| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I should have spoken more precisely and stated that I particularly agree with THIS STATEMENT from Ted Nugent...
“So those of us of goodwill, decency, and logic and who’ve studied the evidence and the facts we know that it’s not a gun issue, it’s not an ammo issue, it’s not caliber issue, it’s not a rate of fire issue,” he said. “It is mostly a prescription drug and a mental derangement issue where we do not take care properly of the people that show signs of dangerous behavior and mental retardation.”I didn't mean to imply that I agree with him all the time, but I definitely agree that our nation has failed to care properly for those who suffer from mental health issues.
I would have thought Ted Nugent would be more reserved about suggesting we lock up people who shows signs of aggressive or dangerous behavior. After all, he's publicly stated that he plans on being dead or in jail on account of murdering liberals by the time summer rolls around this year. By his own rationale (and I hesitate to use the word "rationale", here), shouldn't we lock him up pre-emptively?
We all agree we need to emphasize mental health care. A lot of us think that doesn't go far enough, and that the evidence indicates that firearms play a role in determining incidence of violence that is independent of mental health issues.
But seriously. Find a better compass than Ted Nugent. It is, frankly, really concerning that your first instinct was to resort to something he had said.
Yeah, I'm going to pass on the draft dodging pedophile who claims to be a 'patriot'.
Ted Nugent's point was completely valid - even if you think he's nuts. It doesn't change the point and most of the facts in that statement (as much as you'd like it to).
GG for effort though.
Except he is wrong. Many mass murderers do not have noticable signs that friends pick up on.
Ted Nugent's point was completely valid - even if you think he's nuts. It doesn't change the point and most of the facts in that statement (as much as you'd like it to).
GG for effort though.
Mr Nugent has said many things, which I will not quote here, against the government health care system which he calls Obamacare. Now he says that it's not a problem with control (which Obama didn't even allude to until Sandy Hook) but with accessible mental health care (which Mr Nugent himself has actively spoken against).
Yes, a very factual statement.
|
Hence my "most of the facts" disclaimer.
I do think there are people who are going to hide the fact that they are nuts, or have a severe breakdown and just snap. But in most of the recent cases of mass shootings, the killers were all observed or thought of as potentially dangerous - if not impaired prior to their attacks. Aurora shooter, recent Conn shooter, etc. In the case of the idiot who shot the fire fighters in NY the guy was a criminal who had previously murdered his grandmother and should never have been let out of prison.
Even for various workplace shootings there generally has been an history of employees behaving violently, having temper or threat related issues (sometimes even getting them fired) prior to being let go.
Even for various workplace shootings there generally has been an history of employees behaving violently, having temper or threat related issues (sometimes even getting them fired) prior to being let go.
And if you decide to lock them all away, how many false positives would you get?
How many people have screamed at their boss and then NOT gone on to shoot the place up?
|
|
Mr Nugent has said many things, which I will not quote here, against the government health care system which he calls Obamacare. Now he says that it's not a problem with control (which Obama didn't even allude to until Sandy Hook) but with accessible mental health care (which Mr Nugent himself has actively spoken against).
Yes, a very factual statement.
And none of that changes the truth of the statement that Wulf quoted. You hate Ted Nugent, got it, you think he's insane - I can buy that....none of that changes the core truth of his statement. It isn't a gun issue, it's a mental health and violence issue (as in using violence to solve all our problems). If TN believes in universal healthcare isn't the issue - and from his quote it sounds like he feels that something should be done.
And just like Obama, TN could change his views on healthcare services when it comes to those who are mentally ill.
we do not take care properly of the people that show signs of dangerous behavior and mental retardation
|
|
Even for various workplace shootings there generally has been an history of employees behaving violently, having temper or threat related issues (sometimes even getting them fired) prior to being let go.And if you decide to lock them all away, how many false positives would you get?
How many people have screamed at their boss and then NOT gone on to shoot the place up?
Plenty - but if an employee makes violent threats or is let go for the same then the cops probably should be notified.
We live in a very litigious and detached society. People don't want to be bothered to care or be concerned, or if they do then they are too afraid of retaliation or violating someone's civil rights (to be nuts) if they raise an issue of concern.
We live in a very litigious and detached society. People don't want to be bothered to care or be concerned, or if they do then they are too afraid of retaliation or violating someone's civil rights (to be nuts) if they raise an issue of concern.
Not to mention we don't have enough cops to watch them all.
Mr Nugent has said many things, which I will not quote here, against the government health care system which he calls Obamacare. Now he says that it's not a problem with control (which Obama didn't even allude to until Sandy Hook) but with accessible mental health care (which Mr Nugent himself has actively spoken against).
Yes, a very factual statement.
And none of that changes the truth of the statement that Wulf quoted. You hate Ted Nugent, got it, you think he's insane - I can buy that....none of that changes the core truth of his statement. It isn't a gun issue, it's a mental health and violence issue (as in using violence to solve all our problems). If TN believes in universal healthcare isn't the issue - and from his quote it sounds like he feels that something should be done.
And just like Obama, TN could change his views on healthcare services when it comes to those who are mentally ill.
we do not take care properly of the people that show signs of dangerous behavior and mental retardation
Actually, I think it's it's an issue of both gun control and mental health care. Wayne LaPierre has said that we should have a nation database of the mentally, but not gun owners. I think we should have a national database of both, and that the two should be cross-referenced.
But, regardless (and sorry for the derail), citing Mr Nugent as a reputable source ruins your credibility.
Here, I'll even give you Hemenway's review.
I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I'd wager it's from a gun rights group. The field of criminology discredited those figures years ago.
While I agree that more recent research suggests that DGU figures of 2 or 3 million are very likely inflated, the estimates of DGU provided by Hemenway and his associates seem to unreasonably minimize the frequency of defensive gun use.
I had already pointed out Gary Kleck's rebuttal of Hemenway's critique, but Professor Tom Smith discussed and criticised both Hemenway's and Kleck's conclusions in 1997: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
More recent articles that I was able to find online tended to support Hemenway's findings, but since several of them were authored by individuals who had coauthored one or more of his papers, I'm not sure that I'm seeing independent scholarship as much as a small group of prolific authors.
I'll keep looking.
But, regardless (and sorry for the derail), citing Mr. Nugent as a reputable source ruins your credibility.
I was actually impressed by what seemed like a rare burst of reasonable discussion from someone who isn't really known for such.
Many mass murderers do not have noticable signs that friends pick up on.
The vast majority of murders (80 to 90%) are committed by individuals with a history of felony convictions. Right now, such individuals are seldom prosecuted when they try to buy guns or when they are caught in possession of a weapon. Aggressive investigation and prosecution of prohibited possessors could significantly deter such crimes without changing a single statute.
I've chatted with Wulf many times in the past and can vouch for his reason and common sense.
Now you're just being unreasonable!
But, regardless (and sorry for the derail), citing Mr. Nugent as a reputable source ruins your credibility.I was actually impressed by what seemed like a rare burst of reasonable discussion from someone who isn't really known for such.
I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, I was just saying that, if you want make your point, you could always find someone who is known for such, right? :P
But, regardless (and sorry for the derail), citing Mr. Nugent as a reputable source ruins your credibility.I was actually impressed by what seemed like a rare burst of reasonable discussion from someone who isn't really known for such.
Many mass murderers do not have noticable signs that friends pick up on.The vast majority of murders (80 to 90%) are committed by individuals with a history of felony convictions. Right now, such individuals are seldom prosecuted when they try to buy guns or when they are caught in possession of a weapon. Aggressive investigation and prosecution of prohibited possessors could significantly deter such crimes without changing a single statute.
You're switching from mass murderers to general murderers. Arguing based off of one against comments made on the other is intellectually dishonest. You are arguing something completely unrelated to what I was talking about. I'm not sure why you are responding to me, or even what your point was.
Hence my "most of the facts" disclaimer.
I do think there are people who are going to hide the fact that they are nuts, or have a severe breakdown and just snap. But in most of the recent cases of mass shootings, the killers were all observed or thought of as potentially dangerous - if not impaired prior to their attacks. Aurora shooter, recent Conn shooter, etc. In the case of the idiot who shot the fire fighters in NY the guy was a criminal who had previously murdered his grandmother and should never have been let out of prison.
Even for various workplace shootings there generally has been an history of employees behaving violently, having temper or threat related issues (sometimes even getting them fired) prior to being let go.
Except Ted Nugent is actively against free mental health care for everyone.
Also, not all shooters display obvious signs that they are going to commit a major act of violence days or weeks ahead of time. What is actually happening is that people alter how they remember events and their thoughts about the individual. People go back through their memories, combing for signs of instability or violence, they find something that could be interpreted as such and then go through it further until it confirms their ability to spot such behavior in an individual and helps them make sense of the whole episode.
There are literally millions of people in this country who are dealing with mental illness every day. I don't have exact figures, but I'm guessing most of them haven't shot up a school lately.
Guns are a tool of violence. As long as we want to keep enshrining violence as a right, violence is going to be a problem.
Ted Nugent's point was completely valid - even if you think he's nuts. It doesn't change the point and most of the facts in that statement (as much as you'd like it to).
What are you talking about? Nugent is claiming - with absolutely no evidence to support it - that guns have nothing to do with incidence of violence. We have stacks of evidence that says otherwise. He's also completely wrong about mass killers uniformly exhibiting outward signs, or uniformly being medicated.
Nugent doesn't know what he's talking about, period. He hasn't read the evidence, he isn't qualified to speak on this, and there is only one thing driving his every word on the topic: a deep-seated hatred for nearly every aspect of liberalism coupled with a truly insane, bigoted, ultra-nationalistic loyalty to guns and hyperconservatism.
In other words, no, Nugent's point is almost entirely invalid. I'm not sure how on earth you could claim otherwise. You don't need to defend him, you know. He's dirt. Deep down, you know he's dirt, too. Conservatives should be the first to condemn everything that comes out of the guy's mouth, because he makes conservatives look worse than they already are (and, really, that's pretty tough)!
You're switching from mass murderers to general murderers. Arguing based off of one against comments made on the other is intellectually dishonest. You are arguing something completely unrelated to what I was talking about. I'm not sure why you are responding to me, or even what your point was.
You indicated that Mr. Nugent was wrong, indicating that many mass murderers do not present noticable symptoms of psychopathology. While some of these "time bombs" may not have shown overt symptoms of deviance, others have had multiple run-ins with the courts or have been ordered to attend mandatory mental-health treatment.
I haven't seen any documentation to support your contention that mass murderers are psychologically very different from more "run of the mill" killers. Based on that, I would expect that many potential mass murderers could be identified and disarmed before they "go off". Accordingly, I didn't distinguish between different types of murderers.
While I work in Corrections, I could be mistaken in this. It is possible that the psychology of mass murder is different enough from other killers that the precautions I envisioned wouldn't work.
|
|
In other words, no, Nugent's point is almost entirely invalid. I'm not sure how on earth you could claim otherwise. You don't need to defend him, you know. He's dirt. Deep down, you know he's dirt, too. Conservatives should be the first to condemn everything that comes out of the guy's mouth, because he makes conservatives look worse than they already are (and, really, that's pretty tough)!
No, deep down I don't think he's dirt...I don't care about him to put any thought beyond his statement and he is no more biased than many people (yourself included) who is presenting their view on the issue. To sum up, to me your opinion is as valid as his (considering your hyper partisan nature).
You can call him a hypocrite or a nut and I stated already that his statement was not entirely correct, but that doesn't make him incapable of telling the truth - as much as it pains you to admit.
I mean look at yourself - you hate and revile all things conservative (because like yourself, I can read people...deep down) and yet on occasion you say something right.
This is (for the most part) a mental health issue coupled with the cost of living in a free society. We have a society that venerates revenge and violence - change the culture and you reduce the mayhem and loss of life.
Guns are a tool of violence. As long as we want to keep enshrining violence as a right, violence is going to be a problem.
No, guns are a tool for self-preservation and they preserve the right to revolt (while safeguarding our other rights).
Some soft-ball gun advocates will make the argument about the need of guns for personal self-defense, hunting, etc - and these are all peripheral to the main point. The right to bear arms exists so I have the preserved ability to revolt and resist my government if need be, as silly and Red Dawnish it may seem. This right helps preserve our other rights - the Founders saw the Government as a potential threat so they built some safeguards against it, like it or not.
That apparently otherwise reasonable people actually believe that the founding fathers built an "auto-armed insurrection" button in to the Constitution is just beyond me. There is no "right" to violently revolt against the government built into any of our laws. Many people who so loudly claim that their 2nd Amendment rights are in danger have often never read its actual text nor conducted even the most cursory historical inquery into its history and context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That apparently otherwise reasonable people actually believe that the founding fathers built an "auto-armed insurrection" button in to the Constitution is just beyond me. There is no "right" to violently revolt against the government built into any of our laws.
You're entitled to your opinion, just as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story was entitled to his...
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
|
|
You guys can QQ all you want - and I didn't write the damn thing, but that is whats it's there for.
Argue away, riducle, et al - I don't really care. It's the law of the land and if the government tries to infringe upon it (it already has in small steps) then people should start to consider pressing that "auto-armed insurrection" button, and then flush the whole thing down the toilet and start over.
In a day in age of nuclear weapons, attack drones, stealth bombers, never mind attack helicopters, jets, bombers, tanks and artillery you and a whole army of conspiracy nuts wouldn't stand a chance.
Tell that to the Syrians, or any country that has recently seen upheaval, revolution and change.
-
I know that when those here are advocating stricter gun control are presented with history and the thought process for creating the 2nd as a failsafe against tyranny get upset, you resort to attacks and ridicule. I don't really care what any of you think - as long as that right (and the others) are not infringed upon more than they already have been. So, gouge away - I'm not concerned about what liberals or Europeans think about the 2nd unless they are in the position to actually change the laws, and hopefully - if those laws are challenged people with enough sense will fight back.
|
That apparently otherwise reasonable people actually believe that the founding fathers built an "auto-armed insurrection" button in to the Constitution is just beyond me. There is no "right" to violently revolt against the government built into any of our laws. Many people who so loudly claim that their 2nd Amendment rights are in danger have often never read its actual text nor conducted even the most cursory historical inquery into its history and context.
While I am not advocating that we need to protect ourselves from the government, the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the founding fathers, provide great insights into their original intent...
Alexander Hamilton for example, wrote extensively concerning the 2nd Amendment (here's just a snippet of what he wrote):
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
So yes, the 2nd Amendment was put in place partly to help us defend ourselves from our own government if need be...
And Alexander Hamilton even wrote that he did not think such an occurrence was likely (but still felt we needed such a “clause” just in case):
When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
In a day in age of nuclear weapons, attack drones, stealth bombers, never mind attack helicopters, jets, bombers, tanks and artillery you and a whole army of conspiracy nuts wouldn't stand a chance.
The purpose of a gun in the nightstand isn't to shoot an intruder as much as it is to convince the guy to leave or surrender. Similarly, armed members of the general population aren't expected to overcome a modern military force: Instead, they just pose enough of a theoretical threat to convince would-be tyrants to choose a better approach than "threaten them with brute force".
|
|
That makes it much easier for them to have common cause with civilian opposition. If the military comes to your side, they've already got access to real weaponry. Your civilian knock-offs become irrelevant.
You can't get to step B (military coming to your side), unless you have step A covered (being armed - even with modifiable knock-offs). Also having step A covered (armed civilians) may help prevent things from escalating to a revolutionary war by keeping the governing powers in check.
.
Edit: Sir Wulf sort of Ninja'd my second point
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that gun advocates want to shoot somebody. Note I didn't say murder just shoot and kill a real person, justifiably. They want the robber to break in while they are home and armed, they want the government to try to suppress them so they can use their massive arsenal. Otherwise what was the point. Why did they buy so many things they didn't want to use. Why all the time spent learning, cleaning, defending their hobby. I have a lot of Pathfinder books because I want to play pathfinder. Not because I want to be ready to play if the need arises or because I fear if I don't no one will. Until they get that chance (which I hope to God they don't) or their families are involved in one of these mass shooting tragedies (which I hope to God they're not) simple rhetoric will never change their mind.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that gun advocates want to shoot somebody. Note I didn't say murder just shoot and kill a real person, justifiably. They want the robber to break in while they are home and armed, they want the government to try to suppress them so they can use their massive arsenal. Otherwise what was the point. Why did they buy so many things they didn't want to use. Why all the time spent learning, cleaning, defending their hobby. I have a lot of Pathfinder books because I want to play pathfinder. Not because I want to be ready to play if the need arises or because I fear if I don't no one will. Until they get that chance (which I hope to God they don't) or their families are involved in one of these mass shooting tragedies (which I hope to God they're not) simple rhetoric will never change their mind.
Oh come on!
A responsible gun owner does not wish nor want any of those things to happen.
Why do we spend so many hours "learning, cleaning, and defending our hobby"? Well, believe it or not, some of us actually enjoy shooting at targets just for the, you know... fun of it...
Others like to hunt... And there are a myriad of other reasons...
It is okay to not agree with a certain mindset, but don't dismiss one simply because you don't understand it...
The problem is that gun advocates want to shoot somebody. Note I didn't say murder just shoot and kill a real person, justifiably. They want the robber to break in while they are home and armed, they want the government to try to suppress them so they can use their massive arsenal. Otherwise what was the point. Why did they buy so many things they didn't want to use. Why all the time spent learning, cleaning, defending their hobby. I have a lot of Pathfinder books because I want to play pathfinder. Not because I want to be ready to play if the need arises or because I fear if I don't no one will. Until they get that chance (which I hope to God they don't) or their families are involved in one of these mass shooting tragedies (which I hope to God they're not) simple rhetoric will never change their mind.Oh come on!
A responsible gun owner does not wish nor want any of those things.
Why do we spend so many hours "learning, cleaning, and defending our hobby"? Well, believe it or not, some of us actually enjoy shooting at targets just for the, you know... fun of it...
Others like to hunt...
Don't simply dismiss a mindset so easily because you don't understand it...
I didn't say all gun owners would admit to it.
Unless you're talking about using guns to intimidate voters and politicians, much like we saw back in 2008 with people walking around outside of Obama rallies with loaded assault rifles, you know, just exercising their constitutional rights . . . folks that clearly weren't Obama supporters. Apparently that sort of thing didn't work either.
I would hope that you know I have no sympathy for those rednecks. Frankly, I'm kind of insulted that you would even consider my concerns in such terms.
The Second Amendment was never meant to empower people who would use weapons to intimidate people away from exercising their rights. The right to bear arms was meant to ensure that in the event of internal strife, invasion, or usurpation of power, the people maintained the ability to physically resist tyranny.
It is okay to not agree with a certain mindset, but don't dismiss one simply because you don't understand it...
If you haven't noticed, that's pretty much their entire MO.
Now, to debate my next pistol purchase . . .
1911 clone, or Sig Sauer P220. I'm leaning towards the P220 for the ease of carrying. But the classic lines of a 1911 have always appealed to me.
No, deep down I don't think he's dirt...I don't care about him to put any thought beyond his statement and he is no more biased than many people (yourself included) who is presenting their view on the issue. To sum up, to me your opinion is as valid as his (considering your hyper partisan nature).
Awesome, guys. Auxmaulous thinks that everyone's opinion is equally valid, evidence be damned!
That's the best part about getting to have opinions, Auxmaulous. Not all opinions are created equal.
You can call him a hypocrite or a nut and I stated already that his statement was not entirely correct, but that doesn't make him incapable of telling the truth - as much as it pains you to admit.
It makes him an utterly unreliable source of information - he has shown no remorse or contrition about lying to you and threatening grievous bodily harm to those he disagrees with.
I mean look at yourself - you hate and revile all things conservative (because like yourself, I can read people...deep down) and yet on occasion you say something right.
I hope I say things right more than "on occasion". And, happily for you, you get to call me out when I don't! Except I've posted hundreds of times on this issue, and I'm nearly always the one tracking down evidence and making corrections to what others say.
I'm sure I'm wrong on occasion, but when I'm wrong it's because I'm honestly mistaken, and not because I'm deliberately lying or deceiving anyone to further my own agenda.
This is (for the most part) a mental health issue coupled with the cost of living in a free society. We have a society that venerates revenge and violence - change the culture and you reduce the mayhem and loss of life.
James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, had his handgun carry permit suspended today because he publicly stated a plan to start killing people if anti-gun legislation went into effect. Yes, there absolutely is a culture of glorified gun violence - and the conservative echo chamber made up of icons like Ted Nugent and James Yeager who advocate killing those they disagree with and give people the idea that they have a sacred duty to fight their own government with their god-given AR-15 are responsible for it.
No, guns are a tool for self-preservation
No, they're not. I mean, they can be used for that, but that's not what guns are about. Guns were developed, over history, as ever-more-effective means of exerting military force, and weapons like the AR-15 exist to kill people, not to act in self-defense.
and they preserve the right to revolt (while safeguarding our other rights).
No, they don't. The idea that you will be capable of putting together an effective, protracted, successful armed rebellion against the United States military is a fantasy. We've been over this countless times. There's just no way that your conventional small arms is going to get you anything but dead in the event you try to overthrow your government. If it gets to that point, it is already too late and you have failed in your duty as an American. Your duty is to participate in the process of democratic self-rule and ensure that your government retains the best interest of its people.
Some soft-ball gun advocates will make the argument about the need of guns for personal self-defense, hunting, etc - and these are all peripheral to the main point. The right to bear arms exists so I have the preserved ability to revolt and resist my government if need be, as silly and Red Dawnish it may seem.
It is silly, because you need to be literally delusional to believe it is an option. It is not, and the idea that there are millions of people like you who would jump at the chance to violently oppose their own government instead of bothering to work on it while they still have a chance terrifies me.
Argue away, riducle, et al - I don't really care. It's the law of the land and if the government tries to infringe upon it (it already has in small steps) then people should start to consider pressing that "auto-armed insurrection" button, and then flush the whole thing down the toilet and start over.
Again, this mentality is terrifying. There are people who actually want this to happen.
Tell that to the Syrians, or any country that has recently seen upheaval, revolution and change.
Oh my god did you actually just say this
I don't really care what any of you think
We care about what you think, but only insofar as your idea of patriotism gives us the willies.
The problem is that gun advocates want to shoot somebody.
Let me talk about feelings. (This isn't an argument for anytihng but empathy and understanding.)
Everyone is the hero of their own story. It's commonplace to fantasize about heroically stopping some sinister horde from preying on one's family. Such ideas may not be particularly reasonable, but they color our perceptions.
The appeal of the gun as an iconic image of self-protection is that it's a solid, real item that the owner controls. If I were threatened by a murderer and called the police, they're unlikely to station a man at my front door. They might or might not catch the killer before he carried out a threat, but I have NO control over what happens at that point. With a gun, I'd feel in control of the situation: I could oppose threats to my safety.
Some people don't see guns that way. For them, gun violence is something outside their control, a horrible, random force that can strike down someone they love without any way to stop it. They see the existence of guns as a cause of suffering, with no redeeming characteristics.
These potent emotional anchors make it difficult for us to reasonably debate issues of gun possession. We will always envision these weapons in completely different lights.
Oh come on!
A responsible gun owner does not wish nor want any of those things to happen.
Then there simply are not enough of you responsible gun owners compared to those who are irresponsible (see: Ted Nugent, James Yeager, Auxmaulous, etc.). And, as you guys refuse to do your own house-cleaning, we're forced to do it for you.
Some people don't see guns that way. For them, gun violence is something outside their control, a horrible, random force that can strike down someone they love without any way to stop it. They see the existence of guns as a cause of suffering, with no redeeming characteristics.
That's because that's what the evidence indicates is actually correct (minus fanciful embellishment). Owning a gun is dangerous, makes you dramatically more likely to kill yourself, makes you more likely to be injured or killed in a violent crime, has not been shown to be significantly more effective in dissuading criminal activity than other, far less dangerous options, and oh by the way facilitates events like mass school shootings.
That is what the evidence says. That's not what we just came up with out of thin air. We're not scared of the idea of guns.