Well that's a great philosophy, but I work around/supervise a lot of people who have illegitimately used force on others in their life. Resisting an illegal use of force is in itself a legitimate use of force.

If you're implying that no private citizen has a rightto use force in self-defense (be it with a weapon or otherwise), I have to disagree.

It's worth a try.

@Flyingsaucesir Always. I've been trying & still am on here for a long time.

@FrayedBear You're funny

No you found a new way of murdering people & not calling it murder - C19 & vaccines supposed to stop people dying of it!

@ BD66 I would not call it a decline. We have been bumping off 5 to 10 people per 100,000 for going on a century. And that rate is WAY higher than what they have in Germany, France, Japan, Netherlands,...

So you're happy with the way things are going? 600 mass shootings so far this year? Dozens of children shot?

@Flyingsaucesir in the mentioned European countries the citizens don't own & carry guns like lunatic Americans do.

@FrayedBear Correct. And in Russia the preferred weapon among the proletariat is the axe. Vladimir Putin, however, displays a preference for poisoning, especially with radioactive elements.

Does it continue to decline? You managed to link to a chart that only goes through 2011. I wonder why that is. Let's take a look at something more recent.

[macrotrends.net]

Note that this is already extremely high compared to the UK which has much stricter gun control:

[macrotrends.net]

@kmaz and you have done the same. You included the 2020 spike from quarantine-induced insanity, but not the drop in 2021 and 2022

@Flyingsaucesir & in the killing fields of Cambodia I was told it was agricultural hoes swung by 6 year boys into the skull or neck.

Although we have seen it in practice many times by citizens and law enforcement. I hope you are never at someone else's mercy. Grow up and take your security and your loved one's security/well being seriously.

Remove the word "only"from the equation. Yes, an unarmed person or persons can stop a bad person with a gun, but it's at a great disadvantage in many (I would even say most) situations.

Ideally, a trained law enforcement or first responder would be stopping that person. But almost no situation is ideal. Provided that proper training is required, I don't believe we should restrict those like me who feel more comfortable if the odds are evened up somewhat.

Know what frustrates me? The sign outside doctor's offices and hospitals that say, "Guns are not allowed on the property. In case of emergency, call the hospital operator." Why? Does the operator have a pistol to lend me?

@Tejas
Ha ha ha ha. Nope.
Like all of the practically 0% of the time "good guys with guns" save the day? Only incredibly stupid people still believe that myth. You may as well be a flat-Earther.

[m.lasvegassun.com]

[time.com]

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

@ChestRockfield saying 0% is disingenuous and you know it. Law enforcement have stopped bad guys with guns countless times, thats their job. And citizens have stopped bad guys with guns many times as well, I showed you links to over a dozen cases the last time you made this terrible argument. Learn to be honest or I'll take you as serious as people do @frayedbear

@Tejas I said practically. And you can't count police. No one is advocating that we take guns away from police. We're specifically talking about the claim by right wingers that all guns should be legal and that people should always be allowed to open carry because the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
Yes you did. A measly 12 times or whatever. Over several decades. And thousands of active mass shooter incidents. And when you divide 12 by several thousand you, surprisingly, get a number that's less than one half of one percent, i.e. practically zero percent. And that's before you even account for the shootings caused by "good guys' guns" that were improperly stored or handled. You should learn to be honest...

Well, for starters, if it was designed specifically for use on a battlefield, it doesn't belong in our homes or on our streets.

@Flyingsaucesir antman is an idiot to not already see that. He is being obtuse to even suggest equivalence between household items and weapons of war, or maybe he is just plain stupid..

So you would be ok with everyone having their own rocket launchers, bazookas, etc? Mortar cannons? If they have a big enough yard, maybe they should be able to own their own tanks? I hope that makes you feel comforted the next time you board a commercial airplane, knowing that someone on the ground, that you politically support on the 2nd Amendment, may be waiting on the ground to settle a grudge and blow your plane out of the sky with you in it.. How about everyone being allowed to buy their own C-4 plastic explosives?

@Flyingsaucesir by that logic most every gun belongs on the list. Let's use some sense.

@Tejas No, a snub nose .38 is not typical battlefield hardware. Nor is a double-barrelled shotgun, or a .22 gallery rifle, or a compound bow, or a wrist rocket, or a roofer's hatchet/hammer (all deadly as hell when wielded with homicidal intent).

@TomMcGiverin yes. Free to buy whatever I want to buy. I believe it is legal to buy a tank already.

If someone intends to use it for bad purposes that’s a different thing and I would rely on the system to discover any plots before they are carried out,, unfortunately that is the hard part.

@antman You really are an ass. No point debating you, and it's not that I'm losing. You just can't be reasoned with.

@TomMcGiverin you’re the only one who resorted to name calling from the get go. I’m just trying to explain my point of view which clearly your closed mind doesn’t want to see.

@antman Bite me, lol...

@Flyingsaucesir double barrel shot guns have been used in battle so has the 22 caliber in many cases

@Tejas Neither is issued to regular US soldiers.

@Flyingsaucesir not anymore. But both have been used in war

@Tejas You're quibbling.