Guns save lives thread

[Beckys_Mom]

Who wants to have a gun fight? It's all in your head. Most of US don't want to reach that stage. Some do but most don't. Quit being so dramatic and extreme. Your perception is ill conceived.

I think that's the problem.. Some hear gun and gun must = deadly... What so many wont think about is, a gun is not always used to hurt and kill, it is used to scare intruders off.

Sometimes people will only fire warning shots, in the hopes the intruder will scarper and high tail it out of there ...We also know that not all gunshot wounds are deadly, many are noted as minor...

Thing is, if a person who has not grown up in such a society with guns, it can be harder for them to show any understanding..If you are set in your ways and you refuse to budge, then you are not going to listen to anything more.... It really depends on the person...

[Odds]

Thing is, if a person who has not grown up in such a society with guns, it can be harder for them to show any understanding..If you are set in your ways and you refuse to budge, then you are not going to listen to anything more.... It really depends on the person...

Then it would be safe to say, that on the opposite side would be true also. That growing up with guns then you are probably set in your ways and don't have any understanding of new gun laws and also refuse to budge, not listen to anything more.

[Arbenol]

Well there the belief by some that the criminal would return for vegence. Especially if you live in an area that is infested with Gangs. Then threre is some chance of you finding another gang member at your door. Perhaps making sure to kill the assailant is a form of self/family preservation based on fear of the future? Hoping to scare others into not coming into your house again.

Does that happen often? A criminal coming back for revenge because he got stopped by his intended victim?

Plus, now that I think of it, I've heard that many self defense courses that include guns tell the person being trained to aim for center of mass and empty the magazine. Most casual gun owners are not going to try to shoot Mr Homeinvader in the leg or shoulder. And they are not trained to shoot just once.

That technique right there is going to be more deadly then a gun needs to be.

Firing a gun is using deadly force whatever part of the body is aimed for. If your priority is to stop the perpetrator then you need to make sure that you stop them. Fine. Like I said, I don't really have a problem with someone defending themselves. But there's a line where it stops becoming self-defence and becomes a desire to harm. There's a big difference.

When I hear a comment like "Shame he didn't die" - that crosses the line. That way of thinking is no better than that of the criminal, and yet they think they occupy the moral high ground.

[Bavarian Raven]

The brave hero's.

You fill your heads with such legends but meanwhile your country goes down the pan and you wait for your brave hero moment.

History ain't like that.

Br Cornelius

And you assume I am an American

[ciriuslea]

It doesn't matter if you aim for the shoulder or leg; a shot wound can always be deadly, especially if it hits critical arteries. People can also survive being shot in the head, but someone who fires a gun without the intent to kill has not understood the ultimate force of gun use.

You would have to have lived on Mars to not understand the full implications of firing a gun at someone, but just because someone fires to disable, or without the intent to kill doesn't mean they don't understand a guns ultimate purpose, I think people who are faced with the choice in a defence scenario don't think about killing or not killing the attacker, they just want the threat to stop. and if the threat is serious enough under the right to defend yourself would be justified anyway

[Beckys_Mom]

Then it would be safe to say, that on the opposite side would be true also. That growing up with guns then you are probably set in your ways and don't have any understanding of new gun laws and also refuse to budge, not listen to anything more.

If you grow up in a society, and you have given rights that you are taught to respect, and you hold on to them...Then, that is all you will know...If anyone wants to strip you of those given rights, then you have a problem...

Name me a single person who likes having their rights taken away?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Frank Merton]

I go away a bit, and I see what I posted was considerably distorted. Slavery was present in the colonies from the very beginning, mainly in what became the South later on. Indeed, worthies like Washington and Jefferson owned many slaves.

The Civil War came later, and while it is true the two should not be confused, slavery was under pressure even in Revolutionary times, and one of the tactics of the British was to offer freedom to slaves in the South who would rise up against their owners. Large numbers did.

The big problem of slave holding is the fact that slaves will rebel, and usually such rebellions are fearsome and bloody. This aspect of American history is often whitewashed, but slavery cannot sustain itself without brutality and constant suppression.

Part of the overall compromises made to make the Constitution possible were several concessions given to the South, such as counting slaves as less than full citizens, but still including them in apportionment numbers. Another part of the compromise was the ability of the states to keep their militias.

Because the Southern states saw that the north was turning more and more against slavery, they realized that there was little support in the country as a whole for using the army to suppress slave rebellions. Hence the need for state militias, and they wanted protection for their existence in the constitution. Thus, from a hateful and fortunately abolished slavery the US is now saddled with the Second Amendment, a hurtful anachronism if ever there was one.

Now we see the propaganda that owning guns is a "freedom" issue. How ironic, as its orignial purpose was to aid in the suppression of freedom.

[Frank Merton]

If you grow up in a society, and you have given rights that you are taught to respect, and you hold on to them...Then, that is all you will know...If anyone wants to strip you of those given rights, then you have a problem...

Name me a single person who likes having their rights taken away?

Rights are never without limit; freedom of speech "does not include the right to shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater."

How does a society decide what rights to limit and where to limit them? As a rule the assessment is made on pragmatic grounds -- things like public safety and healty, how one right balances with another, and so on.

[Odds]

Posted Today, 11:05 AM

Odds, on 24 June 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Then it would be safe to say, that on the opposite side would be true also. That growing up with guns then you are probably set in your ways and don't have any understanding of new gun laws and also refuse to budge, not listen to anything more.

If you grow up in a society, and you have given rights that you are taught to respect, and you hold on to them...Then, that is all you will know...If anyone wants to strip you of those given rights, then you have a problem...

Name me a single person who likes having their rights taken away?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, Today, 11:06 AM.

We had a nartional buy back in 1997 after a massacre in 1996 at Port Arthur ( http://en.wikipedia....acre_(Australia)) Where 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. There were protests saying 'our rights are being taken away' etc. But the changes worked, and worked well. We can still own a gun, if you're a farmer, or on a rural property where it's needed, want to be a part of a gun club, fine. Just pass background checks and have a safe place to store them... It's really not hard if you're not a criminal. And the only thing that changed apart from 'our rights been taken away' was no more massacres, lowered homicides and suicides... But heaven forbid that happening anywhere else.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to add the quote of the previous post i was replying to.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Odds

[Gummug]

This one is really two stories. One about poor policing and one about a store manager firing a gun to effectively scare off the bad guys who were armed.

Haven't heard the audio myself yet.

I know this is a fairly old post (sorry I'm trying to catch up) but I call hooplah on the call taker having a difficult time understanding, because if you listen to the call, you'll notice she never says "could you repeat that?" or "I'm sorry I didn't understand" or anything like that....

[F3SS]

I know this is a fairly old post (sorry I'm trying to catch up) but I call hooplah on the call taker having a difficult time understanding, because if you listen to the call, you'll notice she never says "could you repeat that?" or "I'm sorry I didn't understand" or anything like that....

I can't watch that again ATM but I'm pretty sure I remember feeling the same way.

[Frank Merton]

I noticed a news item today about a five year old girl who killed herself playing with a gun.

http://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/5-Year-Old-Girl-Killed-After-Shooting-Herself-4617802.php

[+DieChecker]

Does that happen often? A criminal coming back for revenge because he got stopped by his intended victim?

I know I read of violent offenders being refused Parol, because they are still deemed a threat to the victim that jailed them.

Gang retaliation (Usually against other gang members) is very, very well known.

Firing a gun is using deadly force whatever part of the body is aimed for. If your priority is to stop the perpetrator then you need to make sure that you stop them. Fine. Like I said, I don't really have a problem with someone defending themselves. But there's a line where it stops becoming self-defence and becomes a desire to harm. There's a big difference.

When I hear a comment like "Shame he didn't die" - that crosses the line. That way of thinking is no better than that of the criminal, and yet they think they occupy the moral high ground.

I agree. And people who are remorsful about it (most people) should not be looked down on. Those who dance around and talk about "Blowing away trash" probably deserve manslaughter charges to help them see that they are being an idiot.

I'd guess the vast majority of home defense shootings are done in fear and... sadness if they actually kill someone. The thought that every American is secretly hiding behind their door with a cocked gun waiting for an intruder, because they "Just Have to Killz Me Someone", is ridiculous.

Like I pointed out earlier, the car death rate in Vietnam is much higher then most Western nations, but I don't suspect that all those Vietnamese drivers get up in the morning and are hot to run someone over, or trash a motorbike.

[Arbenol]

I agree. And people who are remorsful about it (most people) should not be looked down on. Those who dance around and talk about "Blowing away trash" probably deserve manslaughter charges to help them see that they are being an idiot.

I'd guess the vast majority of home defense shootings are done in fear and... sadness if they actually kill someone. The thought that every American is secretly hiding behind their door with a cocked gun waiting for an intruder, because they "Just Have to Killz Me Someone", is ridiculous.

I'm sure that's true. But my participation in this thread was prompted by a particularly callous comment. And that poster is by no means alone. The gung- ho mentality is alive and kicking on these boards.

I dunno. Maybe it's all talk.

[Frank Merton]

There are relatively few deaths in Vietnam in automobiles. Most of the deaths come from cars and trucks hitting pedestrians and motorcyclists.

The government here is very strict about traffic laws, requires helmets and rear mirrors and other stuff on motorbikes, is putting lane dividers every where possible, building elevated highways where only cars and trucks and buses are allowed, and so on and on and on.

The point is that when you identify something that is a major hazard to the public, you do everything possible to correct it. In the case of guns really the only possible mitigation is banning them (to be sure a few other things could be done, but they aren't).

[+DieChecker]

Then it would be safe to say, that on the opposite side would be true also. That growing up with guns then you are probably set in your ways and don't have any understanding of new gun laws and also refuse to budge, not listen to anything more.

Logically that would be true. To the same extent as the other arguement is anyway.

We had a nartional buy back in 1997 after a massacre in 1996 at Port Arthur ( http://en.wikipedia....acre_(Australia)) Where 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. There were protests saying 'our rights are being taken away' etc. But the changes worked, and worked well. We can still own a gun, if you're a farmer, or on a rural property where it's needed, want to be a part of a gun club, fine. Just pass background checks and have a safe place to store them... It's really not hard if you're not a criminal. And the only thing that changed apart from 'our rights been taken away' was no more massacres, lowered homicides and suicides... But heaven forbid that happening anywhere else.

I'd suspect that the gun buy back and laws simply cleared out the casual gun owner, which decreased gun theft and decreased gun misuse by criminals. The people who are left probably use their guns reponsibly, are trained and store their guns appopriately. And I don't have an issue with that.

Did suicides actually lower? Did homicides actually decrease?

According to the Australian Death statistics suicides did not change much.

Men:

2005 - 16.5 per 100,000

2004 - 16.8

2003 - 17.7

2002 - 18.8

2001 - 20.3

2000 - 19.8

http://www.abs.gov.a...s~Suicides~3240

Rate 1995 - 20.9 per 100,000

http://www.nisu.flin...7/bull1703.html

A lot less gun deaths, but the rate of suicide basically did not change at all. Could have fallen off for dozens of reasons.

Edited June 24, 2013 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

There are relatively few deaths in Vietnam in automobiles. Most of the deaths come from cars and trucks hitting pedestrians and motorcyclists.

The government here is very strict about traffic laws, requires helmets and rear mirrors and other stuff on motorbikes, is putting lane dividers every where possible, building elevated highways where only cars and trucks and buses are allowed, and so on and on and on.

The point is that when you identify something that is a major hazard to the public, you do everything possible to correct it. In the case of guns really the only possible mitigation is banning them (to be sure a few other things could be done, but they aren't).

Nooooo.... Taken from your example, the thing is to legislate ways to mitigate the damage. Cars and motorbikes are not being taken away, they are being regulated and enforced.

And if you go back a couple pages, you'll see that I quoted a 2013 article with data from the Vietnamese government where they say that death by vehicles is still an epidemic. Rates still many times what the Western nations have, including the US. The helmet law for example was put into effect in 2007 and is not enforced according to online sources. I guess they are making a good start.

Edited June 24, 2013 by DieChecker

[Guest]

Who wants to have a gun fight? It's all in your head. Most of US don't want to reach that stage. Some do but most don't. Quit being so dramatic and extreme. Your perception is ill conceived.

I point you to all the wild second amendment rhetoric about the ability to bring down a despotic government. Its not a small issue and is a distraction from making democracy work.

Br Cornelius

[Odds]

Logically that would be true. To the same extent as the other arguement is anyway.

I'd suspect that the gun buy back and laws simply cleared out the casual gun owner, which decreased gun theft and decreased gun misuse by criminals. The people who are left probably use their guns reponsibly, are trained and store their guns appopriately. And I don't have an issue with that.

Did suicides actually lower? Did homicides actually decrease?

According to the Australian Death statistics suicides did not change much.

Men:

2005 - 16.5 per 100,000

2004 - 16.8

2003 - 17.7

2002 - 18.8

2001 - 20.3

2000 - 19.8

http://www.abs.gov.a...s~Suicides~3240

Rate 1995 - 20.9 per 100,000

http://www.nisu.flin...7/bull1703.html

A lot less gun deaths, but the rate of suicide basically did not change at all. Could have fallen off for dozens of reasons.

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2010: 236^{12 13}

2009: 227

2008: 232

2007: 237^{12 14}

2006: 246¹²

2005: 212

2004: 234

2003: 287^{12 15}

2002: 292

2001: 326

2000: 324¹⁵

1999: 347

1998: 312

1997: 428

1996: 516

1995: 470

1994: 516

1993: 513

1992: 608

1991: 618

1990: 595

1989: 549

1988: 674

1987: 694

1986: 677

1985: 682

1984: 675

1983: 644

1982: 689

1981: 618

1980: 687

1979: 685

Well as you can see It's bacically halved the rate since it was enacted.

[ciriuslea]

from a hateful and fortunately abolished slavery the US is now saddled with the Second Amendment, a hurtful anachronism if ever there was one.

Now we see the propaganda that owning guns is a "freedom" issue. How ironic, as its orignial purpose was to aid in the suppression of freedom.

I think firstly the right to defend yourself is fundamental, and so as a consequence of living in a society where guns are present, the right to defend yourself with a firearm becomes not only acceptable, but necessary.

The police in the UK have taken this stance, they know criminals are using firearms so formed firearm response units to meet the threat, and as far as I'm aware if you have a permit to possess a firearm even in the UK, and you use it to defend yourself, proving the action was proportional to the threat then the law will agree with its use.

[SHaYap]

WYATT EARP

The True Story of This Gun Control Enforcer & “Fighting Pimp”

Wyatt next worked two short stints as deputy of of Dodge City, possibly shooting one wanted man out the saddle during a chase, clubbing dozens of rowdy party-goers with the butt of his six gun, and putting a bullet in the leg of a Texas cowpoke in the course of enthusiastically enforcing Dodge’s contested ordnance against firearms. Resigning his post, Wyatt fatefully chose the silver mining town of Tombstone next, where this hypocritical enforcer of gun control laws would become famous for shooting up a handful of outlawish cowboys who dared to carry their “smoke poles” within city limits: the “Gunfight At O.K. Corral.”

link

Gun laws were tougher in old Tombstone

No need to check your firearm today in the Arizona town famed for the gunfight at the OK Corral.

January 23, 2011|By Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times

..... And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. "It was an effort to control the violence."

link

didn't work then ... no reasons to believe why it will ever work now ....

`

[Guest]

didn't work then ... no reasons to believe why it will ever work now ....

`

The experience from Europe and Australia and many other places gives the lie to that statement.

Br Cornelius

[Sweetpumper]

WYATT EARP

The True Story of This Gun Control Enforcer & “Fighting Pimp”

link

link

didn't work then ... no reasons to believe why it will ever work now ....

`

Go ahead. Go ahead, skin it. Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Sweetpumper

[green_dude777]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/justice/lebron-sneaker-store-shooting/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

Looks like a good guy with a gun took care of another bad guy with a gun. Where were the police? If we gotta give them up so only the bad guys have them, I expect there to be police presence to stop these kind of things.

[Yamato]

It's the most vile moral hazard that someone can pick whatever part of the Bill of Rights one doesn't like and spend so much time and energy rhetorically defiling it like many here do. Live in a society where the part that gives you farts doesn't exist and we'll soon find the entire Bill of Rights is off the table. The Fourth gives Leave Britney Alone! indigestion, the Second gives Br Cornelius the sweats, the Tenth turns ninjadude green with envy and so forth. As if I can't find example after example of our most precious rule of law eroding all around us while the cheerleaders cheer for more.