Don't get me wrong, I honestly don't see a need for automatic weapons. But to say there is zero need for anyone to have handguns, I fully disagree with. I am a disabled woman. Asking me to trust in my ability to handle a shot gun to protect myself with it is the same as just telling me to go ahead and commit suicide because rest assured, if the gun didn't kill me when it knocked me into the wall, you can bet the bad guy I was aiming at will do the job while I am laying unconscious on the ground.
I got my first gun at 8 years old and was never allowed to touch it without daddy being there till after I was 15. I am now 60. That is 52 years that my gun never disobeyed me and shot a single person. It was trained exactly like I was to respect it. Did I have to pull it a few times in my life. Yes, it saved me from rape/murder (whatever they had in mind) on 3 different occasions. Yet, it has never been fired except on practice ranges.
Have you ever heard of Kennesaw Georgia? I live less than 50 miles from there. Back 30 some odd years ago, they passed a law that every head of household had to own a firearm. I thought they were crazy. But a strange thing happened. Violent crime basically disappeared. Last I heard there had not been a murder there for a very long time.
I find it so hard to believe that no one saw the guy in Florida had some major problems. But from what I am hearing, it sounds like a lot of people didn't want to get involved and let this guy slip through everyone's radar. We need to stop blaming the guns and start blaming the breakdown in the system that should have seen something coming.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick as a dog for the last few days and am just catching up now!
Before I say anything further, I first want to say that I'm sorry you were threatened with rape/murder, but that I'm glad you never had to experience it. That is something that I would never wish on anyone. The fact that you had to suffer through the threat is something that I find abhorrent and wrong, and I hope that the perpetrators were eventually brought to justice.
I'm not denying anyone the ability to own a gun, but the privilege of owning and carrying an easily concealed deadly weapon is something that should be limited to very few, highly trained, and selected people who have a legitimate need. Those other than police officers who should be allowed to own and carry a handgun would be limited to those who are engaged in high-level VIP protection, and who do so with the explicit permission of their local authority. If you own a handgun and want to fire off a few rounds at the range, then go for it...but that gun stays at the range when you're done.
It is only when it comes to guns in the USA that people seem to believe that adding additional risk on top of a risk is an appropriate solution. When there is a risk (such as the one posed by guns), you take away that which is causing the risk, you don't add more of the risk.
While in this case there were some things that got missed, it is a lot harder to kill 17 people and injure dozens more with a knife. I'm not sure how to explain to the gun lobby in the USA that someone's right to own a weapon doesn't supersede another person's right to live. It is only in the USA that there's this far-out belief that the only solution to guns is more guns.
I'm legitimately at a loss here...
Obviously, I disagree. My Dad was military, my husband was military, my only child is a Security Officer (not a guard)(yes he is armed) for the Dept. of Revenue. I have been trained, much more than the average person. The thing is, crime is not committed by the majority of people. You are asking law abiding citizens to give up their right to protect themselves and their property, because of the minority of the population that commits crime.
If you do a little research you find that in 2013 (the latest data I found records for) there were 698 people in jail or prison for every 100,000 citizens. That is .698 of a percent. Less than 1% of the population have committed crimes serious enough to be incarcerated. Of that number statistics disagree on how many are in for non-violent crimes, but as high as 60% are believed to be in for minor crimes (weed) So you are asking the 99+% of the law abiding citizens to give up the right to protect themselves, because no one has the time or the resources to spot the few who MIGHT cause problems.
Everyone had guns when I was growing up, you didn't hear about mass murders with automated weapons. You rarely heard about a murder period. There has to be a reason for the difference. Might be because tv and movies were not filled with the glorious lifestyle of drug dealers. Everyone could afford medical care, few people did without food because we took care of each other and everyone in the neighborhood grew food. We weren't made to feel like pond scum because we couldn't stretch a tiny paycheck to make ends meet.
I have never shot anyone and hope I never have to. But you can rest assured if I ever shoot someone, it will be because they are planning on killing me if I don't. I won't give up my gun because if we do, the only people who have guns will be the criminals because they will never give up theirs. I refuse to depend on an officer that might make it here in 20 minutes to take care of me.
Plus, I have to wonder why you think people couldn't kill others with a rifle or shotgun? The body count might have been lower, but since you are including pistols in your argument, it sort of defeats your argument because it is hard for someone with a pistol to cause as much damage as this kid did. The incident in Florida was horrible and it never should have happened. But, you are letting the emotions of a mass shooting by an obviously insane person who showed signs of major problems for years prior, roll over into "get rid of all guns except rifles and shotguns.
The logic behind that leaves me at a legitimate loss.
It's the same logic that has worked over and over again in other civilized countries...the proof is that good gun control works. With all due respect (and I do mean that...I do have great respect for you and your experiences), I'm going to disengage from this conversation because it won't get either of us anywhere. That being said, thank you for having a civil conversation about it, and I do hear your arguments. I (and the majority of the world) just happen to disagree with them.