And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

[hal2kilo]

Those very well may be true, I'll take your word for it as far as the numbers.

But my point was about a complete denial that there's any downside to the current way that gun ownership is handled.

You don't get it. There's no "handling" of sacred, God given, human rights.

 

[Perknose]

For all you hysterically delicate flowers, this cup of faux offense and rage is for YOU:

 

[irishScott]

I have no problem believing it "happens every day," as that that would be only 365 life-saving defenses annually. But the claim is that there are well over 170,000+ life-saving defenses per year. That's 500 a day. Also claimed is 2,500,000 "defenses" per year - that's 6,850 a day. I don't think your link is going to provide quite the number of happy stories as you think.

Furthermore, if guns are such wonderful, life-saving instruments, how come the United States has - by far - the highest per-capita homicide rate of any first-world country on Earth? With all the lives we're saving with handguns, how come we have three times the homicide rates of Canada and Great Britain, where private ownership of handguns is essentially nonexistent?

Well by that site the number of stories published per day is 1-4+, which in all likelihood puts the figure over the 1000 you claimed you'd be surprised at.

As for the crime rate, I don't know. Why do we have the most serial killers of any western nation (apparently a fact)? Maybe guns are the cause of serial killing?

There are a multitude of theories as to the homicide rate, and even if guns are the deciding factor, tell me how you plan to take guns out of the hands of criminals without door-to-door searches.

Bottom line is guns do not kill people, people kill people. You want to legitimately kill the homicide rate? License guns with appropriate protection from the slippery slope. I'm talking about a revised 2nd amendment that specifically states that the right of a law-abiding citizen licensed under a reasonable shall-issue system to carry and own any loaded non-fully automatic gun or non-firearm weapon (knife, baton, taser, etc) of his/her choosing. Make private sales only legal through FFLs, with strong protections against outright bans. Make the sales of ammunition only legal to licensed gun owners under said system. Then add social projects to ameliorate the conditions that cause people to turn to crime.

That's the ideal. The reality is that people scare easily, and any form of non-Constitutionalized gun licensing will, as has been shown in Western nations, quickly turn into a gun ban list as soon as the next shooting comes along. In the meantime, I'd rather live in a free but slightly more dangerous society as opposed to a restricted and negligibly safer one. See previous statements of the ineffectiveness of a gun ban on criminals.

 

[spidey07]

You don't get it. There's no "handling" of sacred, God given, human rights.

You're starting to get it now. It's as important as freedom of speech and any restrictions, etc.

 

[spidey07]

I'm not sterotyping anyone. I'm trying to point out the difference between hyperbole and reality.

You call for sensible changes, that's the discussion I want to have.

Not argue with people who want to deny that guns are dangerous.

Or argue with someone who thinks guns should be banned.

Then what suggestions do you have that aren't already law? Because it's all been hashed out before on what is and isn't constitutional. Current legislation is about as far as you can go and the supreme court is stripping away state and local laws that "control" guns.

 

[hal2kilo]

You're starting to get it now. It's as important as freedom of speech and any restrictions, etc.

If there was a god vice higher power, that I believed in, there would be no need for "arms". I'm a fool who believes people are basically good, not evil. Silly me.

It's very ironic, considering what I do for a living.

 

[irishScott]

For all you hysterically delicate flowers, this cup of faux offense and rage is for YOU:

I sincerely hope that's true. But honestly I like a group that vigorously defends itself when threatened. Say what you will about the NRA, they do their job. Besides, a vigorous defense that gets our message out there means we might win over a few more followers.

 

[hal2kilo]

I sincerely hope that's true. But honestly I like a group that vigorously defends itself when threatened. Say what you will about the NRA, they do their job. Besides, a vigorous defense that gets our message out there means we might win over a few more followers.

Oh yes, we are threatening the NRA to it's very foundations lol. You realize their headquarters in Washington almost looks like it belongs with all the other memorials. I remember when i was in the Boys Scouts one of our parent leaders thought it was important that we visit the shrine. (I lived in suburban D.C., so it really wasn't like a pilgramage to Mecca).

 

[irishScott]

Oh yes, we are threatening the NRA to it's very foundations lol. You realize their headquarters in Washington almost looks like it belongs with all the other memorials. I remember when i was in the Boys Scouts one of our parent leaders thought it was important that we visit the shrine. (I lived in suburban D.C., so it really wasn't like a pilgramage to Mecca).

Not right now, but many liberals would like to. Bill Mahr even called them "The Assassin's Lobby". And he didn't seem to mean it as a joke.

The fact that the assault weapons ban even came about shows that it can happen in America, despite the gun lobby. So a whenever a challenge to my right to self defense come along I like a group that nips (or nukes) things in the bud. As far as gun control is concerned, so long as the possibility is there the threat is there.

 

[Darwin333]

You're right, you arer talking out your ass. A person without a gun cannot commit a gun crime. Ownership has nothing to do with having or not having a gun. The question I asked was about people without a gun, not people who don't own a gun.

And even if the homicide rate for legally owned guns is low, you haven't given any actual facts to back that up, they aren't zero.

I stated a person with a concealed weapon permit because that is an extremely easy number to track. Any felony committed results in the CWP being revoked.

Which state would you like data from? Florida is the first one that popped up so here are some facts:

1.9M permits issued
5,943 total permits revoked
168 permits revoked do to a firearms violation. (.0000875%)
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

We could even sway the numbers as far as possible to your side and use only the active permits versus all firearm related revoked permits but you still don't get above any statistical margin of error.

How about a random fact about guns?

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[18]

First time I have looked at the site but all of their claims appear to be extremely well backed up. Unfortunately some of their data is old, many states have relaxed their gun laws/expanded gun rights in the last decade. Updated numbers would make "our side" look even better.

And to go to the absurd side of your argument, people who do not bathe have a drastically reduced chance of drowning in their bathtub. Drowning in ones own bathtub causes far more deaths every year than legally owned firearms.

In fact, the killings in Tucson were commited by a legal gun owner.

And in fact the same person committed at least one felony that the sheriffs department was aware of before the shooting. The felony was threating to kill someone. If the sheriff had done his job he would not have been able to legally purchase the gun.

Your turn.

 

[Darwin333]

Only the ones that own more than a rifle, a handgun, and a shotgun.

By the way, I'm really not anti-gun, I just find it hliarious how you guys get all paranoid and butt hurt when anyone talks about any sensible regulations. But, it being a sacred, God given, human right, for adults to play with dangerous toys, I guess I shouldn't be so flippant. Now, if you guys would ever get as upset about what's happened to our 4th ammendment rights, I might start to take you seriously.

Sigh, I really really hate to agree with you but I agree 100% with the bolded. BTW, I am one of those weird assholes that believes in ALL of our rights, not just my favorite one or two so please don't consider me in the "you guys" group. Feel free to look through my posts if you don't believe me.

I so wish that the right valued all of our rights as much as they do the 2nd amendment.

Unfortunately, we disagree on the "sensible regulation" part. Can you show me factual data that it worked when it was in place please? Hell, you can't even prove that this asshole would have done less damage if he had been using standard factory magazines versus cheap aftermarket junk.

 

[Darwin333]

Furthermore, if guns are such wonderful, life-saving instruments, how come the United States has - by far - the highest per-capita homicide rate of any first-world country on Earth? With all the lives we're saving with handguns, how come we have three times the homicide rates of Canada and Great Britain, where private ownership of handguns is essentially nonexistent?

Our retarded "war on drugs" combined with extremely high demand and a huge source via a wide open border with a 3rd world country that we refuse to close.

 

[Darwin333]

(I lived in suburban D.C., so it really wasn't like a pilgramage to Mecca).

How has that "sensible" gun control worked out for yall?

 

[Darwin333]

You're starting to get it now. It's as important as freedom of speech and any restrictions, etc.

The rest of us would really appreciate if the right and more specifically the far right would recognize that as well.

Most of the far righties I know would completely give up the 4th if they were guaranteed to keep the 2nd.

 

[irishScott]

Sigh, I really really hate to agree with you but I agree 100% with the bolded. BTW, I am one of those weird assholes that believes in ALL of our rights, not just my favorite one or two so please don't consider me in the "you guys" group. Feel free to look through my posts if you don't believe me.

I so wish that the right valued all of our rights as much as they do the 2nd amendment.

Unfortunately, we disagree on the "sensible regulation" part. Can you show me factual data that it worked when it was in place please? Hell, you can't even prove that this asshole would have done less damage if he had been using standard factory magazines versus cheap aftermarket junk.

Agreed.

 

[spidey07]

The rest of us would really appreciate if the right and more specifically the far right would recognize that as well.

Most of the far righties I know would completely give up the 4th if they were guaranteed to keep the 2nd.

the 2nd protects the 4th. See castle doctrines. Use of firearm to protect against illegal search and seizure has been upheld in the highest court.

 

[hal2kilo]

the 2nd protects the 4th. See castle doctrines. Use of firearm to protect against illegal search and seizure has been upheld in the highest court.

Keep living in your fantasyland about how much you holding off the police with your guns to protect your private papers is going to work out in court.

 

[shira]

Those very well may be true, I'll take your word for it as far as the numbers.

But my point was about a complete denial that there's any downside to the current way that gun ownership is handled.

I wouldn't just take anyone's word for anything. From Wikipedia's article on Gun violence in the U.S.:

Self-protection

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2&#37 that occurred in this time frame. For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim. Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time. In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers. During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides, and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.

The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection. The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.

McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, claiming that Kleck used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced. The former criticism, however, is inaccurate — Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use — 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys. A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns. By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies. Hemenway, however, also argues that the Kleck figure is inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently show that guns are many times more often used for self-defense in burglaries, than there are incidents of bulgaries of properties containing gun owners with awake occupants. Hemenway concludes that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is likely a great overestimate, with the true figure 10 times, or more, less.

The NRA and gun worshipers in general unquestioningly accept the results of any study that furthers their agenda. This is the classic syndrome of seeing what you wish to see. But ask yourself the common-sense question: How many people do you personally know that have defended themselves with a handgun? I mean, if I had a handgun and found it necessary to use it to defend myself, that would be an incredible "win." I'd let my friends and neighbors know about it. But the fact is, I know of no one, and I can count the number of stories I read each year about successful self-defense in the newspaper each year on one hand. If there are 2.5 MILLION meaningful instance of self defense with handguns each year in the U.S., then how come we just don't hear about them? Are we to believe there are almost 7,000 such instances every day, yet they are almost all hidden? The answer is that the 2.5 million is literally incredible. Or to put it another way, pure BS.

 

[irishScott]

I wouldn't just take anyone's word for anything. From Wikipedia's article on Gun violence in the U.S.:



The NRA and gun worshipers in general unquestioningly accept the results of any study that furthers their agenda. This is the classic syndrome of seeing what you wish to see. But ask yourself the common-sense question: How many people do you personally know that have defended themselves with a handgun? I mean, if I had a handgun and found it necessary to use it to defend myself, that would be an incredible "win." I'd let my friends and neighbors know about it. But the fact is, I know of no one, and I can count the number of stories I read each year about successful self-defense in the newspaper each year on one hand. If there are 2.5 MILLION meaningful instance of self defense with handguns each year in the U.S., then how come we just don't hear about them? Are we to believe there are almost 7,000 such instances every day, yet they are almost all hidden? The answer is that the 2.5 million is literally incredible. Or to put it another way, pure BS.

Not arguing in favor of those numbers (which are complete BS), but to answer your question I know a guy who was robbed at knifepoint while in his apartment (burglar broke in) who now keeps a 1911 in the nightstand. I also know a guy who just bought a Kel-tec P-11 (9mm semi automatic) after his car was almost broken into on his driveway (scared them off with the car alarm). I know a guy who lives with people with mafia ties (but isn't in it himself), who said that if New Jersey laws weren't so bitchy about it he'd own a gun.

I've also been in 3 situations where luck saved me as much as good judgment. Had my luck gone sour, a gun would have been nice to have.

And with my reference to The Armed Citizen I just upped that number by a lot. Also, note that these stories tend to not be reported because people don't want the publicity or because the local newspaper has a bias. Bad news makes more money than good news.

There's also the fact that in some areas with the highest crime rates have the most draconian self-defense laws, dissuading people from owning guns in the first place. In many of these places guns are demonized culturally as a gang symbol, even furthering the problem.

Point being, while the numbers you posted are almost certainly WAY off there are far more instances you never hear about.

 

[shira]

Not arguing in favor of those numbers (which are complete BS), but to answer your question I know a guy who was robbed at knifepoint while in his apartment (burglar broke in) who now keeps a 1911 in the nightstand. I also know a guy who just bought a Kel-tec P-11 (9mm semi automatic) after his car was almost broken into on his driveway (scared them off with the car alarm). I know a guy who lives with people with mafia ties (but isn't in it himself), who said that if New Jersey laws weren't so bitchy about it he'd own a gun.

I've also been in 3 situations where luck saved me as much as good judgment. Had my luck gone sour, a gun would have been nice to have.

And with my reference to The Armed Citizen I just upped that number by a lot. Also, note that these stories tend to not be reported because people don't want the publicity or because the local newspaper has a bias. Bad news makes more money than good news.

There's also the fact that in some areas with the highest crime rates have the most draconian self-defense laws, dissuading people from owning guns in the first place. In many of these places guns are demonized culturally as a gang symbol, even furthering the problem.

Point being, while the numbers you posted are almost certainly WAY off there are far more instances you never hear about.

I have no trouble believing that there are lots of crimes committed in the U.S. But note that the incidents you mentioned don't involve self-defense with a gun. Armed Citizen specifically collects these cases, but there are perhaps hundreds reported all told, not hundreds of thousands.

My worry is that as citizens become increasingly armed - when we get to a point where every other person is carrying a concealed handgun - confrontations that currently lead to anger and curses might instead lead to deadly force. And when the bad guys know there's a pretty good chance I'm packing, they may just shoot me dead rather than take a chance, and then take my wallet.

 

[irishScott]

I have no trouble believing that there are lots of crimes committed in the U.S. But note that the incidents you mentioned don't involve self-defense with a gun. Armed Citizen specifically collects these cases, but there are perhaps hundreds reported all told, not hundreds of thousands.

My worry is that as citizens become increasingly armed - when we get to a point where every other person is carrying a concealed handgun - confrontations that currently lead to anger and curses might instead lead to deadly force. And when the bad guys know there's a pretty good chance I'm packing, they may just shoot me dead rather than take a chance, and then take my wallet.

My point was that there are a large (although not terribly large) number of self defense incidents that never get reported for a variety of reasons. Likewise there are tons of incidents, reported and otherwise, where a lawfully owned gun would have made a critical difference.

And if every other person was carrying concealed, I think the exact opposite would happen. As it stands the left has continually predicted such "wild west gunfights" whenever gun rights have been expanded. Even in states with zero state-level restrictions on carry and ownership (Vermont, Alaska, Arizona), these have yet to materialize.

Likewise criminals are usually looking for an easy score. They aren't going to risk assaulting an armed target. Once I was walking home from the library at 2am, and passed two black, stereotypical thug-life looking guys. No racist, just painting a picture. Now I didn't think much of them at the time, it so happened that I was walking slightly faster and started passing them. They casually noticed me, looked at each other, and then noticeably slowed down for no apparent reason (I mean about half their previous speed), waited until I'd passed, then started to close the gap behind me. I maintained a steady pace, half turned my head to let them know I'd seen them and firmly and noticeably shoved my hands into my coat pockets (putting my hand on my knife in the process, but they didn't know that). They slammed on the brakes and gave me a wide berth. Even the implication that I was carrying was enough. And there were 2 of them. Granted I'm not the smallest guy, but I'm no giant. (5'11", 165 lbs).

Besides, gun shots are loud and draw attention. As a criminal, are you really going to risk death by concealed carry or 1st degree murder charges just to score a wallet that for all you know has nothing in it?

 

[Darwin333]

the 2nd protects the 4th. See castle doctrines. Use of firearm to protect against illegal search and seizure has been upheld in the highest court.

Cut the crap, both the legislative and judicial have been whittling away at the 4th for quite some time, often with agreement from the far right and sometimes the right in general.

Furthermore, you go ahead and shoot some cops performing an "illegal search and seizure" and see how that works out for you. IF (and this is a real big if) you survive the situation I highly doubt that you will have the legal system on your side. Hell, plenty of innocent people have been shot during searches that were illegal in one way or another and rarely do you hear about any criminal charges being brought against the police or those who improperly issued a warrant.

Still, the main point is that up until now you are completely wrong.

 

[Darwin333]

I wouldn't just take anyone's word for anything. From Wikipedia's article on Gun violence in the U.S.:



The NRA and gun worshipers in general unquestioningly accept the results of any study that furthers their agenda. This is the classic syndrome of seeing what you wish to see. But ask yourself the common-sense question: How many people do you personally know that have defended themselves with a handgun? I mean, if I had a handgun and found it necessary to use it to defend myself, that would be an incredible "win." I'd let my friends and neighbors know about it. But the fact is, I know of no one, and I can count the number of stories I read each year about successful self-defense in the newspaper each year on one hand. If there are 2.5 MILLION meaningful instance of self defense with handguns each year in the U.S., then how come we just don't hear about them? Are we to believe there are almost 7,000 such instances every day, yet they are almost all hidden? The answer is that the 2.5 million is literally incredible. Or to put it another way, pure BS.

You are trying to use a 20 year old poll on self defense with guns? Do you have any idea how much more restrictive most states gun laws were 20 years ago? Far fewer people were legally able to use handguns for self defense 20 years ago, especially outside of their homes.

Including myself, I know 3 people who have successfully used a gun for self defense. If I count the people that discouraged thugs from targeting them by being visibly armed after Katrina that number goes way up. Of course a group of thugs walking towards you and immediately turning around when they see the gun on your hip or you take your shotgun out of your truck and sling it over your shoulder isn't "proof" that the gun thwarted the attack nor is the fact that the same thugs went on to rob other people, who were not armed, of items they desperately need for survival at the time isn't proof either. It is a pretty damn good educated guess though. I also know people who were not armed but their neighbors were and as a result the entire block was spared any major crime. One block over didn't make out so well. Evidently thugs don't like being shot either and will almost always pick the easier target.

Personally, I wish the anti-gun people would put placards in their yards if a similar situation happens again.

OTOH, I don't personally know anyone who has been murdered or raped and I live in New Orleans. Does this mean that it doesn't happen?

 

[Darwin333]

I have no trouble believing that there are lots of crimes committed in the U.S. But note that the incidents you mentioned don't involve self-defense with a gun. Armed Citizen specifically collects these cases, but there are perhaps hundreds reported all told, not hundreds of thousands.

My worry is that as citizens become increasingly armed - when we get to a point where every other person is carrying a concealed handgun - confrontations that currently lead to anger and curses might instead lead to deadly force. And when the bad guys know there's a pretty good chance I'm packing, they may just shoot me dead rather than take a chance, and then take my wallet.

States in general have made a huge move towards gun rights and concealed carry without insane restrictions yet what you fear has not happened. Why would you be concerned about something that simply has not materialized even as guns are easier to legally obtain and carry and in effect many more people are carrying them?

And the murder rate often goes down in states after they pass laws empowering the public to protect themselves with firearms. For example, since passing right to carry in Florida the murder rate has dropped by 36% versus the national average of 15%. In Chicago, since they banned handguns, the murder rate has increased by 40%. I will cede the point that there are many other factors involved in those numbers but it is difficult to make the argument that the bad guy will just kill you if he thinks you might be carrying a gun.

Simply put, none of your fears have materialized despite right to carry laws and more armed citizens.

 

[Zorkorist]

What's really scary is a cop catching you with a gun. Permit or not. My guess is you have 50/50 chance to live.

-John