No. You have completely ignored the statistics because you don't like the answer.
Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns?
- Thread starter sweettractors
- Start date
- Views: 50554
- Status
No. You have completely ignored the statistics because you don't like the answer.
devildog1
Veteran Member
This a copy of e-letter that I used from the NRA to the elected officials in my state and area who are suppose to represent the will of there constichuants. I know this arguing back and forth between TBN members who will never agree with yours or my rights of the 2nd Amendment is a lost cause, so why bother and waste your time and gain nothing? They have already made up there mind and I don't believe you'll convince them other wise. Be constructive and call or send e-mails to your elected officials, that's where your time and effort may mean something, there are many,many sportsmen and gun owners who believe our rights are being unfairly jeopardize because of the criminal actions of the few, so let let them know that. I've also added a link so all you have to do is put in your zip code and it will mail out letters to your elected officials in the likes of something similar below.
DevilDog
Thank you for using National Rifle Association Mail System.
Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Tonko
Senator Gillibrand
Senator Schumer
President
Vice President
Message text follows:
January 6, 2013
[recipient address was inserted here]
[recipient name was inserted here],
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose any legislation to ban so-called "assault weapons" and "large" ammunition magazines.
A previous ban on these inanimate objects was in effect from 1994-2004 and had no discernible effect on violent crime. In fact, a study of the ban mandated by Congress found: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."
Tens of millions of Americans choose to own semi-automatic firearms with ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for the same reason as law enforcement officers: they are effective for self-defense. One never knows how many rounds he or she will need for self-defense or defense of others, or how many criminals may attack. Thus having a firearm that allows its lawful user to discharge multiple shots can often be the difference between life and death. In fact, a number of studies have shown that firearms are used for self-defense hundreds of thousands of times to 2.5 million times annually. This amounts to guns being used 3-5 times more often for self-defense than to commit a crime.
Rather than expanding previously failed legislation that won't curb violence, but will affect law-abiding gun owners, I urge you to support legislation to enhance school security and improve our nation's ailing mental health system.
Please reply to me indicating your position on Sen. Feinstein's most recent proposal.
Sincerely,
Link to mail your elected officials = Legislative Action Center
DevilDog
Thank you for using National Rifle Association Mail System.
Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Tonko
Senator Gillibrand
Senator Schumer
President
Vice President
Message text follows:
January 6, 2013
[recipient address was inserted here]
[recipient name was inserted here],
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose any legislation to ban so-called "assault weapons" and "large" ammunition magazines.
A previous ban on these inanimate objects was in effect from 1994-2004 and had no discernible effect on violent crime. In fact, a study of the ban mandated by Congress found: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."
Tens of millions of Americans choose to own semi-automatic firearms with ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for the same reason as law enforcement officers: they are effective for self-defense. One never knows how many rounds he or she will need for self-defense or defense of others, or how many criminals may attack. Thus having a firearm that allows its lawful user to discharge multiple shots can often be the difference between life and death. In fact, a number of studies have shown that firearms are used for self-defense hundreds of thousands of times to 2.5 million times annually. This amounts to guns being used 3-5 times more often for self-defense than to commit a crime.
Rather than expanding previously failed legislation that won't curb violence, but will affect law-abiding gun owners, I urge you to support legislation to enhance school security and improve our nation's ailing mental health system.
Please reply to me indicating your position on Sen. Feinstein's most recent proposal.
Sincerely,
Link to mail your elected officials = Legislative Action Center
I didn't ignore anything, seems to me that you zero'ed in on the larger percentage, then increased that to make your 30% claim, but failed to read the entire article. Don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
I'll even give you a hint: Serious mental issue - that's what would prevent someone from purchasing a firearm. Seems like you're so good at Google, look that one up, then tell me that 26.2% of the population suffer from it, then try and convince me that anyone suffering through a divorce or bankruptcy would automatically be an additional inclusion into those numbers.
Cut and paste can work to anyone's advantage, or disadvantage.
Ummm, that's not my argument, it's your contention that people with mental disease should be tracked and refused permits or sales.
Of the most prominent recent shooters, except for the Aurora case, all of them would have fallen into the 30 percentile, not the 6. Including Sandy Hook.
And those other reasons I listed are over and above those percentages, AND are actual questions that are posed on a Canadian permit application.
OP
sweettractors
Advertiser
Tim, I think we are talking "Serious" diagnosed mental illness. We are all mentally ill for some period of time in our lifetime. Ken Sweet
I guess we going to have to agree to disagree again, ole wise one! Looks like you didn't take the time to look up "serious mental issues", how many more times can I give you the hint?
And it's "Serious Mental Issues" that should be tracked and refused permits or sales.
Look it up, (another hint here) read it ALL (not just the parts that suit your cause) then try and tell me with a serious face that most of the recent shooters would not have fallen into that category.
And, you cut and pasted from a website that was giving United States information. Maybe in Canada those other reasons would not be included in mental issue reporting, (don't care anyway, this forum is about the United States) but I ask you once again, to read it ALL and then try to tell me with a serious face that those other reasons would not be included in the 26.2% category.
MF1433V
Gold Member
Right we are not talking about a period of depression or anxiety brought on by an event or circumstances, we are talking about known biological mental health issues and organic cognitive disorders. I am no expert but I would think we would look at bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and such as a starting point for evaluating mental capacity to possess dangerous weapons.
I totally understand the issues. Even that fellow who killed all those kids in Norway, was found mentally capable of standing trial ( that still boggles my mind )
and your second comment is just ignorant. plain and simple.
I totally understand that. My point is that the 'majority' of these mass shooters 'do not' fall into the 6th percentile. So they would not be screened out anyways. Would you agree.
Once again, that's just your opinion, but you've already proven you don't read EVERYTHING or take everything into account.
OK by me, I can accept that it's all about you.
- Status
