Guns save lives thread

[Gummug]

the US also has a population of 313 million (15% of which lives below the poverty line where most gun violence occurs). Australias is at about 22 million.

I had thought about that...also, what about the rate of Australia's non-gun homicide, for example, murders by screw-driver, baseball bat, kitchen knives, what have you. I think I read that one country (I was thinking it was Canada or England) was thinking of outlawing long-bladed kitchen knives because of how often they were used in crimes.

[Gummug]

Most people claim that they own guns because of their right to defend against a despotic government - well it ain't worked - you have slid into a despotic government without even noticing and your guns did nothing to stop it.

This second amendment logic has meant that people have become distrustful and complacent about their government and not taken an active roll in stopping the slide to despotism.

Now that it has happened, you will not be safe no matter how many semi-automatic weapons you have, since you have allowed your Government to arm itself with weapons which make plain and simple guns all but worthless.

Meanwhile thousands die because you believe that guns can protect you - wrong civil society is the only thing that can protect you and you seem to have blew that.

America looks more like a war zone by the day.

Br Cornelius

I have to concede he has a point. I think it started way back in 1913 when we allowed the Federal Reserve to come into existence...

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Look at this quote from my previous post and see if you can tell me what it is I was saying..Take a look -> Guns can save lives just as much as they can take a life.. It all depends on who's holding the gun and the situation at hand.

What do you think I am actually saying from that quote? I'll give you a hint - I underlined it...

Oh yes of course - A spoon can be as deadly as a gun...Absolutely... Just think, Clint Eastwood would have looked really cool and deadly if when facing a bad guy in one of his westerns, he drew his cutlery drawers instead.. Now that would be a deadly showdown..eh xFelix? ....

The name Arthur Spooner would be a man who should be feared lol

I feel so much safer knowing that I have a drawer full of spoons at home...I have a couple of wooden spoons too, I am packed to the hilt lol

You seem to not be aware that you are saying that inanimate objects can "do" things...

As for spoons being dangerous, and you considering that a joke.. How many people die in jail/prison a year to spoon attacks? Matter of fact, anyone who has been properly trained in the use of a firearm knows that they have to keep a distance of around 7-10ft. from a would be attacker for their firearm to remain effective. Within that range, a knife or a spoon actually can be much more lethal than a firearm. This is why, when police officers approach cars they either try to come up from your blind spot, or go very wide. This is also why, when they suspect someone is about to reach for their pockets the police officers step backwards instead of towards the person(To give themselves the advantage).

So yeah, you go ahead and joke about those spoons and keep saying that inanimate objects are able to perform actions of their own..

Meanwhile the rest of us who actually know quite a bit about firearms, and own quite a few, will continue to say that guns don't save lives or take lives, we do. I wish you would understand that saying "guns save lives" to describe a firearm being used to fire a round of ammunition in lieu of saving a life is about as accurate as saying "spoons make you fat" to describe that a spoon being used to over-feed a person.

They don't do anything, the people using them do. The title of the thread, and your statement are flawed.

https://www.youtube....h?v=CABfACNfdRY

^ Have a look rofl.

Edited June 25, 2013 by xFelix

[aztek]

You seem to not be aware that you are saying that inanimate objects can "do" things...

she is not saying that, guns don't shoot by themselves, and her point was exactly that, it is all about the hand holding it. spoons also don't hurt inmates by themselves.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

she is not saying that, guns don't shoot by themselves, and her point was exactly that, it is all about the hand holding it. spoons also don't hurt inmates by themselves.

How is she not saying inanimate objects can do things, when she is saying that an inanimate object can save a life?

[Guest]

This is a very interesting article by NoamChomsky about how this aggressive exceptionalism by the USA has brought us to the brink of war war on numerous occassions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/us-disaster-race-noam-chomsky

Its just not a healthy mindset to think that having the biggest ball guns is the right way to solve problems.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

How is she not saying inanimate objects can do things, when she is saying that an inanimate object can save a life?

she also said It all depends on who's holding the gun , but you ignore it like it is not there. i see it, and i'm sure others too, why don't you???

i still can't figure what you mean, but it seems to me that you are saying guns kill ppl by themseves, without being used by humans, or even dogs, (yes dogs to can "use" guns, some poor hunters found out the hard way)

Edited June 25, 2013 by aztek

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

This is a very interesting article by NoamChomsky about how this aggressive exceptionalism by the USA has brought us to the brink of war war on numerous occassions.

http://www.guardian....ce-noam-chomsky

Its just not a healthy mindset to think that having the biggest ball guns is the right way to solve problems.

Br Cornelius

While the article raises a somewhat valid point, it is one that is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not talking about bigger guns being more effective.. We're talking about guns saving lives.

While I disagree with anyone saying that guns do anything other than what they are designed to do(Which is to fire ammunition), I agree that in some cases they are necessary to save a life.

The need for the law abiding citizen's to own these kinds of weapons is really quite simple. The criminals and the government have some of their own. The police cannot save us from the criminals, they only seem to be able to do something after the criminals have done what they wanted to. In order for us to be able to save ourselves from a growing threat from all other sides, one must consider getting on the same playing field.

Simply put, if criminals have guns.. Law abiding citizens should have guns too. The size is not necessarily a factor, just the fact that they can defend themselves if need be.

she also said It all depends on who's holding the gun , but you ignore it like it is not there. i see it, and i'm sure others too, why don't you???

Saying that to justify a statement where one says an object that cannot do anything, actually does something is irrational and contradictory. It's either the gun is doing it or they are... We all know that the gun isn't doing anything, the person is.. So why are we claiming that the gun is the one saving a life?

Edited June 25, 2013 by xFelix

[Papagiorgio]

Really civilized people do not have guns, or whatever the ancient equivalent was. They live in ordered societies where they are not only not needed but a cause of trouble.

I suppose people who want to own slaves will want to have guns, and this is much of what was behind the Second Amendment, but that doesn't mean people who don't have them need them. Just don't have slaves and you will be okay.

Not true. The second amendment had nothing to do with owning slaves. As a matter of fact it was the second amendment that allowed the freed slaves to defend themselves against the likes of the Ku Klux Klan.

[Guest]

It is releveant in that

While the article raises a somewhat valid point, it is one that is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not talking about bigger guns being more effective.. We're talking about guns saving lives.

While I disagree with anyone saying that guns do anything other than what they are designed to do(Which is to fire ammunition), I agree that in some cases they are necessary to save a life.

The need for the law abiding citizen's to own these kinds of weapons is really quite simple. The criminals and the government have some of their own. The police cannot save us from the criminals, they only seem to be able to do something after the criminals have done what they wanted to. In order for us to be able to save ourselves from a growing threat from all other sides, one must consider getting on the same playing field.

Simply put, if criminals have guns.. Law abiding citizens should have guns too. The size is not necessarily a factor, just the fact that they can defend themselves if need be.

Saying that to justify a statement where one says an object that cannot do anything, actually does something is irrational and contradictory. It's either the gun is doing it or they are...

It is relevant in that if you allow a nation to enter into a domestic arms race accidents are more likely to happen, and they do to many thousands of people. It is exactly this attitude, that you accept the inevitability of armed and dangerous criminals, that makes the arms race inevitable.

Other countries have talked themselves down from the arms race escalation, and saved lives as a result.

Do you accept that there is no alternative to the deadly brutality of your society ??

Br Cornelius

Edited June 25, 2013 by Guest

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

It is releveant in that

It is relevant in that if you allow a nation to enter into a domestic arms race accidents are more likely to happen, and they do to many thousands of people. It is exactly this attitude, that you accept the inevitability of armed and dangerous criminals, that makes the arms race inevitable.

Other countries have talked themselves down from the arms race escalation, and saved lives as a result.

Do you accept that there is no alternative to the deadly brutality of your society ??

Br Cornelius

There is no race here, I am not running, I am not trying to beat anyone to anything.

The mere thought that I have a firearm will make most criminals abandon any engagement with me. The ones who do decide to engage me, do so knowing their life or my own could be lost. Thus, my carrying a firearm could not only deter crime in my immediate surroundings, but it can actually save lives if I am confronted by a criminal that is willing to kill and I successfully defend myself.

This is no different than having criminals armed with knives going around constantly stabbing people. Once they see certain people have knives of their own, most of them will actually avoid that situation altogether(They want the unarmed victims). The ones that do decide to go ahead are the ones that were always willing to kill anyway, so their really is no life lost because of a law abiding citizen arming themselves. Their is life lost because of criminals escalating to a stage in which loss of life is optional or even mandatory.

Edited June 25, 2013 by xFelix

[Guest]

Almost all burglaries in the UK are when there is no one at home - you know why - because criminals do not want trouble (it ends in Jail) and make certain that they only burgle empty houses.

As a result I daresay that rates of burglery are much the same in the US as in the UK, and they happen to exactly the same people.

Frankly its another bogus argument.

It seems to me that most these arguments are simply justification of a desire to own guns after the event, and they defy the simple fact that you live in a more deadly society because of the general prevalence of guns. Until people start to see the connection, and the consequences for themselves and their families, the blood bath will continue.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

So you need a handgun, a shotgun and an assault rifle to feel safe? S*** i started to box when i was 15 and i sleep like a baby. And yes make sure to watch out for the government goons coming to your house. Be prepared.

Okay hero....you be sure to box those rapists and burglars mmmmkay

[Yamato]

I have to concede he has a point. I think it started way back in 1913 when we allowed the Federal Reserve to come into existence...

And just look what we're getting on our 100 year anniversary to that horrid Congress. Pushing new envelopes...setting new standards in illegal delirium. Paranoid liberal gun haters and smarmy foreigners with nothing to lose thinking that destroying our rule of law is going to keep them safe.

[Sweetpumper]

the blood bath will continue.

LMAO. Too much TV.

[Sweetpumper]

Wonder if this chick wishes she had a gun.

[Leah G.]

Wonder if this chick wishes she had a gun.

So glad you posted this, I came here today to do the same thing.

[Beckys_Mom]

You seem to not be aware that you are saying that inanimate objects can "do" things...

As for spoons being dangerous, and you considering that a joke..

As I can see you are still confused and I have tried explaining it to you 3 times, and another person ( aztek ) he has tried to clearly explain my quote to you like this...

she is not saying that, guns don't shoot by themselves, and her point was exactly that, it is all about the hand holding it. spoons also don't hurt inmates by themselves.

she also said It all depends on who's holding the gun , but you ignore it like it is not there. i see it, and i'm sure others too, why don't you???

But you still do not get it...So I have taken my quote again, and this time I have highlighted in pink that clearly self explained....see below...

Look at this quote from my previous post and see if you can tell me what it is I was saying..Take a look -> Guns can save lives just as much as they can take a life.. It all depends on who's holding the gun and the situation at hand.

What do you think I am actually saying from that quote? I'll give you a hint - I underlined it...

I am clearly saying it depends who is holding the gun..That obviously means that the gun is not useful unless someone is holding it when in a bad situation...Just like a gun can save you if you have one on you to use it to protect yourself from an attacker.. This is straight cut and easy to understand ...Well at least it should be..

That is the best I can do to once again explain it to you... If you still do not get it, I am not going to explain it over again..

As for spoons being dangerous, and you considering that a joke..

Yes I saw it as a joke because you compared it to a gun, which itself is a thousand times deadlier than a simple tea spoon.... Put it this way, if someone came at you with a gun to kill you, if your spoon manages to take him down OR even catches the bullet, then I will believe you... A spoon cannot protect you when faced with a gun..You are more likely to die at the hands of a gun than a spoon.. ( I have highlighted the key words ) It means the gun or spoon must be in your hand...

Here is a short but cheerful look at Indiana Jones V's the swordsman... Lets see who has the better advantage ..

You decide .....Maybe the swordsman should have had his trusty tea spoon lol.. Anyhoo I am not going through this again with you, if you still cannot comprehend what I and anyone else who has tried to explain it, then you are on your own...Don't take that the wrong way, I just don't like having to explain things so many times...

Edited June 25, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Michelle]

Almost all burglaries in the UK are when there is no one at home - you know why - because criminals do not want trouble (it ends in Jail) and make certain that they only burgle empty houses.

And whether you like it or not, we've got gangbangers that use home invasions as initiations to qualify to get into gangs. They have to rob, rape, beat, or kill to prove they are worthy of being in the gangs. These people aren't out to get a little drug money for their fix and they do have guns.

The great majority of the US don't have to contend with such things as gangs. The great majority don't live in rural areas where they have to defend themselves, their crops and livestock against wild animals. The great majority don't have drunken, redneck moonshiners and pot growers that will kill you if you run across a million dollar a year business out in the middle of nowhere while innocently hiking in the woods. But, when you put all of those people together you've got the vast majority of Americans defending our rights to own firearms.

You cannot compare the two...as I believe you have said many times when it fits your agenda.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Michelle

[+DieChecker]

You should look into why that happened in America, Freakanomics attributes it to the general liberalization of abortion laws. Interesting cause for an interesting problem.

I'm going to have to look that up to see how those are actually connected.

How is she not saying inanimate objects can do things, when she is saying that an inanimate object can save a life?

And Hospitals don't save lives, or medicine, or ambulances, or x-ray machines, or vaccines, or even bike helmets.... Right? They are just inanimate objects after all, right???

[F3SS]

LMAO. Too much TV.

He should make movies. He depicts US like we live in a Schwarzenegger movie.

Wonder if this chick wishes she had a gun.

This scumbag needs shot. Ah yes, that's the bloodthirsty barbarian American in me but seriously this guy needs put down like a rabid animal. He serves no use alive and could be put to better work in hell. He doesn't deserve a second chance. I wouldn't blame her husband if he went hunting. The perp doesn't deserve a day in court. The husband should be allowed to beat him with a crowbar and he should die. I hope he does.

That vid makes me mad.

[+DieChecker]

Almost all burglaries in the UK are when there is no one at home - you know why - because criminals do not want trouble (it ends in Jail) and make certain that they only burgle empty houses.

As a result I daresay that rates of burglery are much the same in the US as in the UK, and they happen to exactly the same people.

Your statement would seem to be hard to prove, as the UK statistics on Burglery, don't include if the burglery was violent, or armed, or not. What evidence do you have, other then opinon, that what you think it true?

I did look online and it does appear that burglery is comparable between the UK and the US. With the UK holding a slight percentage lead.

I think part of it comes down to a Philisophical Question..............................................

What is more valuable, the life of a home invader, or the possessions gathered over a lifetime? In the US, the possessions win hands Down. Perhaps in the UK and Australia and most of Europe, the answer is the miserable life of a anonymus criminal... a drain on society, is worth more then all the jewelery anyone could own?

[Kowalski]

He should make movies. He depicts US like we live in a Schwarzenegger movie.

This scumbag needs shot. Ah yes, that's the bloodthirsty barbarian American in me but seriously this guy needs put down like a rabid animal. He serves no use alive and could be put to better work in hell. He doesn't deserve a second chance. I wouldn't blame her husband if he went hunting. The perp doesn't deserve a day in court. The husband should be allowed to beat him with a crowbar and he should die. I hope he does.

That vid makes me mad.

Wouldn't be much of a loss to society....

[+DieChecker]

This scumbag needs shot. Ah yes, that's the bloodthirsty barbarian American in me but seriously this guy needs put down like a rabid animal. He serves no use alive and could be put to better work in hell. He doesn't deserve a second chance. I wouldn't blame her husband if he went hunting. The perp doesn't deserve a day in court. The husband should be allowed to beat him with a crowbar and he should die. I hope he does.

That vid makes me mad.

Doubtless she'll also go to prison for unlawfully making a video of him. She'll probably get more time then he does... And then when she is gone, he'll come back and rob her again, because like Cornelius pointed out, she'll be gone.

[F3SS]

Wouldn't be much of a loss to society....

It wouldn't be any loss. What this woman did, lye there and take it, is exactly what the progressive liberals want you to do. In a sense it worked as the animal didn't go for the kids and I'm sure some liberals will take that angle. But that's bs. No one should have to take that especially a woman. I really do wish she could've killed him. A gun is useful even when the perp doesn't have one.

Everyone know Pulp Fiction? Remember what happened to Marcellus Wallus right before Bruce Willis came to his rescue? Yes, that should happen to that guy before he dies.

BrCorn, without getting into some philosophical spiel about our society why don't you tell US what you think about that situation and wether the use of a gun would've been justified.