Guns save lives thread

[Gummug]

Crying because they're loosing the gun control debate, is all it is. So, they start this c**** up....

Boo-hoo...You want to sit there and act like you guys are SO MUCH more enlightened the rest of us? Give me a break. You still have crime, the only difference is you can't defend yourself. If you want to be a victim, fine go ahead. I won't. And neither will my family. If .You trespass or try and rob us, we WILL SHOOT YOU. It's my property, and I can defend it and my family anyway I choose.

I'm sorry, but the same government who wants a national gun database, are the same idiots that are behind this whole PRISM system....You think I'm gonna trust them? Yeah, I'm keeping my guns. Don't like it? Well, that's just too bad, because it's my second amendment right. People should be allowed to defend themselves.

I think some people would be singing a different tune, if they were robbed/mugged/raped....

That reminds me of the old joke:

Q: What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative?

A: A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

A joke, but imo more than a little true.

[SHaYap]

Guns saves lives everyday ... guns takes lives every minute ... you guys are all yelling up the wrong tree ...

wikiquote link

American Rhetoric link

Hannah, can you hear me? Wherever you are, look up, Hannah. The clouds are lifting. The sun is breaking through. We are coming out of the darkness into the light. We are coming into a new world, a kindlier world, where men will rise above their hate, their greed and brutality.

`

[Gummug]

I have a feeling, Odds, that you won't believe this but here it is. I'm not really good at research so I just did a quick google search:

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. 1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

[Gummug]

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. 1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

More from this -> https://www.gunowner...g/sk0802htm.htm

​I dunno if these are real facts or not.?. ....I just happen to come across the page while looking through stories about people using a gun to save a life..

Sorry Becky's Mom...I quoted from the same link because I hadn't read your post yet. I guess that's what I get for posting before reading the whole thread. Anyway, I'll bet a lot of people didn't read your link anyway so with mine they have a second chance!

[F3SS]

Sorry Becky's Mom...I quoted from the same link because I hadn't read your post yet. I guess that's what I get for posting before reading the whole thread. Anyway, I'll bet a lot of people didn't read your link anyway so with mine they have a second chance!

You are wrong. A lot of people did read it and then they dismissed it.

[Odds]

Every study i have read where you have or are carrying a firearm, you are much more likely to be killed.

[Gummug]

Every study i have read where you have or are carrying a firearm, you are much more likely to be killed.

Do you have a link to those studies, Odds? I'll try and read them if you do. In the meantime, it's late here so I'm signing off 'til tomorrow. Have a good day/night/morning/evening everyone!

[SHaYap]

You are wrong. A lot of people did read it and then they dismissed it.

gunowners.org .. ? C'mon F3SS ...

that's like the 'magic bullet killed JFK' all over again ... can you blame 'em ?

`

[+DieChecker]

Gun homicides have been FAR higher in Washington DC than any other US city and that was even during the ban on handguns before the Supreme Court struck it down in 2008. Guns in Washington DC get all the regulations the libs want applied in the the places where gun homicides are the lowest. The gun homicides argument made by the lawbreaking gun haters is DOA.

DC used to be the Murder Capital of the US, that is why they enacted draconian gun laws, but it barely worked at all. Buybacks happened where people vollenterily gave up their guns, and this only left the criminals holding guns.

It is the perfect example. A completely liberal/democrat driven population, that fails at just about everything that they try, and uber corrupt politicians in charge.

[+DieChecker]

Every study i have read where you have or are carrying a firearm, you are much more likely to be killed.

There was a link about ten pages back that puts the lie to that, at least in the US. Only like 3% of those defending their home with a gun had their gun turned on them. Also less then 3% of deaths were due to accidental shooting.

So, I'm inclined due to the figures I've seen, to think what you are saying is actually an urban myth.

[Yamato]

I'm not sure that's accurate... sorry... might be Chicago

http://weaselzippers...very-6-3-hours/

If a city like Chicago wants to tolerate its own strict gun laws and deal with homicide rates that high that's just one bad city, federal intervention from Washington DC making rules for the entire country is another thing, especially when Washington DC proves itself beyond any shadow of a doubt the worst gun homicide rate of any US state. Technically DC is a territory so it was compared to all 50 states, but it's more like a city in size, that happens to be run by federal bureaucrats; federal bureaucrats who think they know what's best for the rest of us. Hypocrisy par excellence.

[Yamato]

DC used to be the Murder Capital of the US, that is why they enacted draconian gun laws, but it barely worked at all. Buybacks happened where people vollenterily gave up their guns, and this only left the criminals holding guns.

It is the perfect example. A completely liberal/democrat driven population, that fails at just about everything that they try, and uber corrupt politicians in charge.

The liberals who assured me that gun homicides were what mattered, and the liberals who assured me that comparing US statistics to US statistics (since other countries define homicide differently) are out to lunch as soon as the evidence gathered within the US proves them wrong. It's not just DC having the worst homicides either. States that have the lowest homicide rates are also the most lenient states on gun control, so the evidence ruins their smug gun-hatred and I don't know what they have left to stand on. Maybe it's time to get personal (the white flag of the internet message board).

[+DieChecker]

States that have the lowest homicide rates are also the most lenient states on gun control, so the evidence ruins their smug gun-hatred and I don't know what they have left to stand on.

Would those also be Republican led states? Probably in my opinion. Democrats fail again?

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

(I HATE that the BEST way to put an excel format here is to post a screen shot)

So it seems that gun ownership is not the major factor is gun deaths, it is actually urban environments combined with liberal policys that lead to unsafe gun use practices.

Those people in Democrat (Anti-Gun) states are much, much more likely to be killed by a gun, then someone from a more loosely regulated state run by Republicans. The high American death rate by guns is Directly correlatable with liberal culture.

Edited June 26, 2013 by DieChecker

[psyche101]

I am not going to read the 38 pages after I see in the first couple that anyone who is not a rabid gun supporter is considered a troll, I just want to ask a question.

Does it not stand to reason that if guns were banned then these "perps" that everyone is saying guns keep you safe from, would not have weapons to begin any type of "situation" in the first instance? Don't guns also create a reason for this need for guns? It just seems to me that the only benefit from an outside point of view of what seems to be hysteria, is benefiting gun companies?

I just honestly think other countries that have removed guns from society have only benefited from the action. Except for gun making factories of course. Outside of a farm or such, I just do not see the need, if it is recreational, then people should be honest about that and seek amicable solutions.

[psyche101]

The whole reason I carry a gun, is because I was raped. I refuse to be victim again and I will not go through that another time...If a guy breaks into my house, and tries to rape me, he's gonna be at the wrong end of a .357.....

Do you know what the liberal anti-gun haters, think women should do if their about to be raped? Pee or puke on the rapist! Seriously?

What kind of society, allows innocent, law abiding citizens, not to be able to defend themselves against the criminal element? That's why our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. People have a God-given right to defend their families and themselves.

In the Uk, if a criminal is "casing" your home, and he cuts his foot on your fence, he can sue you. And win!

That's not the kind of society I want to live in....

I am sorry to hear this too, however, whilst you are correct in that such scum forfeit their right to live in a society, that gun may help you, but not everyone, and it might even make things worse for you. Imagine having a nap to wake and find a home invader holding your gun against you. Someone is always faster or quicker. It happens.

I think the UN should encourage all Governments to give the Rape-Axe some good support, and issue them for free. LINK - Rape-Axe.

Edited June 26, 2013 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

I am not going to read the 38 pages after I see in the first couple that anyone who is not a rabid gun supporter is considered a troll, I just want to ask a question.

Does it not stand to reason that if guns were banned then these "perps" that everyone is saying guns keep you safe from, would not have weapons to begin any type of "situation" in the first instance? Don't guns also create a reason for this need for guns? It just seems to me that the only benefit from an outside point of view of what seems to be hysteria, is benefiting gun companies?

I just honestly think other countries that have removed guns from society have only benefited from the action. Except for gun making factories of course. Outside of a farm or such, I just do not see the need, if it is recreational, then people should be honest about that and seek amicable solutions.

I think the question is How are the 300 million guns going to be collected so that the criminals don't have them as well as the law abiding public? Where ist the two hundred Billion dollars to buy back those guns going to come from? And who is going to actually going to enforce such a law... the military? What if whole states refuse to comply, as with a much milder issue, like Obamacare? Is it worth a civil war or state succession?

[+DieChecker]

I am sorry to hear this too, however, whilst you are correct in that such scum forfeit their right to live in a society, that gun may help you, but not everyone, and it might even make things worse for you. Imagine having a nap to wake and find a home invader holding your gun against you. Someone is always faster or quicker. It happens.

Yeah, but statistics show that that happens very rarely. Only in like 3% of all gun related cases does the homeowners gun end up in the intruders hands.

[psyche101]

Guns are already regulated, Odds. And yes, they don't need to be taken away.

Why I think I need guns: For muggers and rapists outside my home I need a handgun. For burglars and killers inside my home I need a shotgun. For the government goons who come to take those guns away, I need an assault gun.

What's so hard about that?

After what I read about your girlfriend in this thread, I can understand such trauma would make you feel safe arming yourself to the teeth, I do not know your story, but you said (quite briefly, so please understand I do not know the whole story) that she was kidnapped, how would all the guns in the world help you there? I apologise if it seems I am making light of your situation, I most certainly am not, and respect your reasoning even if I do not entirely understand it.

I understand the trauma, I had a home invasion, and a lady who is now my wife was held against a wall, luckily I walked in the backdoor and this piece of human scum ran like a rabbit apparently as soon as my key turned in the door, but I have no guns in my house, he was going to meet his maker via a pair of fists. And had I seen him holding my woman against a wall, size or numbers would not have helped him I assure you. Hell have no fury like a woman scorned, but hell wont even survive a mad russian. If she ever points him out in the street, I will buy him a present. A wheelchair. He will need it. But a gun would not have helped this situation, he broke in and was waiting for her when she got home. Had a gun been in the house, it would have been turned against her. Who knows how bad it could have been. Thankfully, my situation turned out so everyone was unhurt. My mind never turned to the thought of a gun over the incident.

Edited June 26, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I think the question is How are the 300 million guns going to be collected so that the criminals don't have them as well as the law abiding public? Where ist the two hundred Billion dollars to buy back those guns going to come from? And who is going to actually going to enforce such a law... the military? What if whole states refuse to comply, as with a much milder issue, like Obamacare? Is it worth a civil war or state succession?

It seemed to work OK here in Australia? We had a compulsory buy back scheme, two actually, as the die hards took years longer than anyone else, it's not an overnight fix, hence two buyback schemes, but I do believe Australia is living proof it can happen. I suppose the police enforce the law, as if you have an unregistered gun and it is called in, and residents are rather vigilant on this, then you go to the police station to answer questions, lose your gun anyway, and cop a fine. Although guns can be kept in clubs for recreational use. Population was about 20 million at the time. It was payed by a 1% tax levy by the population. I personally did not object, not sure of many did. Now statistics say your chances of a gun related incident are at least 50% lower than before the buyback scheme. And I believe it. No accidental deaths, no guns available to those in desperate times. Only hardcore criminals seem to get a hold of them, and that is not really affecting the daily life of the average person. It is very rare for guns to be related to domestic incidents here. That is a win in itself I think.

[psyche101]

Yeah, but statistics show that that happens very rarely. Only in like 3% of all gun related cases does the homeowners gun end up in the intruders hands.

Thanks goodness that Kowalski is not the 3%.

Without guns, it would be zero % though. I have to admit the statistic is smaller than I would have suspected. Criminals are just stupid all round I suppose. They do not seem to be smart enough to work out the where guns are legal, people may well have them, and you can break a back window and get it first.

Do you know what the 3% represents in real numbers?

Gunfights in suburbia? This is the sort of story that makes me wonder.

Authorities with the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office said there are still lots of loose pieces in this tragic puzzle. They believe two or three masked men tried to invade the home of Reynaldo Garcia, 52.

The man's 24-year-old neighbor somehow saw what was going on and went running. That's when shots were fired.

According to Albert Garcia's sister, her brother was leaving home Tuesday morning when he decided to first drive down the block to check on his friend and neighbor Reynaldo Garcia.

When he drove up, he realized a home invasion was in progress and he took out his gun and started shooting while still behind the wheel, Albert’s sister told KHOU 11 News. The home invaders returned fire.

That is when she said she saw Garcia slump over the steering wheel. She said she and other family members ran to the car and pulled him out to perform CPR but it was too late.

LINK

Edited June 26, 2013 by psyche101

[Yamato]

Would those also be Republican led states? Probably in my opinion. Democrats fail again?

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

(I HATE that the BEST way to put an excel format here is to post a screen shot)

So it seems that gun ownership is not the major factor is gun deaths, it is actually urban environments combined with liberal policys that lead to unsafe gun use practices.

Those people in Democrat (Anti-Gun) states are much, much more likely to be killed by a gun, then someone from a more loosely regulated state run by Republicans. The high American death rate by guns is Directly correlatable with liberal culture.

I've come to understand that playing partisan politics with an issue only serves to entrench one's partisan indoctrination that much more. Trying to squeeze out the justification of one's partisanship by torturing the data is nothing I'm interested in entertaining. It doesn't matter to me how red or blue a state is. It matters to me that the rule of law prevents the government from taking guns from law abiding citizens.. Questioning how that's going to be done as a logistics problem while ignoring the rule of law is an exercise in both futility from a practical standpoint and criminality from a legal standpoint. It matters to me that stricter gun prohibition doesn't improve gun homicide rates in the places where it's administered. The opinions of foreigners who can't acknowledge the rule of law in the US certainly don't matter at all. Let's face it, for the domestic opinions that want stricter gun regulations - if they want to see those regulations actually work - there needs to be a lot less guns in the country if their tyrannical ideas are to have any chance of successfully reducing gun crime rates. And taking guns from law-abiding citizens is almost always against the law. So they're going to have to change the law. Their only recourse is to repeal the 2nd Amendment or be honest enough to concede that the country is full of gun laws already and the strictest ones make the problems they claim to care about even worse.

[psyche101]

I've come to understand that playing partisan politics with an issue only serves to entrench one's partisan indoctrination that much more. Trying to squeeze out the justification of one's partisanship by torturing the data is nothing I'm interested in entertaining. It doesn't matter to me how red or blue a state is. It matters to me that the rule of law prevents the government from taking guns from law abiding citizens.. Questioning how that's going to be done as a logistics problem while ignoring the rule of law is an exercise in both futility from a practical standpoint and criminality from a legal standpoint. It matters to me that stricter gun prohibition doesn't improve gun homicide rates in the places where it's administered. The opinions of foreigners who can't acknowledge the rule of law in the US certainly don't matter at all. Let's face it, for the domestic opinions that want stricter gun regulations - if they want to see those regulations actually work - there needs to be a lot less guns in the country if their tyrannical ideas are to have any chance of successfully reducing gun crime rates. And taking guns from law-abiding citizens is almost always against the law. So they're going to have to change the law. Their only recourse is to repeal the 2nd Amendment or be honest enough to concede that the country is full of gun laws already and the strictest ones make the problems they claim to care about even worse.

RE: The bolded, Harvard University seems to disagree with you.

II. Evidence the Buyback Saved Lives

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.2

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range

.27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).3

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

LINK

[Yamato]

RE: The bolded, Harvard University seems to disagree with you.

II. Evidence the Buyback Saved Lives

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.2

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range

.27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).3

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

LINK

Running into the loving arms of government in a fearful response to sensational media stories about gun massacres is a great way to criminalize your position if you want to discuss US politics with US laws in mind.

Australia doesn't have a 2nd Amendment. Australians don't have any personal reason to care about America's Bill of Rights. It's easy for unschooled foreigners to ignore the rule of law in the US on a message board when discussing US politics.

It's blitheringly obvious that when there's no guns there won't be any gun deaths. Or when there's far fewer guns there will be far fewer gun homicides. This is just common sense. This doesn't disagree with anything I've said. As my prior comments said, if liberals want to have a sensible position on this issue then getting rid of the guns is the only way they're going to succeed. And that requires the law to change. Gun buybacks in Australia and the conclusions made in its wake don't change my thinking in any way whatever.

If we disarm the government there will be no wars. How's that for a political position? Anyone? Bueller? For some reason it's always kosher to go defend some Shiekh's oil well in the Middle East. Oh we need guns for that. Defending our women from sleazebags on the street, not so much. Dumb.

[Guest]

Yamoto you made the claim that gun buy backs don't work and then walked away from that and stated you were still right despite been shown that you were wrong about them working.

Your inconsistency undermines any point you make here.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

It does seem to boil down to philosophy. Don't deal with the issues and defend yourself with deadly force.

Its the American way

Unfortunately it don't work, cos more Americans end up dead as a result. Sad when wisdom fails a nation.

Br Cornelius