[Wondergirl]

Colonial militias were assemblies of local men, usually poorly trained and organized and generally not having uniforms, which could be assembled quickly for local defense. It was not the army. They relied on men owning their own guns.

Now the Army can own all the guns and distribute them when needed to fight a war. Otherwise, no private gun ownership, especially not asssult-type weapons.

When was the U.S. a country "without many guns"?

When I was growing up until fairly recently. Now there's a mass murder weekly or even more often.

[jlisenbe]

the Army can own all the guns and distribute them when needed to fight a war.

When has that ever happened? Did it happen in Germany, Japan, and Italy in the 30's? Did it happen in North Vietnam? Is it happening now in Russia or North Korea? If you are counting on an oppressive government to hand out guns to citizens in general, you'll be waiting a long time.

When I was growing up until fairly recently.

Oh come on. Surely you must know that's a silly contention, that there was not widespread gun ownership in your childhood. There is no data to support that.

[Wondergirl]

When has that ever happened?

The Army doesn't supply guns and ammunition to its soldiers?

Oh come on. Surely you must know that's a silly contention, that there was not widespread gun ownership in your childhood. There is no data to support that.

There were few if any mass killings. Guns were used for target shooting and for hunting. My dad owned guns (bb gun and a .22 -- no assault weapons) and taught me how to load, unload, and target shoot. And the fact that there wasn't widespread gun ownership kept the murder and suicide rates low.

[jlisenbe]

Distributing guns "to its soldiers" (who would already have them since...they are soldiers) is not the point. It's civilian ownership that we are talking about and which is important. It allows the populace to overthrow a repressive government just as happened in the Revolution.

First you refer to mass killings (There were few if any mass killings.), but then you refer to gun ownership (there wasn't widespread gun ownership). The first I agree with. The second is flat wrong and you have no data at all to support such a false contention. It shows what I really dislike about trying to discuss anything with you. It just strikes me repeatedly that you have too little regard for the truth.

But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend that???

[Wondergirl]

Distributing guns "to its soldiers" (who would already have them since...they are soldiers) is not the point. It's civilian ownership that we are talking about and which is important. It allows the populace to overthrow a repressive government just as happened in the Revolution.

The military (composed of the populace) has truckloads of guns, cannons, and ammunition. The general population doesn't need any of it.

First you refer to mass killings (There were few if any mass killings.), but then you refer to gun ownership (there wasn't widespread gun ownership). The first I agree with. The second is flat wrong and you have no data at all to support such a false contention.

How many mass murders were there in the U.S. between 1950 and 1955?

Mass Public Shootings per Decade
1900s : 0
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
2010s (three years): 14
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-h...gs-in-the-u-s/

It shows what I really dislike about trying to discuss anything with you. It just strikes me repeatedly that you have too little regard for the truth.

This is why I stop posting here. You just cannot leave your little feelies out of any discussion. Goodbye.

[jlisenbe]

You did not carefully read my post about repressive governments.

I have already told you that I would agree that mass murders have increased greatly. It is gun ownership that has NOT increased greatly.

Instead of leaving, why don't you simply find data to support your positions? I assure you that if you said that of me, it would not bother me a bit. I would either support my position or admit to being wrong. Why don't you try that? I say that objectively, with no meanness intended.

A person can be too sensitive, you know. I guess I'm not accustomed to talking with someone who gets upset so easily. I actually remind myself to be kind when I post with you.

[jlisenbe]

[Wondergirl]

I have already told you that I would agree that mass murders have increased greatly. It is gun ownership that has NOT increased greatly.

Of course it has, as has the population -- as has the problem of mental illness and mental struggles. Individuals only recently have owned assault-type weapons.

Instead of leaving, why don't you simply find data to support your positions?

I did and posted it in my previous reply.

[jlisenbe]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...r%20possession.

[Wondergirl]

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country.”
— Former President Bill Clinton, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Jan. 9, 2013

A colleague spotted this eye-popping statistic by the former president and wondered if it was correct.

Clinton signed the assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but it expired after 10 years and was not renewed. Even supporters have said it was riddled with loopholes, limiting its effectiveness. But the rash of mass shootings in recent years, including the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, have provided new impetus for a renewed ban.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-h...gs-in-the-u-s/

[jlisenbe]

Of course it has, as has the population

The rate of gun ownership has stayed steady. Mass shootings have increased greatly, and no one has suggested otherwise.

You posted data to support mass shootings, but I have repeatedly said that I agree with that. It is gun ownership that is the disagreement. You claimed initially there were "not many guns" which was clearly wrong. Now I'm not sure what you are claiming. Perhaps you referring to the total number of guns?

But there is an interesting question in all of this. Using your very good data, what has changed since the 1950's and now? It is not gun ownership. That has stayed pretty consistent, so what has changed to explain this phenomenon? Why have mass shootings increased so very dramatically?

[Wondergirl]

But there is an interesting question in all of this. Using your very good data, what has changed since the 1950's and now? It is not gun ownership. That has stayed pretty consistent, so what has changed to explain this phenomenon?

I went back and posted that too -- mental illness and mental struggles. As you have already posted elsewhere, the dissolution of the American family, plus the recent work, family, and personal upsets by Covid, and possibly even climate change (all the especially recent weather upheavals by storms, winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, widespread fires, et al.).

[jlisenbe]

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country.”

Using your data, that is clearly not correct. Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30. Again, that is using the data you posted.

I went back and posted that too -- mental illness and mental struggles. As you have already posted elsewhere, the dissolution of the American family, plus the recent work, family, and personal upsets by Covid, and possibly even vlimate change (all the especially recent weather upheavals by storms, winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, widespread fires, et al.

I actually rather agree with that answer, except for the part about climate disasters which have NOT been increasing. Covid is much too recent. It can't account for the 50 years before 2020.

I would add that the rise of atheism and the decline of the Christian faith has made a large difference. Atheism cannot assign any inherent worth to people, so killing a person seems to be a great deal less serious using that world view.

[Wondergirl]

The rate of gun ownership has stayed steady. Mass shootings have increased greatly, and no one has suggested otherwise.

Please read my Post #30.

Using your data, that is clearly not correct. Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30. Again, that is using the data you posted.

Asssult weapons were always used, as they are now?

And mental problems have skyrocketed. I know that just from being a Facebook member and chatter.

[jlisenbe]

I already have and have responded to it in post 33, so I don't know what your point is. What Clinton said, according to your data, is not even close to being correct.

[Wondergirl]

Again:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Using your data, that is clearly not correct. Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30. Again, that is using the data you posted.

Asssult weapons were always used, as they are now?

And mental problems have skyrocketed. I know that just from being a Facebook member and chatter.

[jlisenbe]

Either Clinton's statement was wrong, or your data, which I used, was wrong, so I really don't know what your point is. As I posted, "Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30."

Assault weapons? I don't know what was used in the 80's and 90's. It really doesn't matter. A man with two semi-auto pistols can do as much damage as a man with a so-called "assault weapon". It's the heart that is the problem.

[Wondergirl]

It's the heart that is the problem.

And the brain. Again, along with the population, mental problems have skyrocketed. I know that just from being a Facebook member and chatter.

After every shooting, I whisper, "Why?!"

[jlisenbe]

That does seem to be the case. I wonder why?

[Wondergirl]

That does seem to be the case. I wonder why?

As I posted in #32, "As you have already posted elsewhere, the dissolution of the American family, plus the recent work, family, and personal upsets by Covid, and possibly even climate change."