So let's discuss the six gun violence proposals the Biden Administration has put forth

[AUGunsmith 666]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Have any examples of anarchical societies that worked well?

Have any examples of centrally planned societies that haven't aggressed upon its subjects?

[CoffeeTiger 5,098]

21 minutes ago, AUGunsmith said:

Have any examples of centrally planned societies that haven't aggressed upon its subjects?

Great. Now that we've established that neither centrally planned economies nor Anarcho-Capitalism work, where does that leave us? 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

25 minutes ago, AUGunsmith said:

Have any examples of centrally planned societies that haven't aggressed upon its subjects?

Are you familiar with Roussea’s Social Contract Theory?

 

[AUGunsmith 666]

12 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Great. Now that we've established that neither centrally planned economies nor Anarcho-Capitalism work, where does that leave us? 

 

 

We haven't established free market societies don't work. Not by a long shot. The wild west is a great example of a free market society. It functioned without central planning with roads and infrastructure, law and orders based upon local voluntary governance. 

 

Meanwhile we have all of human history to show statism doesn't work. 

It takes a 5 minute google search to find that most economically left stateless societies which are formed are not destroyed by flaws of the ideology of those participating, but by the might of the state humans have allowed to exist and grow to being omniscient and omnipotent forces. 

[AUGunsmith 666]

25 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Are you familiar with Roussea’s Social Contract Theory?

 

The social contract is garbage. Like all statist ideology, it aggresses upon the peaceful dissenters. Usually with threats of imprisonment and ultimately backed by the threat if death for resistance. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 minute ago, AUGunsmith said:

The social contract is garbage. Like all statist ideology, it aggresses upon the peaceful dissenters. Usually with threats of imprisonment and ultimately backed by the threat if death for resistance. 

Well, I’m pretty confident that you view most any restrictions as a transgression on individual rights. The best question may be in what societal arrangement do folks actually have the most meaningful freedoms? In a state with largely consensually agreed upon rights that are enforced or a state of nature where every man is for himself?

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://apnews.com/article/fedex-indianapolis-mass-shooting-e92ad3117c56357b3b2c71a2903e68a8

8 killed multiple injuries in another mass shooting at a Fed Ex facility as America's well regulated militia took a detour to Indy yesterday. 

 

 

I’ve been looking at this and got to some local outlets and found an interesting article.  This was the 3rd mass murder in Indianapolis since the first of the year.  I have not seen any national news on these stories of, as you call them, *well regulated militia*.  I’m curious if you have?

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/crime/fedex-shooting-is-third-mass-casualty-case-for-impd-this-year/531-eed8a086-564a-46e7-a333-333cde4ec9de

Note that the definitions of mass *shooting* is malleable as it can be 4 or more gunshot victims as a mass shooting (Chicago has one or two each weekend) as opposed to mass *murder* where four or more homicides occur during the shooting.  The media can slide these definitions in whenever it suits their narrative.

Also note I am NOT posting these to point out who did what, just the fact that the media is not covering every crime with the same zeal if it doesn’t fit their agenda. 

[AUGunsmith 666]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Well, I’m pretty confident that you view most any restrictions as a transgression on individual rights. The best question may be in what societal arrangement do folks actually have the most meaningful freedoms? In a state with largely consensually agreed upon rights that are enforced or a state of nature where every man is for himself?

I think this is a false dichotomy. It isn't a choice of either state control to the extreme we current see or ever man for himself. Especially when the average person doesn't actually realize exactly what all the state does. 

Humans are social creatures and will naturally work together for mutual benefit. There is no useful state function that wouldn't exist in a free market absent the states monopoly. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, AUGunsmith said:

We haven't established free market societies don't work. Not by a long shot.

Ah yes, the mirror image of the "communism hasn't failed because it's never been tried in its pure form before" argument.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

52 minutes ago, AUGunsmith said:

I think this is a false dichotomy. It isn't a choice of either state control to the extreme we current see or ever man for himself. Especially when the average person doesn't actually realize exactly what all the state does. 

Humans are social creatures and will naturally work together for mutual benefit. There is no useful state function that wouldn't exist in a free market absent the states monopoly. 

Any examples of where that’s happened since you think it would naturally occur?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Any examples of where that’s happened since you think it would naturally occur?

I don’t believe there are any because I actually believe in the concept of original sin. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

1-5 Agree with, no problem.

6. David Chipman. No Sale. There are far more qualified people without all the political baggage this guy has. He is snough to kill the whole deal to some.

Chipman was at Waco and has a bad track record since. He has worked for all the poison pill people especially Bloomberg's group. 

Biden Re-Ignites The Waco Fire

 

Chipman was a 25-year ATF agent and a key official at the 1994 federal trial of the Branch Davidians who survived the ATF and FBI assaults the prior year. Many federal agents posed for grisly “victory photos” in the rubble of the Branch Davidians’ Waco, Texas, home after it burned to the ground during an FBI assault. One photo allegedly shows Chipman proudly holding a rifle in front of the wreckage where scores of children died shortly before. The White House and Chipman’s current employer, the antigun Giffords organization, did not respond to repeated email requests to confirm or deny that Chipman is the federal agent in that photo; the Daily Mail and many online sites have tagged Chipman as the agent. In a Reddit public question and answer session in 2019, Chipman sought to spur support for an assault weapons ban by falsely claiming that the Davidians shot down two federal helicopters that were attacking their compound. That is ******* crazy

Biden’s nomination of Chipman has thrust Waco back in the national spotlight. Millions of Americans permanently lost faith in the federal government after ATF and FBI attacks concluded with more than 80 civilians dead. But few Americans are aware of Biden’s role, first in helping cover up the debacle and later, after ample damning evidence had surfaced, exonerating federal law enforcement and instead blaming Americans who distrusted Washington. Biden’s behavior on Waco is a bad portent for anyone who expects federal agencies to be leashed during his reign.

At the time of the federal assault at Waco, Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had primary oversight jurisdiction over the conduct of federal law enforcement agencies. How did Biden react to an FBI tank and toxic gas assault that ended with shocking carnage? On the day after the fire, Biden “cautioned that lawmakers should wait until all the details become available before it begins second-guessing the Justice Department,” the New York Times reported. Biden declared, “We’ve got to wait to figure out what happened before we have hearings.” Delaying hearings until after the federal agencies that had blundered (or far worse) announced the “facts of the matter” would have horrified earlier generations of congressional leaders who courageously exposed federal lies and cover-ups, from Sen. William Fulbright’s investigation of the Vietnam War in the 1960s to Sen. Frank Church’s investigation of FBI and CIA rampages in the 1970s.

 

Biden conducted zero hearings on Waco while he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. After Republicans captured control of Congress in the 1994 elections, committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) held hearings in late 1995. Despite plenty of damning disclosures of federal misconduct at Waco in the prior two years, Biden was emphatic that the real problem was “a growing number of people across the country who are seizing on the incidents at Waco as well as at Ruby Ridge to suggest that law enforcement is our enemy.”

“The record from Waco does not evidence…any improper motive or intent on the part of law enforcement,” Biden declared. Instead, Biden touted “the excellent overall record of the Federal law enforcement agencies, including both the ATF and the FBI.” Biden vindicated the feds: “The ATF had a legitimate and very important reason to be at Waco in the first place, that is, to serve warrants on those reasonably suspected of violating the Federal criminal laws.” But if the ATF Waco search is Biden’s idea of “legitimate,” the next four years will be hell on civil liberties.

 

The Waco investigation got rolling in July 1992, when ATF agent Davy Aguilera visited the Branch Davidians’ gun dealer, and suggested the Davidians were illegally converting semiautomatic firearms to full automatic firing capacity, a federal felony. When Davidian leader David Koresh was told about that allegation, he invited Aguilera to visit the Davidians’ residence and conduct an on-the-spot inspection. Aguilera refused the invitation and his subsequent affidavit application to search the Davidians’ residence “CONTAINED AN INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF FALSE STATEMENTS” according to a 1996 congressional report.

In an October 1995 Senate hearing, Biden declared, “Nobody in Washington, nobody in ATF, nobody involved with ATF had an idea that, you know, those Branch Davidians are dangerous people, Koresh is a dangerous guy, we have got to be aggressive and go after them.” The ATF’s subsequent conduct reveals Biden’s definition of “non-aggressive.” Instead of conducting a peaceful search of the Davidians’ sprawling wooden home, the ATF chose to launch a massive attack on its peaceful residents. On February 28, 1993, more than 70 ATF agents and three military helicopters launched a Sunday morning attack with no warning. Prior to the assault, the ATF alerted several television stations to assure coverage of a raid expected to seize a big cache of weapons. CBS’s 60 Minutes disclosed that ATF agents said “the initial attack on that cult in Waco was a publicity stunt—the main goal of which was to improve ATF’s tarnished image.” A 1996 congressional investigation noted that ATF deliberately chose a “dynamic entry approach. The bias toward the use of force may in large part be explained by a culture within ATF,” including “promotional criteria.”

 

ATF claimed a surprise attack was necessary because Koresh almost never came out of his home. Six years after the attack, thanks to FOIA hounding by former federal lawyer David Hardy, the ATF finally disclosed a memo revealing that, nine days before the raid, two undercover ATF agents (recognized as such by Koresh) knocked on the door of the Davidian residence and invited Koresh to go shooting. Koresh, two other Davidians, and the two agents had a fine time shooting AR-15s and SIG Sauer semiautomatic pistols. Koresh provided the ammo and the agents handed him their guns. The ATF undercover agents’ official report, filed before the raid, noted: “Mr. Koresh stated that he believed that every person had the right to own firearms and protect their homes.” Koresh could have easily been arrested that day but that would have preempted the biggest and most glorious raid in ATF history.

Instead, the raid quickly turned into a debacle, leaving four ATF agents and six Davidians dead. The ATF claimed Davidians “ambushed” their agents, a story promoted by the vast majority of the media. But after ATF agents told superiors that the ATF shot first, the ATF ceased its shooting review to avoid creating documents that could subvert the court case against the Davidians. A Treasury Department report written by outside experts and issued in September 1993 condemned “deliberately misleading post-raid statements about the raid and the raid plan by certain ATF supervisors.” After the raid debacle, the FBI took over the scene and ramped up the pressure on the Davidians. The FBI settled on an assault plan that included using military tanks to collapse the building atop the residents. The FBI fired pyrotechnic rounds at the scene, perhaps the source of the conflagration that ended the standoff.

Biden was one of the most fervent champions of the federal drug war in the 1980s and 1990s, but he had no complaint about the ATF’s drug war scam at Waco. Prior to the raid, ATF officials were told that it would be illegal for the U.S. military to assist them unless there was a “drug nexus” to the case. Voila! A few days later, the ATF notified military officials that they suspected the Davidians had a methamphetamine lab in their basement. ATF agents then received training in close-quarters combat and called in military helicopters from the Texas National Guard to assault the Davidians’ home in conjunction with the agents attacking on the ground. Despite such extensive preparations, the drug charge vanished immediately after the raid, and federal prosecutors never raised the issue at the surviving Davidians’ 1994 trial. A 1996 congressional report concluded that the ATF’s actions during and after the raid made it “clear that the ATF believed that a methamphetamine lab did not exist.” The House report concluded that “the ATF intentionally misled Defense Department and military personnel” regarding the existence of the meth lab. But federal agencies treated those lies as a harmless error since they did not reduce government power.

At the trial of the surviving Davidians in 1994, federal prosecutors compared Koresh to Hitler and Stalin and declared that the 11 defendants were “as much religious terrorists as the people who blew up…Pan Am 103.” But the jury found all the Davidian defendants not guilty of murder, though seven were convicted of manslaughter. The New York Times characterized the verdict as a “stunning defeat” for the federal government; a Los Angeles Times headline declared, “Outcome Indicates Jurors Placed Most Blame on the Government.” Jury foreman Sarah Bain commented after the trial, “The federal government was absolutely out of control there…. The wrong people were on trial, it should have been the ones that planned the raid and orchestrated it.”

But neither the jury verdicts nor House hearings in the summer of 1995 that exposed further ATF and FBI deceits and abuses dented Joe Biden’s view. Instead, at the Senate hearings in October of that year, Biden portrayed the real danger as people on the “left and right who see everything as some great conspiracy.” Biden sought “to establish that this wasn’t Big Brother sitting up in Washington.” If the ATF mass assault and the FBI tank-and-toxic-gas attack don’t count as Big Brother, what does?

Biden is making restoring trust in government a theme of his presidency. In his inaugural address, he declared, “Each of us has a duty and a responsibility as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders…to defend the truth and defeat the lies.” Biden’s conduct on Waco and his nomination of David Chipman signal that Americans can’t count on any help from the White House in defeating the lies.

While I do not agree with everything the Author says, it is easy for anyone to understand that there is a long-bad-history of lies and coverup at Waco and David Chipman is just dragging all that bad stuff right back into the headlines. There are probably a 100 others that are just as qualified and should be considered. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Well, no red flag law can do anything if the authorities don't follow up on it in front of a judge...

Brandon Hole, the 19-year-old who the police say fatally shot eight people at a FedEx facility on Thursday night, legally purchased two semiautomatic rifles he used in the attack more than six months earlier, according to the chief of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

In March of 2020, the police had seized a shotgun from Mr. Hole after his mother raised concerns about his mental state, records show. But, Chief Randal Taylor said, the fact that Mr. Hole was legally able to make the more recent gun purchases indicates that, despite his mother’s warning and the police seizure of a gun, the authorities had not deemed him subject to Indiana’s so-called “red flag” law, which bars people who are found by a judge to present dangerous risk from possessing a firearm.

Under the state’s longstanding red flag law, the authorities have two weeks after taking someone’s weapon to argue before a judge that the person is unstable and should be barred from possessing a gun for a period of time. But Chief Taylor was unsure whether a hearing like that ever took place — even though the police never returned the shotgun they had seized last year....

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/us/Indianapolis-gunman-weapons.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, no red flag law can do anything if the authorities don't follow up on it in front of a judge...

Brandon Hole, the 19-year-old who the police say fatally shot eight people at a FedEx facility on Thursday night, legally purchased two semiautomatic rifles he used in the attack more than six months earlier, according to the chief of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

In March of 2020, the police had seized a shotgun from Mr. Hole after his mother raised concerns about his mental state, records show. But, Chief Randal Taylor said, the fact that Mr. Hole was legally able to make the more recent gun purchases indicates that, despite his mother’s warning and the police seizure of a gun, the authorities had not deemed him subject to Indiana’s so-called “red flag” law, which bars people who are found by a judge to present dangerous risk from possessing a firearm.

Under the state’s longstanding red flag law, the authorities have two weeks after taking someone’s weapon to argue before a judge that the person is unstable and should be barred from possessing a gun for a period of time. But Chief Taylor was unsure whether a hearing like that ever took place — even though the police never returned the shotgun they had seized last year....

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/us/Indianapolis-gunman-weapons.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

This is typical of a lot of gun laws, there is no follow through by law enforcement. This is an example of why we don’t need more gun laws, we need to enforce the one we have already.

[CoffeeTiger 5,098]

On 4/18/2021 at 8:41 AM, I_M4_AU said:

This is typical of a lot of gun laws, there is no follow through by law enforcement. This is an example of why we don’t need more gun laws, we need to enforce the one we have already.

If certain laws are continually not being enforced correctly then maybe those laws need to be changed/updated to help with enforcement? 

Make a federal "red flag" database that all law enforcement agencies have access to, and make it a more standard requirement that authorities have to seek a gun ban for certain criminal and mental health situations. 

People say, "but what if someone innocently has their guns taken away?", Well have an appeals process that someone can go through to get their rights confirmed/re-instated.  

I'd rather take a risk of an innocent person be without their guns for a short period of time rather than the continuing situation where dangerous/ unstable people are allowed to keep their guns and end up killing people. 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

If certain laws are continually not being enforced correctly then maybe those laws need to be changed/updated to help with enforcement? 

Make a federal "red flag" database that all law enforcement agencies have access to, and make it a more standard requirement that authorities have to seek a gun ban for certain criminal and mental health situations. 

People say, "but what if someone innocently has their guns taken away?", Well have an appeals process that someone can go through to get their rights confirmed/re-instated.   

There are laws on the books that are so outdated they are not even relevant  any longer.  Purging these laws very seldom occurs, so when a law is enacted it’s there for a long time.  These gun laws are legislation that gives you a good feeling, but doesn’t do much if they are unenforceable. 

Indiana passed their *red flag* law, known as the Jake Laird law, in 2005, 15 years ago.  In 2018 the Governor allowed the *red flag* information to ge shared with other Indiana law enforcement communities.

Earlier this month, Governor Holcomb asked that information related to IC 35-47-14, more commonly referred to in Indiana as the “Jake Laird Law” and nationally as the “Red Flag Law”, be made available to all law enforcement agencies in Indiana.  As you will recall, this law addresses circumstances where it would be appropriate for a police officer to take custody of a citizen’s firearms, by way of a warrant, or immediately when exigent circumstances are present and it can be clearly articulated the safety of the public was in jeopardy.

Indiana is but one of a handful of States in our nation that has this type of a law, and you can expect other States will begin to pass similar laws the result of the tragic loss of life in Parkland, Florida.

Additionally, when a judge signs a Jake Laird order, the order may be forwarded to the FBI as a NICS disqualifier to prevent the person from making future purchases from a licensed firearm dealer, provided that the order specifically prohibits the individual from purchasing, possessing, or acquiring firearms.

Please take time to review the information presented below. You will find a PowerPoint program that can be downloaded and provided as ILEA accredited training for members of your department.  There also is a link to a quick reference field guide that further details specific information about the law.

https://www.in.gov/isp/3484.htm

This is the link to the letter:  https://www.in.gov/isp/3484.htm

The law was on the books and should have worked.  There was a discount between the law and the execution, it happens a lot.  

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I'd rather take a risk of an innocent person be without their guns for a short period of time rather than the continuing situation where dangerous/ unstable people are allowed to keep their guns and end up killing people.

How do you feel about incarcerating an innocent person as they have an appeals process to get their freedom back?

You can’t have it both ways, can you? 

Oh, and on the proposed law on the stabilizing brace; there are 40 million people that have one.  Do you believe this law can be affectively enforced?

[BizTiger 242]

I'm typically against any constitutional infringement, but something has to be done to curtail this craziness. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's all for naught if there is not a serious push for mental health improvement through the whole country. You can pass all the gun control legislation you want and it won't stop people from killing other people in cold blood. The source of the problem is the cold blood.

It's sad watching the country come unglued like this.

[GoAU 1,599]

On 4/9/2021 at 11:45 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

They aren't bad, but are mostly useless when talking about how to solve rampant gun deaths. They are just token orders to make it look like action is being taken. Real, impactful action will have to come from congress.

 

My suggestions?

 

1) National database where all weapons/owners have the be registered and also a database of people barred from owning a weapon.

2) Mandatory weapons safety/use training before being granted a gun permit. 

3) I don't understand why AR-15's are legal to own nor really believe they should be. (I know that's going to be a popular take on here).

 

It seems odd that most people that support a national database for gun owners are the same people that think that requiring an ID to vote is an infringement of a constitutional right.  A national gun database is a non starter.   No debate, completely unacceptable.  
 

As for “mandatory” safety training- this one is interesting.   I agree with the concept of a responsible gun owner should know what they are doing.   I could almost get behind the concept of having a permit or certificate stating you’ve been to a training, but that would likely be tied to some sort of registration program. Do we require people to understand the stances of various politicians before people vote?  

Respectfully, whether or not you see the point of someone owning an AR 15 isn’t terribly relevant.  I don’t see the need why someone should have a car that can travel over 100 mph, but I’m not in favor of banning Corvettes and Mustangs.  I also don’t see the need to smoke, and cigarettes kill far more people a year than AR 15s.  
 

[GoAU 1,599]

“Ghost guns” - it’s statistically irrelevant, and is just trying to chip away at the 2nd amendment.  If they limit it only to receivers, or one part of a firearm, that’s better, but as written it could make buying all sorts of parts extremely difficult. 
 

“Pistol braces” - absolutely garbage.  I’ll also go as far as saying SBRs and Suppressors shouldn’t be NFA items anyway.  Requiring citizens to pay additional taxes to own firearms is similar to a poll tax.   I can agree with the existing taxes and background checks for fully automatic weapons as a method of compromise, but stabilizing braces is just further proof of the “slippery slope”..  why punish the poor people that can’t afford the extra tax?
 

Red Flag Laws - I can see where on the surface this sounds like a good idea, but it is full of opportunity for abuse.  For example, an abusive husband can file a claim against an estranged wife and strip her of her ability to protect herself, possibly from him.   An angry ex-wife can file a report as a method or retaliation.  There is no due process here.  We already have several methods to follow for most people posing a threat - but they require the courts and due process. Making threats, for example is already a crime.  Courts and the mental health system can be used to bar people from owning guns.   Eroding everyone’s rights and due process as a matter of convenience should cause alarm to everyone.  What is the recourse of a red flag law for people that have false claims made against them?  What punishment for someone that abuses the system?

[CoffeeTiger 5,098]

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

It seems odd that most people that support a national database for gun owners are the same people that think that requiring an ID to vote is an infringement of a constitutional right.  A national gun database is a non starter.   No debate, completely unacceptable.  

 

We don't have voter registries? Where in America can you just randomly go up to a voting center in a county you don't live in and legally vote without being registered? 

Voting requires registration. Gun ownership should too. 

 

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

 

As for “mandatory” safety training- this one is interesting.   I agree with the concept of a responsible gun owner should know what they are doing.   I could almost get behind the concept of having a permit or certificate stating you’ve been to a training, but that would likely be tied to some sort of registration program. Do we require people to understand the stances of various politicians before people vote?  

 The consequences of large numbers of incompetent, untrained people packing weapons who's sole reason for existing is to kill or maim other humans is much greater than a voter not knowing the issues of the candidate they are voting for. "Rights" aren't absolute and do have conditions placed upon them. Gun ownership has far too few restrictions on it and America's gun violence being equivalent to a 3rd world African failed state is evidence of that.  

 

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

Respectfully, whether or not you see the point of someone owning an AR 15 isn’t terribly relevant.  

I don’t see the need why someone should have a car that can travel over 100 mph,

Legal racing? speedy driving on private property? Is the car required to go 100mph at all times or is it possible to drive at a lower speed and still use the vehicle effectively? Are there other uses for a vehicle than driving at 100MPH? 

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

 I also don’t see the need to smoke, and cigarettes kill far more people a year than AR 15s.  
 

 

I agree. I'm in favor of banning cigarettes. they are a health hazard with no benefits and costs the country millions of dollars every year in uncovered medical costs dealing with the side effects of smokers who spend every dime they have on their next pack. Also the innocent people who are forced to live or be around them and inhale hazardous second hand smoke.

[GoAU 1,599]

8 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

We don't have voter registries? Where in America can you just randomly go up to a voting center in a county you don't live in and legally vote without being registered? 

Voting requires registration. Gun ownership should too. 

I asked about Identification.  Are you saying you agree with all voters providing identification.  This is the case for firearm purchases.  Registration is a completely separate issue

 

 The consequences of large numbers of incompetent, untrained people packing weapons who's sole reason for existing is to kill or maim other humans is much greater than a voter not knowing the issues of the candidate they are voting for. "Rights" aren't absolute and do have conditions placed upon them. Gun ownership has far too few restrictions on it and America's gun violence being equivalent to a 3rd world African failed state is evidence of that.  

You are clearly wrong on so many levels.  There are MANY reasons for firearms, just because you don't agree with the "sole purpose" of a firearm doesn't make it a fact.  I shoot all sorts of competition events with my firearms (USPSA, IDPA, 2 gun, 3 gun etc.).   Firearms are also used for hunting, sport & recreational shooting.   I will assume by "killing or maiming" you are also referring to defensive uses of firearms.   The CDC estimates there are between between 60k and 2.5M defensive uses of firearms a year in the US.  Assuming we use an average of that number, that is over 1M times a year.  Since the Democrats appear hell bent on opening our borders, releasing felons, legalizing drugs, and defunding police I would expect these numbers to increase SIGNIFICANTLY in the future.

 

Legal racing? speedy driving on private property? Is the car required to go 100mph at all times or is it possible to drive at a lower speed and still use the vehicle effectively? Are there other uses for a vehicle than driving at 100MPH? 

If you are delineating between "legal" uses versus "illegal" you should do the same with guns....

 

I agree. I'm in favor of banning cigarettes. they are a health hazard with no benefits and costs the country millions of dollars every year in uncovered medical costs dealing with the side effects of smokers who spend every dime they have on their next pack. Also the innocent people who are forced to live or be around them and inhale hazardous second hand smoke.