The counter argument to the "guns will save lives" movement

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Hey Nebor....I thought that you lived in Dallas, not Austin? ;)

For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens MIGHT save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past. I am not for gun grabs....but I think that there needs to be a logic and practical approach.

Waiting periods and background checks are a minimum in my book. If you have felony convictions, no guns for you. If you absolutely have to have a gun immediately, you are just th person that shouldn't be handed a gun.

The guy in this story is shockingly only getting misdemeanor charges filed against him.

Click me for pics of perp and cache

A 37-year-old man was arrested last week after police say he amassed a collection of six weapons and 1,500 rounds of ammunition and threatened multiple people, an Austin police official said. He was charged with making terroristic threats, a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail.

Police arrested Joseph Nipper on Feb. 4 after receiving information that he had threatened employees at his workplace and also made threats against his ex-wife and her new boyfriend, said Austin police Sgt. Richard Stresing. Employees at the Austin branch of Charles Schwab & Co. where Nipper worked alerted security and police of the threats, and Nipper was fired after an internal audit showed he ?wasn?t doing the work they were paying him for,? Streising said.

He told his coworkers that he ?could probably kill 15 people at work before anybody could stop him,? Stresing said.

Aside from the guns and ammunition, police also seized multiple books on making smoke and explosive devices, Stresing said. Police are investigating whether Nipper?s owning the weapons violated federal firearms laws.

Nipper was booked in Travis County Jail and since has been released on bond. The terms of his release dictate that he may not have contact with anyone at Charles Schwab and may not own any weapons.

Company spokeswoman Sarah Bulgatz confirmed Nipper is no longer an employee at Charles Schwab. ?It?s a police matter at this point so we don?t have any additional information,? she said.

Stresing praised Charles Schwab employees ?for their quick action, notifying the business and the police that the threats were made.?

?There was a potential for some serious damage,? Stresing said. ?A potential crisis was averted.?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
How is "uncontrolled free and immediate access to guns is bad" a counter-argument to "lawfully armed and trained citizens can save lives" ?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Waiting periods and background checks are a minimum in my book. If you have felony convictions, no guns for you. If you absolutely have to have a gun immediately, you are just th person that shouldn't be handed a gun.

No sane person would disagree with you. I think many pro-gun people support waiting periods, background checks and (this is more controversial) no gun sales to federal offenders. What they do want however is what they should have had in the first place such as the right to own gun no matter where you live (Washington DC for example), concealed carry in all 50 states (damn you IL), no stupid restrictions like 10 round clips (CA for example) and less gun grabbing in general.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Waiting periods and background checks are a minimum in my book. If you have felony convictions, no guns for you. If you absolutely have to have a gun immediately, you are just th person that shouldn't be handed a gun.
[/quote]

Hell yeah, those women being stalked deserved to be raped!

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.

Well, the point is that since YOU(gun control advocates) are trying to take something away so you'd better be able to back it up better than "probably".
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.
For me, since data is not the key to the debate, it's a very straight-forward Consitutional issue. I believe the 2nd Amendment wins my argument against strict gun control -- every time -- and I'm fairly confident the Supreme Court will agree with me.

Which amendment wins your case for you? hmm...

Since you're lacking data and a Consitutional backdrop, you're going to have to do a lot better than "probably"...
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.
For me, since data is not the key to the debate, it's a very straight-forward Consitutional issue. I believe the 2nd Amendment wins my argument against strict gun control -- every time -- and I'm fairly confident the Supreme Court will agree with me.

Which amendment wins your case for you? hmm...

Since you're lacking data and a Consitutional backdrop, you're going to have to do a lot better than "probably"...

this pretty much sums it up. well said :thumbsup:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.

Well, the point is that since YOU(gun control advocates) are trying to take something away so you'd better be able to back it up better than "probably".

And doubly so when he tries to claim that for every life saved probably hundreds will be lost.

Seriously, it sounds like something Bush and Cheney would try to claim.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.

Well, the point is that since YOU(gun control advocates) are trying to take something away so you'd better be able to back it up better than "probably".

You need a crash course in reading comprehension. Please show where I stated that the right to own a gun should be stripped.

My comments were that there should be restrictions. There are restrictions on all freedoms defined with the amendments. Arguing that some are valid (fire in a theater, not allowed to print classified info, enemy combatant habeas corpus, etc) while stating that the one that you truly desire or support are not is disingenuous and hypocritical.

You can use this as a response to your comments also PH in addition to.....

The SC has only heard 5 cases in its history on the second and none have addressed (either intentionally or unintentionally) whether the second was a collective or individual right. So you will have to forgive me for not trusting your word that it is a virtually settled matter or that it will even address that specific topic.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
As to all the commotion about my choice of the word "Probably"....

I would like everyone that has stated that it invalidates my argument to tell me EXACTLY, PRECISELY AND FACTUALLY what will happen in one hour. If you can do that, then you will invalidate my supposition that something "probably" could happen because you truly are freaking psychic.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
As to all the commotion about my choice of the word "Probably"....

I would like everyone that has stated that it invalidates my argument to tell me EXACTLY, PRECISELY AND FACTUALLY what will happen in one hour. If you can do that, then you will invalidate my supposition that something "probably" could happen because you truly are freaking psychic.
Actually, our entire point is that YOU are not psychic -- which was implied when you used the word "probably."

I already explained to you how that single word makes your entire argument baseless.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
As to all the commotion about my choice of the word "Probably"....

I would like everyone that has stated that it invalidates my argument to tell me EXACTLY, PRECISELY AND FACTUALLY what will happen in one hour. If you can do that, then you will invalidate my supposition that something "probably" could happen because you truly are freaking psychic.
Actually, our entire point is that YOU are not psychic -- which was implied when you used the word "probably."

I already explained to you how that single word makes your entire argument baseless.

If you hold that line of logic/thinking:

I believe

Invalidates your entire argument.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For every life gun carrying college students or everyday citizens might save, there are probably hundreds more that will be lost if gun control becomes a thing of the past.
Your entire argument is lost right there, as there is no data to support that claim -- IOW, it's baseless.

hint: your use of the word "probably"

Really? Can you cite me the statistics showing exactly how many lives have been saved by guns in public places?

The whole argument on both sides is one of supposition. To say that one is lost because they are able to recognize it while the other goes on in blissful ignorance is the exact reason the "debate" has lasted as long as it has.

Well, the point is that since YOU(gun control advocates) are trying to take something away so you'd better be able to back it up better than "probably".

You need a crash course in reading comprehension. Please show where I stated that the right to own a gun should be stripped.

My comments were that there should be restrictions. There are restrictions on all freedoms defined with the amendments. Arguing that some are valid (fire in a theater, not allowed to print classified info, enemy combatant habeas corpus, etc) while stating that the one that you truly desire or support are not is disingenuous and hypocritical.

You can use this as a response to your comments also PH in addition to.....

The SC has only heard 5 cases in its history on the second and none have addressed (either intentionally or unintentionally) whether the second was a collective or individual right. So you will have to forgive me for not trusting your word that it is a virtually settled matter or that it will even address that specific topic.

And when YOU(gun control advocates) want "restrictions" you best be able to back it up with data just like Palehorse74 was stating. It isn't on us, it's on you who seek the change.

This issue isn't about proving your "probably" wrong - it's that YOU(GCA) must show that it's lawful AND will actually do what you suppose it will do.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
I'll support stronger gun controls when the liberals start supporting concealed carry for those who can qualify.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
As to all the commotion about my choice of the word "Probably"....

I would like everyone that has stated that it invalidates my argument to tell me EXACTLY, PRECISELY AND FACTUALLY what will happen in one hour. If you can do that, then you will invalidate my supposition that something "probably" could happen because you truly are freaking psychic.
Actually, our entire point is that YOU are not psychic -- which was implied when you used the word "probably."

I already explained to you how that single word makes your entire argument baseless.

If you hold that line of logic/thinking:

I believe the 2nd Amendment wins my argument against strict gun control -- every time -- and I'm fairly confident the Supreme Court will agree with me.

Invalidates your entire argument.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

This issue isn't about proving your "probably" wrong - it's that YOU(GCA) must show that it's lawful AND will actually do what you suppose it will do.

As was discussed in another thread, if it gets signed into law...it is lawful until the SC rules otherwise or congress passes another law superseding/invalidating it.

I'll tell you what, I will show you that gun control laws will do what they actually are written for when you can show me any other law that has done exactly what it was written to do and nothing more/less.

Edit: This is why I truly hate this debate and don't understand why I keep getting involved in it. Those that either want no restrictions whatsoever or the bare minimum restrictions want and demand absolutes from GCAs yet base their entire position on conjecture and hypotheticals yet never seem to realize that they are being hypocritical or intellectually dishonest in doing so.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

This issue isn't about proving your "probably" wrong - it's that YOU(GCA) must show that it's lawful AND will actually do what you suppose it will do.

As was discussed in another thread, if it gets signed into law...it is lawful until the SC rules otherwise or congress passes another law superseding/invalidating it.

I'll tell you what, I will show you that gun control laws will do what they actually are written for when you can show me any other law that has done exactly what it was written to do and nothing more/less.

Yeah, lets pass something that we don't know will work, just because YOU think it might....

I swear you people have no clue sometimes...
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,586
82
91
www.bing.com
If you think a waiting period or a background check is going to stop someone from buying a gun you've been living under a rock.

Criminals wouldnt want to buy guns from legit sources anyways.... they are traceable.

It takes about 20 minutes in a bad neighborhood of almost any city with some cash in pocket.. and boom you've got yourself a gun.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Here's my anecdotal evidence why Guns for law abiding folks is a good thing.

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.

The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded:

?Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong,? Burnett said.

With 247,345 concealed handgun licenses active in Texas as of December 2005, the number of law-abiding licensees has had a positive effect on the crime rate.

Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report indicates the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop over the past 10 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000.

The effect of the Concealed Handgun Law has been so positive, it has converted some of its most outspoken initial critics.

John Holmes, former Harris County district attorney, wrote to me several years after the passage of the law.

?As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets,? Holmes wrote. ?Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County , and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.?

Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, shared this view. ?I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened,? White told the Dallas Morning News. ?All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert.?

To the supporters of individual liberty and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, this outcome is no surprise. However, the Concealed Handgun Law isn?t just about personal safety. Perhaps even deeper than its roots in constitutional freedom, the Concealed Handgun Law is about trust.

And after ten years, the Concealed Handgun Law is a shining example of what happens when elected officials have faith in their fellow Texans.

The legacy of Senate Bill 60 is grounded in the concept that our government should place its trust in us, not the other way around.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If you hold that line of logic/thinking:

I believe

Invalidates your entire argument.
The problem with that accusation is that my "belief" that the SC will agree with me is not the basis of my entire argument -- it's an aside.

The Constitution itself is the basis for my argument.

As for the matter of it being interpreted as an invididual vs. collective right, we'll all see soon enough. The DC case is pending, and it may provide the answer to that exact question.
 

drbrock

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2008
1,333
8
81
I believe in waiting periods for all and don't believe anyone with any serious crimes should be able to aquire firearms. I would even go as far to make it manatory for even more training in concealed weapons.
Taking away the ability for the average person to aquire a firearm for themselves does not make sense. With all the recent college shootings, it makes me uncomfortable not to have the ablitliy to protect myself from nutjobs and cowards. I know firearms are not allowed on campus but copycats will eventually fall into public places. Criminals knowing that others could have firearms might be a deterrent.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If you hold that line of logic/thinking:

I believe

Invalidates your entire argument.
The problem with that accusation is that my "belief" that the SC will agree with me is not the basis of my entire argument -- it's an aside.

The Constitution itself is the basis for my argument.

As for the matter of it being interpreted as an invididual vs. collective right, we'll all see soon enough. The DC case is pending, and it may provide the answer to that exact question.

Until it is ruled upon, the constitution does not validate your argument. As I stated previously, other amendments have restrictions placed on them. If the SC is to be consistent, the same may very well apply to the second as well.

If it is ruled that way, it solidifies my argument while proving yours wrong.

Reread my OP and you will see that I am not for banning guns but placing reasonable restrictions on them that "I believe" will fall into the confines placed on other amendments while still affording the essential liberty.