Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
F3SS

Guns save lives thread

2,946 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I LOVE this idea! :tsu: Here's a story I read a couple of weeks back, that didn't get much air time but should have.

11N.gif12S.gif14N.gif16N.gif

SAN ANTONIO -- A man was shot by an off-duty deputy after investigators say he opened fire at a South Side theater Sunday night, injuring one person.

Authorities said 19-year-old Jesus Manuel Garcia showed up at the China Garden restaurant on Southwest Military Drive around 9:30 p.m. Sunday and opened fire. Investigators say Garcia works at the restaurant and believe the shooting may have had something to do with the breakup with his girlfriend, who also works at the restaurant. The girlfriend was not at the restaurant at the time of the shooting.

The employees inside the restaurant fled out a side door into the parking lot. Investigators said Garcia began chasing the employees and continued firing at them as they ran through the parking lot and into the Mayan Palace Theatre next door.

As Garcia was running through the parking lot, he shot the windshield of a San Antonio Police patrol car after an officer in the car shined a spotlight on him. The officer was not injured.

Garcia then ran inside the movie theater, where he continued his search for the restaurant employees. Movie-goers in the lobby, bathroom, and some theaters reported hearing multiple gunshots. The gunshots caused people inside the theater to panic.

"Everybody was just coming out of the side of the theater, running out the emergency exits. And everyone was screaming and running," a woman who was at the theater told us.

Authorities said one person was shot by Garcia.

Garcia was finally stopped by an off-duty Bexar County Sheriff's Department officer who was working security at the theater. Officials said the officer, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, heard the gunfire inside the theater and ran towards the sound of the shooting to find out what was going on. Sgt. Castellano spotted Garcia coming out of a bathroom with his gun drawn and fired at him, shooting him four times.

"The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Detective Lou Antu said.

An off-duty San Antonio Independent School District officer who was also at the theater helped take Garcia into custody.

The man who was shot by Garcia was taken to a hospital and is said to be in stable condition.

Garcia has since undergone surgery and is in stable condition at San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC). He has been charged with attempted capital murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His bond has been set at $10 million.

Edited by Kowalski
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I like the idea, but playing devil's advocate here.

If you can't blame a gun for a persons death (Guns don't kill people, people do), how can you make the reverse argument??

Haha Supervike. Excellent point but how dare you derail my thread!? Lucky for you I've had a few drinks since I made this thread earlier and have no idea how to rebuttle. Any help?

PS: I'm surprised you 'liked' this. I wouldn't have suspected that from you..

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha Supervike. Excellent point but how dare you derail my thread!? Lucky for you I've had a few drinks since I made this thread earlier and have no idea how to rebuttle. Any help?

PS: I'm surprised you 'liked' this. I wouldn't have suspected that from you..

Fair enough! I may have some Liberal leanings, but mostly I'm middle of the road. I certainly don't have a problem with our 2nd Amendment. I think we could have some Gun Control, but I'm all for people being able to defend themselves. I grew up with guns and have a great deal of respect for them.

You should drink more often! It's probably my only chance of winning an argument with you!! LOL

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, me, me...I'm still here because of a gun and a big dog!!!! :sk

If nobody minds, I prefer not to tell that story again....it upsets my chakra. *hmmmmmmm*

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here's a video that where a woman shoots an intruder breaking into her home.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by Mag357
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't even have to shoot the gun to have your life saved by it. Just screaming out that you have a gun will many times send a home invader running.

I posted about the number of accidental deaths due to guns versus the number of police reports of home invaders being chased off... some time ago. (Can't seem to Search it, or google it though) And basically, you are like 5000 times more likely to chase off an intruder with your gun then for it to be taken away and used against you, or to accidentally kill yourself with it. Wounding yourself is quite a bit larger number. Somewhere like a hundred times more likely to protect your property, then to shoot yourself.

Maybe I'll try to recreate that post/data here if I have time....

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you can't blame a gun for a persons death (Guns don't kill people, people do), how can you make the reverse argument??

Exactly! You can't. A gun is only an implement. It cannot initiate action. Only the person that wields the gun can take or save a life. It is their Inalienable Right to do so. This is something that no government can ultimately regulate. I.e. people will still kill no matter how many laws are on the book. What all Socialist governments cannot understand is that there are already internal controls in place (individual responsibility). Inalienable Rights is only half of the equation. The complementary companion of Inalienable Rights is Inalienable Consequences. When we are children, we learn that there are always consequences to our actions. I.e. we are ultimately responsible for our own actions. But especially for those under 30, our educational system is structured to teach that no one is wrong. That we don't have to worry about consequences. This is a degradation of morals.

This concept goes back to and was born from Jesus. Yes, we are talking about morals (not dogma). Before Jesus, there was the Law. No one was allowed to think on their own outside of the Law. Jesus came not to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. So what is left? What does that mean? We are not longer bound by the written Law. The Law is written on our hearts now. The Law is now Inalienable Consequences. It is Karma. We don't need an artificial construct, what we call government to run our lives. All we need is a police/justice system to protect our property and lives, not regulate it or nanny us. This readily applies to the first 10 Amendments. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about. People don't understand that when they claim that the Constitution is obsolete. They just don't understand how deep the Founding Fathers delved into enlightenment.

There's a lot more to it than just saving lives. It's all about ideology. The OP question should "Those that carry guns save lives".

Edited by RavenHawk
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good observation Raven but I think the point is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, but playing devil's advocate here.

If you can't blame a gun for a persons death (Guns don't kill people, people do), how can you make the reverse argument??

True. Guns neither take nor save lives, people do.

Kinda like "Neither the Irish nor the moon can control the Crimson Tide!!"

Go BAMA, ROLL TIDE!!

Just put a "G" in front of Obama and you get GObama!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American Rifleman has probably ten new stories in their magazine each month of citizens using their guns to save lives.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You don't even have to shoot the gun to have your life saved by it. Just screaming out that you have a gun will many times send a home invader running.

I posted about the number of accidental deaths due to guns versus the number of police reports of home invaders being chased off... some time ago. (Can't seem to Search it, or google it though) And basically, you are like 5000 times more likely to chase off an intruder with your gun then for it to be taken away and used against you, or to accidentally kill yourself with it. Wounding yourself is quite a bit larger number. Somewhere like a hundred times more likely to protect your property, then to shoot yourself.

Maybe I'll try to recreate that post/data here if I have time....

Looks like I was close in my remembering...

This site appears to be fairly well referenced, so the numbers here are probably somewhat relable.

http://injuryprevent...nt/5/4/284.full

Although many people bring guns into the home for protection against crime, research on police reported home invasion crimes indicates that, even in homes with guns, residents were very rarely able to use a gun in self defense.Measurement of defensive gun uses is a matter of great debate. Surveys have produced estimates of the number of times per year a gun was used in the US for protection against crime that range from 61 000 to 23 million, the majority of which reportedly occurred outside the home. Studies such as Kleck and Gertz's estimate 800 000 defensive gun uses within the home per year, but have poor external validity and appear to greatly exaggerate the incidence of defensive gun use.

The link between gun ownership and unintentional shootings has not been formally studied. In the US, unintentional gun deaths are much less common than gun suicides and homicides, however, unintentional shootings still account for approximately 1100 deaths and 17 000 non-fatal woundings treated in hospital emergency departments each year with children and adolescents being common victims both in the US and other countries.

If we use the low number of 61,000 (very low IMHO) then we get 55 home invasions prevented per accidental death, and 3.5 home invasions prevented per wounding.

If we use the high number of 23 million (probably way high) then we get 21000 home invasions prevented per death, and 1350 home invasions prevented per wounding.

If we use the middle number of 800000 (probably close to median) then we get 727 home invasions prevented per death and 47 home invasion prevented per wounding.

This all varies by what is considered a gun related prevention of a home invasion. If you start yelling that you are going to shoot the invader, but don't have a gun, some people say that is not gun related. But, I'd say it is, because without private gun ownership it would be a feeble bluff.

I personnally feel that preventing/stopping/ending 730 home invasions for each person accidentally shot to death is a worthwhile thing. Without gun ownership how many of those 730 people would have also been killed?

I think the whole "You are more likely to shoot yourself then to prevent a robbery" is a myth. Simple statistics says that a 730 to 1 ratio means that home invasion prevention is way, way more common.

Edited by DieChecker
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post. I instantly had something and then I lost it just like that. I have no idea what I was going to say now but ,still, good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, but playing devil's advocate here.

If you can't blame a gun for a persons death (Guns don't kill people, people do), how can you make the reverse argument??

Because a gun doesn't have the ability to make a mental decision?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say this, the First two examples are of people who's job it is (or was) to use weapons to protect people. Just saying.

~Thanato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be a limit to have how many guns a person should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say this, the First two examples are of people who's job it is (or was) to use weapons to protect people. Just saying.

~Thanato

Well the op was an off duty lawman. It's not his job when he's clocked out.

I think there should be a limit to have how many guns a person should have.

Why not you keep that in the I hate guns and want to tell everybody else what to do threads.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad, an ex-marine. It isn't his job to save lives on the street and a CCW law enabled him to do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well the op was an off duty lawman. It's not his job when he's clocked out.

Why not you keep that in the I hate guns and want to tell everybody else what to do threads.

Finally some people in this website who think like me! But I'm just a redneck Michigander!

Edited by CRYSiiSx2
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the second story was an off duty officer who also didn't have to do anything. This thread is very young though and will be filled with examples of average joes and janes defending their integrity with hot lead.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some people in this website who think like me! But I'm just a redneck Michigander!

There's plenty of us. Don't worry. Btw, I don't even own a gun but I have a thorough understanding of the importance of having the right and ability to do so.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be a limit to have how many guns a person should have.

One can never have too many guns. Although one should keep and maintain only those that they feel capable of having. Guns in private ownership as protected by the 2nd Amendment is there in place to defend ourselves from the politicians. The military is to defend us from foreign threats. The authority and power to run this nation does not lie in the hands of the ruling elite but in the hands of the people and that is why they should never relinquish their guns.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have three. Is that too many?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I post that the best thing about the gun ban efforts by Democrats was that the end result is that this country is far more armed than ever before.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.