that ARE trained, focus, and ready?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah sure the same 3 stories are repeated for 41 pages. Some may be repeats but a lot are new. </p>
<p>The Autozone in VA one just happened in Nov/Dec 2012
The GA mom hiding with her kids just happened this month.
The Sacramento home invasion just happened in Dec 2012.
The 12 yo girl in OK happened in Oct 2012</p>
<p>Seriously, I can probably get myself in “shooting form” if I worked at it, but knowing the stats, my reflexes, my life, my attention, I doubt very much that if I carried a gun, I would be much use at any of those recent shootings. Too fast, out gunned (unless you suggest I carry a semi automatic rifle in my purse loaded), the presence of innocents, would all make the odds against me so that I would be more of a danger than a help. Yeah, there is a chance it could happen that I could thwart something. But the chances are way, way, way more that I hurt myself or someone that is not the perp, or lose or have the weapon stolen. THat is the reality. Believe me, I’d love to feel tougher, more powerful and safer, but I know the reality. My brother who was a colonel in the army doesn’t keep weapons at home or on his person either for the same reason, and he is a trained gunman. He knows and has no illusions about the risks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Using this kind of flawed thinking, we shouldn’t have police officers either, since they’re just as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SOME gun owners are irresponsible owners (such as the friend in the example). Some drivers are irresponsible drivers. Should we not allow anyone to drive because some people drink, or text, or drive recklessly?</p>
<p>I am not against gun owners who trained, focus and ready. It’s just that very few are in that category in the general populace. Too many think they are due to some weekend shooting practice. I could easily fool myself. But it’s one thing if I trained to my fullest and took a job as a sentry or body guard, a whole other if I just happend to be carrying a gun. Your focus just is not always on threats as you go through your daily life. Very few people live that way. When caught unawares when watching a movie, chatting with a firend, shopping, helping at school, you aren’t focused on the situation and someone armed the way those mass killers were are going to get you before you have a chance. Believe me I know. The one who had guns in that theater couldn’t even focus on what happened before it was over, much sooner than being able to get their gun, focus on where the gunfire was happening. Even with a gun, in that situation, the smart thing to do is duck for cover or you may get your head blown off. </p>
<p>I am not against guns when the chance of them making you safer exceed making you more at risk. It’s like training a tiger to guard your house. The stats are very clear–the number of those shot each year in those incidents far exceeds those Reported incidents of the gun scaring off someone, and the latter stats are not confirmable whereas the first ones are since it is a law that gun wounds have to be reported to the police We are not even including incidents where no report was made because those involved in the accidental discharge where no one was hurt or not hurt enough did not make any report. I am using the stats that the NRA and other gun advocate groups use, which have a lot of unconfirmed instances, where a gun supposedly stopped an incident. Even then, it’s not close. It’ s more dangerous to have the gun.</p>
<p>Okay, so what if there is a law that says if you lose your gun once, you lose your license to have guns for x number of years, like with the texting or drinking examples?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? Rapid fire??? </p>
<p>Semi automatic guns fire one projectile each time the trigger is pulled~ the same way a revolver does. 10 shots require 10 trigger pulls.</p>
<p><a href=“unless%20you%20suggest%20I%20carry%20a%20semi%20automatic%20rifle%20in%20my%20purse%20loaded”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You could carry a semi auto hand gun- just like police do.</p>
<p>You dont need to continue to respond to him, cpt. He keeps doing this black/white thing where no matter what anybody says, he acts like you want to take everyone’s gun away.</p>
<p>Most Americans are in favor of gun regulation. A very high percentage, in fact. At the same time, a very low percentage are in favor of taking away everybody’s guns. But the kid has no discernment and can’t tell the shades of argument and conversation from each other and has ruined a good conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you think that’s true (which it isn’t) nobody is stopping you from not owning a gun. However, the rest of us recognize the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own one if we want, regardless of your misguided opinion. And if you’re that concerned about probability of death ratios, tell me why you (probably) own a car, since statistically you’re much more likely to be killed driving your car than not having a car.</p>
<p>"Yeah sure the same 3 stories are repeated for 41 pages. Some may be repeats but a lot are new.</p>
<p>The Autozone in VA one just happened in Nov/Dec 2012
The GA mom hiding with her kids just happened this month.
The Sacramento home invasion just happened in Dec 2012.
The 12 yo girl in OK happened in Oct 2012 "</p>
<p>Yes, and there were 851 accidental deaths by gunfire in 2011. And 11,101 more that were homicides. Would fill a lot more than 41 pages and without any repeats. </p>
<p>[Gun</a> Control Debate: 6 Chilling Facts About Guns in the U.S.](<a href=“http://www.policymic.com/articles/21002/gun-control-debate-6-chilling-facts-about-guns-in-the-u-s]Gun”>http://www.policymic.com/articles/21002/gun-control-debate-6-chilling-facts-about-guns-in-the-u-s)</p>
<p>bl4ke, do you not read? Trained police officers on the job are a whole other story than someone who has a weapon going about every day life. When your job is to look for trouble and protect against it, that is your primary purpose as you go about your your day and job. Not so when you are just doing routine things like watching a movie. Very few people are as well trained as police officers, Secret Service and others whose job is protection and who have to keep up on fire arms skills. Not the same at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remind me again why you keep posting complete fabrications.</p>
<p>[Gallup</a> - To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health](<a href=“To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health”>To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health)</p>
<p>
I’d consider a semi-auto to be rapid fire. I can pull a trigger quite fast. The rounds could be fired at a rate no more than one second per round which I’d consider pretty rapid. Of course, accuracy with rapid fire is a different thing - i.e. one can’t be accurate firing rapidly. A semi-auto isn’t as fast as full-auto but it’s still pretty quick firing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually that’s not the role of a police officer. Their job is to merely enforce the law. They don’t have an obligation to protect, as the supreme court has ruled. You also give them way too much credit, saying they’re “expertly trained” and whatnot, when that is completely false. They aren’t any more well trained in shooting than the average shooter at the range.</p>