#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

Warning: Truncations due to character count. Reformist argues that "more guns means more suicides." Those determined to end their lives- WILL. Most use drugs. (Tragic fact, a habitual drug abuser is five times more likely to commit suicide... A debate for a later day.) I'm not sure if he's being deliberately obstructive or honestly ignorant, but his understanding of the militias of virtually all of history is utterly lacking; Until "around" the 1920's, all males 16-65 were required to report for militia training once per month; Only a couple of hours were spent on marching, and none on shooting (you were expected to spend that time on your own). IN FACT, the militia's inability to face REAL soldiers was so well known that at the Battle Of Cowpens it was used as the LYNCHPIN of the American plan; Place the militia before the British, then they break. The Redcoats would chase them down to finish them off, running STRAIGHT into a wall of von STEUBEN-trained Americans to be annihilated (http://www.nps.gov...). It. Worked. In fact, "training" for the militias generally was- A drunken party. (I hate to say it like that, but it's true, "Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives." MEYERS, Debra and PERREAULT, Melanie, P 206.) Reformist argues that the guns "of today" did not exist back then, citing a questionably reliable source. It articulates the 4 major models of long arms used through the course of the Revolution; The Pennsylvanian Backwoodsmen held the RIFLED musket Pennsylvania Rifle- Meaning commoners had SUPERIOR weapons than the infantry. (Imagine that, if the US Army fielded the AR-15, and every home had an M-16!) But there's SO much more... The Girandoni (https://en.wikipedia.org...) was an air rifle (or so it is listed), but WAS in fact capable of killing a man at 100 yards (300 feet), and fed by a 20-ball gravity fed magazine- In short, a semi-automatic rifle in the black powder era. Why wasn't it adopted? It cost FAR too much for an average man to purchase (Thomas JEFFERSON had one). To equip even a small force (20) with these may have been cost-effective, but still cost prohibitive. There are others, as well- Leonard da VINCI'S "Ribauldequin" and other "volley guns" is but one example I happen to like, because da VINCI died before WASHINGTON'S parents were born. The Nock Gun (https://en.wikipedia.org...), while it came along after the Revolution per say, was based on earlier concepts (including the Castle Gun). The theory that the Revolution, having been fought by "smoothbore muskets" was thoroughly disproven over a decade ago... Had the AR-15 existed in WASHINGTON'S time, he would have converted them to M-16's before the march on Trenton. The earlier acts regulating firearms, in which a gun registry came into use for a gun BAN, was passed by a deeply Tory governor, who was, kindly put, removed from New York in the wake of Yorktown. IN CASE ANYONE ELSE MISSED THIS: "The world as it existed in the 1700's, was that the State -COULD NOT- have policemen, soldiers, or even private security guards standing in every village, let alone outside every home. Even today, that would be a practicable impossibility. And yet, attacks on homes DID happen. The people needed the means to protect THEMSELVES. The threat of common criminals, whether they live in the "concrete jungle" or back woods, is still a very real threat." I do hope the VOTERS at least will read it... I could go on and on about confrontations ended by a single gun, from Clackamas Town Center to Pearl High School and beyond, but such a list could take 20 minutes or more just to sort, even assuming I'd already weeded out the "non-examples" (off-duty police officers and on-duty security guards). From the LA Times' list of the 46 most deadly shootings (http://timelines.latimes.com..., Deadliest U.S. mass shootings, 1984-2015 [updated 02 Dec. 2015, 12:39]), the top 5 were: Blacksburg, VA: 16 April 2007; 32 killed, 17 injured (Virginia Tech; Gun Free Zone). Newtown, CN: 14 Dec. 2012; 27 killed, 1 injured (Sandy Hook Elementary School; Gun Free Zone). San Ysidro, CA: 18 July 1984; 21 killed, 19 wounded (public place). Killeen, TX: 16 Oct. 1991; 22 killed, 20 wounded (Luby's Cafeteria; Gun Free Zone). San Bernardino, CA: 02 Dec. 2015; 17 dead, 21 wounded (Inland Regional Center; Gun Free Zone). 4 of the 5 were gun free zones. The fifth, 18 July 1984 in San Ysidro, CA (21 killed, 19 wounded), was at a McDonalds. If you've ever been in a McDonalds, you know it's easy to get in- Hard to get out in a hurry. (McDonalds was asked about their gun policy; they stated they abide federal, state, and local law.) Under TX law at the time, the Luby's Shooting occurred in a Gun Free Zone (as a public accommodation, firearms were prohibited). 9 of the 46 (almost 20%) occurred in CA, with by far the most incidents, the highest average body count, and the third worst single incident by body count. (CA has instituted such high standards for CCW issuance that 90% of the people can't achieve it, and has outlawed open carry.) It's quite clear that Reformist did NOT review the link I supplied originally (see end and first post), or he'd see that his "concerns" about public safety were already addressed. I invite the rest of you to do so. I found this interesting as well: "Currently out of the 12796 murders in the US 88555 of them were gun related." 88,555 is greater than 12,796- I have to wonder where this came from. Now, let's do some REAL MATH! "The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."" (http://www.nap.edu... This section was taken from http://www.cnsnews.com...) There are "about" 318 million people in the US, and several sources say there is "more than 1 gun per average American." Let's round this off the 320 million guns. 320,000,000/500,000=640; One in 640 of all guns were used in self-defense- Even is no one was shot. 320,000,000/24,700=12,956. This is 1991, the worst year on record for murder, when 24,700 "total" murders occurred. Let us assume all of those were guns; 1 in 12,956 guns were used in a murder. I "could" pump up these numbers, by adding in all crimes (though it doesn't make "much" sense to add "property damage" to this, does it?). And isn't 500,000 something like 20 times 24,700? The claim that "knives can't effectively be used from mass murder" has been disproven already (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...). Of the FBI's 12,664 total murders for 2011, 6,220+323+356+1,684=2007 using "all gun type" AND "Other guns or type not stated" (meaning the murder weapon was not identified, and thus included under guns). "Knives or cutting instruments" totaled 1,694, for "a little more" than three quarters. (https://www.fbi.gov...) Taking guns from "anyone" doesn't solve the problem; Criminals get them anyways. My favorite examples are Leonid "Tarzan" FAINBERG (http://www.newstatesman.com...), 1996's Operation Dragon Fire (http://articles.chicagotribune.com...), and Leland YEE (a sitting member of the California [oh my!] State Senate, who advocated for the ban on open carry and homebuild guns, was busted for gun running.) Those that speak of "reasonable restrictions" speak of a back-door ban; As they can't ban guns outright, they pass "reasonable" restrictions, then add to them as often as practicable; CA called a permanent ban on semi-automatic detachable box magazines a "reasonable" restriction. Look how well that worked in San Bernardino. What ARE reasonable restrictions? The last (and, to date, ONLY reasonable restriction law) passed was in 1998, when Ronald REAGAN signed into law the Assault Weapons And Machineguns Ban. (Yes, REAGAN.) I'm not even sure WHERE this claim that I believe in "no" restrictions at all comes from- There are at least three CATEGORIES of exemptions to mandatory carry. In closing; Gun control laws have NEVER disarmed criminals. They disarm law-abiding citizens. Even the most "well meant" restrictions inevitably draw in far more than the described intent. While putting a gun in EVERY hand is both impracticable (for those fundamentally unable to use them) and in some cases contrary to the desired good (specifically, convicted felons and others with proven violent tendencies), there remains the 99% who ARE competent to assist in their own defense at trial (the general threshold for the insane or, and I hate to use this word, retarded) and ARE physically able to do so (obviously, asking a quadriplegic to carry a gun, or fire extinguisher, is not even funny) who would be included. I invite the judges to review the REAL proposal, rather than a contrived version: http://jeremyjskidmore.simplesite.com...