Neither is it for advocating using a deadly weapon for self defense so casually with children, neighbors and the possibility of it being misused
I think you're letting your opinions be influenced by stereotypes and caricatures. This is not accurate to the majority of gun owners. It's like looking at the Westboro Baptist Church and thinking
all religious people are hate-filled bigots who boycott funerals.
Sure, you are unfortunately going to have people who don't appreciate the responsibility of owning and using a gun. This is true with everything in life. But the extreme majority of gun owners are not like what you are expressing.
(guns are responsible for 2/3rd's of suicides,
source).
Not entirely sure what your point here is. Suicides have been occurring since the dawn of time and will continue to occur (sadly) regardless of the existence of guns. People will use whatever is at their disposal, be it a firearm, drugs, knife, car, ledge, rope, etc.
Not that you specifically said that but how quickly and reflexively it is used as the first choice against a peeping tom is no better.
No one has said or suggested to use it against a "peeping tom". There is a difference between owning a gun for home protection and firing wildly out the window at shadows.
That is my problem with gun advocates. Their first and usually only line is get a gun. It's not get a less dangerous method of self-defense, it's get a gun. It doesn't matter the severity of the threat.
That's skewed logic - it's like saying if you go to the beach, you're going to be eaten by a shark, since most shark attacks occur near the shore. Of COURSE those who believe in and practice the right to own a firearm are going to recommend the same for others - it's no different than anti-gun people decrying the ownership of a gun, or a Chevy truck lover suggesting a Chevy to his friend (don't bother with the strawman argument "but chevy's don't kill people!" you know what I'm trying to say and that is beside the point). That being said, again, the vast majority of gun owners are also highly responsible and respectful of the weapon and will - and do - suggest other means if the situation or person calls for it. Talk to anyone who truly cares about home defense and a gun will always be the
last line of defense.
You act like I'm a child, that I'm ignorant or misinformed and when you pull out the attitude of "teaching" as if you were responding to a child, immaturity seems to be the reaction you're expecting, so why not sarcastically respond in kind?
You've been acting like this from the start. Even if that weren't the case, "people expect me to act immature, so I guess I will" hardly helps your case.
Do you know why it is so hard to find
any accurate statistics on gun use that
are not supported by the NRA? They actively prohibit public research via lobby through the government (
source). Private institutions fare little better because they also fund research there and to threaten their claims is out of the question.
I'll fully agree that Congress defunding CDC research was stupid, but you can't question the source and validity from one side of a debate and not the other. Also, the CDC is hardly only place you can find accurate information.
Here's a report the Justice Dept did, citing that gun-related homicides are decreased 39% between 1993-2011.
The truth is no one knows how well guns help in self defense because of this (
source).
Not having an accurate statistic is not the same thing as disproving something occurs, especially when there's extreme bias on either side fudging the numbers to fit their desired narrative. Even the link you posted says this and states it's more accurate to say that 256,500-373,000 uses of guns in self defense occur each year, based on a more bi-partisan study
here.
I'm not against guns. That doesn't mean I'm against gun control.
And being pro-2nd Amendment doesn't mean you're against a better regulatory system.
This is the conflation of what has happened because of the NRA. Gun control is equated to guns being banned.
Let's be honest here. When a group of moronic politicians who know NOTHING about firearms start foaming at the mouth and trying to get major laws passed based on said misinformation, all the while brainwashing an equally uninformed public with the same grossly inaccurate information, the NRA doesn't really need to say
anything in order to "work up" gun advocates. A loud and totally clueless mob of angry sheep yelling for laws and restrictions concerning things they know nothing about are going to justifiably going to cause whomever it affects to stand up and fight back, especially when the proposed laws are of the short sighted, reactionary variety, the useless bandaids that do nothing to try and actually seek out the cause of such violence.
And since the NRA is largely controlled by gun manufacturers, that's unacceptable. Guns must not be controlled. That's the motto.
Whose motto? Let's not confuse NRA president Wayne LaPierre and an extremist few with all gun owners. Fun
fact: only 5% of gun owners are members of the NRA. 85% of gun owners favor better gun control laws. 75% of NRA members also support better gun control laws.
