Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

I don't necessarily disagree. Rights vs. safety is a tricky thing. Rights shouldn't be violated, period. But then the Constitution shouldn't be a suicide pact.

 

Right. You're just asking questions.

 

Be obtuse on someone else, please.

 

You don't actually believe that the Second Amendment is restricted to militia members. You're just throwing it out there. Repeatedly. You're just asking questions.

 

OK, so let's debate that.

By all measures, gun manufacturing and ownership are way up. Gun manufacturing peaked at 10.8 million firearms in 2013 (holy shit!), nearly double the previous peak of 5.5 million in 2009 (just after Obama was elected). Approximately 15 million guns were purchased in 2013, up from 8.9 million in 2008. (The Washington Times, May 19, 2015)

Despite this increase in gun ownership, active shooter incidents are on the rise (see the FBI chart below) and, yet, incredibly, there has been zero increase in well-armed citizens actually stopping these incidents. So with years of increasing gun ownership and a correlating rise in active shooter incidents, what makes gun control opponents believe that circulating more guns in the population is actually going to reduce, prevent or stop active shooter incidents? What is the evidence that backs up this theory?

 

[/Iran]

 

Well, I think we all agree that the mentally ill shouldn't possess firearms. Same principal applies to nations and nukes.

 

Yes. Gun ownership is up.

Are you even going to try and argue that the number of people carrying on the street is up?

Are you going to address that fact that most of these shootings are on "soft" targets, including "gun free zones"?

I'm not sure why you'd expect gun owners to intervene in these situations, if they aren't present, don't carry, or are not allowed to carry where they occur.

 

The number of concealed carry permits has nearly tripled nationwide to 12.8 million from 4.6 million in 2007, so yes, the number of people carrying on the street is way up.

I expect gun owners to intervene in these situations because the NRA and gun control opponents are telling me that one reason we should not restrict gun ownership is so that our Captain SuperCitizens can stop these mass shootings. "If only someone had been there with a gun to stop him!" they say. They set the expectation. I'm simply pointing out how far-fetched it actually is (and, frankly, you're making my point for me when you point out all the reasons a gun owner isn't likely to stop an active shooter).

If the 300 million-plus guns currently on the street are not enough to protect all these soft targets, exactly how many do we need to get into circulation before all of our aspiring Captain SuperCitizens can put an end to active shooter incidents?

There is no evidence to suggest more guns will reduce gun crime. Quite the opposite, in fact, as evidence shows that despite a massive rise in gun ownership and, yes, carrying, there has been a near-total failure by armed civilians to stop active shooter incidents, even as they remain steadily on the rise.

Hell, in the most recent case of a civilian attempting to stop a crime with a gun, Captain SuperCitizen shot a carjacking victim in the head, rather than the attackers, in Houston. I bet that victim is thrilled his gun-toting Texas neighbor was there to save him.

 

I'm pretty sure the NRA takes the position that everyone should have a firearm that is safely locked away in another location when they actually need it.

 

No one "needs" a gun.

 

We don't all agree on that.