And the politicians.

Ok so the Attorney General of the United States took it upon himself to command the Department of Justice to produce a biased study on gun use. Got it. Maybe read this https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/

It’s news to me that the Department of Justice is pro gun.

And your study is funded by 3 anti gun groups, and 2 universities, most of which are notoriously anti gun.

Why is my study wrong and yours is right?

Was I lying, or did I cite a study?

Ok, I Googled it and learned what you already knew. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gun-ownership-provides-effective-self-defense-gun-control-p-142-149

Let’s take the previous example of the woman being stalked. She has to submit what? Witness accounts, phone records, video surveillance, visible bodily injuries for review? And how long does that take? She might be dead tomorrow and she’s told to wait weeks, months? Multiply her case by tens of millions of others to be reviewed and decided by whom? Who’s responsible if she’s murdered after being denied?

Why wouldn’t they qualify?

Fair enough, but I think you and I both know that would result in a hasty ban for public safety (by perception or desire).

I would be open to learning about your proposed amendment.

And for now, the laws protect gun ownership. If enough voters want to change that, I hope they’ll first learn the histories of Germany, China, Soviet Union, Turkey, Uganda, and more. This is what should be taught, and was until recently, instead of “the weapon is responsible for the crime.” It’s all part of the destruction of personal responsibility.

I wouldn’t put her jail. I believe she doesn’t even need an excuse to have a gun. I’m just asking you, in your world where guns are confiscated, how we decide who among us deserves the privilege of being granted one. Let’s see. Do we let a business owner experiencing a series of strong-arm robberies have one? How about a family camping in an area where there are wolves?

How about a woman being stalked who can’t afford a well vetted team of armed bodyguards?

Oh I see. It’s only ok for entitled people to have certain protections.

All 4 of them protected with guns.

Illegal shootings are spiking. This is not a gun problem, but a societal one. In high school in the 80’s, we were allowed to have guns in the car at school. Why weren’t there rampant shootings like today? It was the same when I was in college in the early 90’s, where we were allowed to have them inside the building. I’m very sorry people are told they have no hope because they’re the wrong color, the planet is burning, you have to look like Barbie because the latest Tik Tok person does, or whatever bullshit is being peddled that makes someone desperate enough to shoot innocent people, but none of that removes any of one’s rights to constitutionally protected methods of protection.

Even if I thought a thing should be illegal because it might be stolen and used nefariously, guns can now be 3d printed.

So why not just let each law abiding individual decide for themselves?

It really doesn’t in most cases of spousal homicide, but then I never said it did. In cases of robbery and assault however, 2A can and has protected the victim.

Regardless of whether or not the criminal has a gun, the potential victim is at an advantage having a gun. I’ve watched countless videos where police use a taser to almost zero effect on a large or drug fueled criminal. And I’m just going to reject the premise that everyone should have to spend the time and money for martial arts training just to be able to safely navigate society or protect their home.

I agree, but what other chance does a petite or weak person have against a hardened criminal?

Yes, it will remove many innocent victims from the planet due to their inability to protect themselves.