Guns save lives thread

[andy4]

Because sometimes they do and it doesn't really make a lot of sense to debate unlikely hypotheticals on real and important issues

I just find it hard to believe that gun deaths wouldn't fall if guns were banned. Please look at the links I've posted above.

And for those reading I'm only saying banned for reasons other than hunting, target practice or a deactivated gun for hanging on a wall. I, and I'm sure any other anti gun advocates don't have a problem with guns for use in these areas.

Edited June 2, 2014 by andy4

[+DieChecker]

I apologize for the length of this post.....

But that is simply not true, as I have already pointed out only one gun kills someone for every 10,000 that are in private US citizen hands. People are probably more quick to go online and write a email to their Senator then to bring out their gun. If what you say is true, then every time there is an auto accident and people have to talk about what happened, there is immediate drawing of guns. You don't believe that do you? The use of a gun is so rare that we are only 3 times as dangerous as Vietnam, which has crippling anti gun legislation.

I'd use a pistol, obviously.

So, answer this... What would be the best thing to stop me from killing people at the mall? (Notice I did not say shooting people, because my goal is to kill people, not just shoot them.)

- Ban guns and go house to house to find them all.

- Allow 1/10th of the population to carry concealed weapons.

- Demand everyone takes gun education classes.

- Something else....

If you ban guns, then I'm just going to go for the next most dangerous weapon/tool. If you have an armed and trained populous, Mr Diechecker probably will not even go to the mall to shoot it out, because he'll be shot himself as soon as he fires his first shot.

Using a pistol to kill unarmed mall people = 25 dead.

Using a knife to kill unarmed mall people = 8 dead.

Using a pistol to kill armed mall people = 2 dead.

So here I speculate on civilians with guns would prevent extra deaths in a mall shooting situation.

These arguments are just plain silly.

First of all, they're based on the idea that a crowd of people would not panic and would shoot (and hit) the correct person before that shooter killed anyone else. Secondly, couldnt the same argument be applied to carrying knives to protect yourself? Using a knife to kill knife-armed people?

Of course, the whole idea of a mall full of people carrying knives is quite absurd, but I bring it up just to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument to start with.

Here Stellar says that is silly and has an opinion about how people would panic and unable to react, and that people carrying knives is absurd.

I don't find that assumption silly at all. If 1/10th of the population was armed and knew how to use a gun and were confident in their abilities, there would be panic, but a good percentage would NOT panic, and would react to the shooter. Thus preventing more deaths.

Yes, that is true. If a knife armed person attempted to kill people in a mall, and if many people were armed with knives and skilled in their use, then many less people would be killed. That would be a true statement. The fact you think it absurd is evidence that you perhaps do not understand how to defend yourself,or perhaps have no confidence in your ability to do so. You are projecting your own inabilities onto everyone else. Perhaps you'd be one of the 9 out of 10 that would not be armed?

Probably less people would be saved by carrying knives, simply for the reason that guns are faster and deadlier then knives, so it would be easier to kill the Rampaging Shooter, then to use knives to stop a Rampaging Slasher.

Here I counter Stellars opinion that my opinion is silly. Trained people would be very effective and less likely to panic. Thus lives are saved that otherwise would have been killed. I speculate that maybe Stellar does not know as much as he thinks he does.

I admit I should not have speculated on Stellar's knowledge or experience.

And if another 1/10th were armed but only thought they knew what to do in a situation in which someone is actually trying to kill them, there may be many other deaths attributed to these rambos. Perhaps the robbery just turned into a gunfight with 30+ people killed.

The point is, were completely incapable of predicting the future and how these hypothetical situations would pan out --- hence why the argument is silly.

So then if that statement is true, then your previous argument collapses, as the other side can just tell you to protect yourself with knives. You're argument kind of presupposes that one is unable to protect themselves against even a knife-wielding opponent unless that person has a gun.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.... Perhaps the world would be a much nicer place if it were made out of sugar and spice and everything nice.

Perhaps I can in fact defend myself. Perhaps I'm fully comfortable with my own skills and abilities. Perhaps I would be one of those 9/10, or perhaps I'd be one of those 1/10? Perhaps none of that has any bearing on the validity of my point.

Perhaps, if you want to be taken seriously, you stop making assumptions about the people you are talking to. Otherwise, you're just coming off as needing to belittle another persons character & abilities in order to prop up some support for your own weak argument.

Perhaps we end all this talk of hypothetical situations that anyone can conjure up and design to bottleneck their opposition into supporting the conjurers views, and quit acting like purposely designed hypothetical situations are worth a damn.

Perhaps you'll ignore my entire post and dismiss my opinions because you'd like to think of yourself as some big, macho, alpha-male, and anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're frail and afraid.

Here Stellar states why my hypothetical situations are silly, which he probably should have done more clearly a couple posts before. Then goes on a rant to chew me out about assumptions. He gets a little heated.

Wow! You have quite the negative opinion of Americans.

I think perhaps you only "think" you know what would happen. You are assuming a negative standard, the Pessimist point of view... "Everyone is totally incompetent and will just kill themselves if they try to fight", while I am looking at this issue positively and assuming that most responsible gun carrying people would be responsible. I've already shown that only one in ten thousand guns is used to kill anyone in any year. And the same logically would apply to gun carrying people. Only one in a thousand would be incompetent and get involved. Other gun carrying people, such as moms, or old people, would duck into a store, pull their gun and protect their families and themselves, instead of just laying on the ground waiting for the shooter to kill them.

Good. Then you shouldn't have a problem with my post and won't need to reply.

No... In a all knife situation, if many people are knife armed, there will be less innocent dead.

In an all gun situation, if many people are gun armed, there will be less innocent dead.

The number saved in a all knife situation will be less then in a all gun situation due to a gun allowing to fight over a longer range, and is more deadly, resulting in defensive death of the Massacre shooter quicker. Unless you want to argue that the massacre shooter will have a machine gun, or grenades, or some other means of dealing damage that is faster then the pistols that the mall people would be armed with? In which case you have a point, but my point also would still be true, since with a machine gun the attacker might kill a hundred people, but if the mall has armed people in it, he might only kill 15 or 20.

Or am I not understanding what you are saying?

Perhaps. But it is more likely that someone making your arguments simply wants to be defended, rather then defending themself. It seems to be a default position for most people who don't like guns. "Wait for the police." .... What happens when the police are 10 minutes away?

So, what was your point again? I was having this discussion with Andy, I thought. You jumped in and said that I was being silly and absurd. To which I gave my opinion on what I thought would happen. Who is trying to attack whom here?? Who jumped in calling people silly and absurd?

Your post is far, far more offensive, in my opinion, but you know what, I just don't care.... Be offensive. It will not change my mind. Good honest facts would change my mind. Find some facts to support your opinions. I showed that one in 10000 guns is used to kill each year, and then suggested by association that these responsible gun owners could be responsible in a mall attacker situation. All you did is have an opinion, "I think...silly... absurd."

Here I state that I think Stellar must not like Americans because of his negative hypothetical generalizations. Perhaps he was just trying to play Devil's Advocate, but his rant at the end of his last post got me into a bad mood.

I even ask "Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying?"

But I am not just having an opinion, I'm making assumptions based on other existing data. Mainly the number of deaths compared to guns owned in the US. Which is part of why I got mad, because I was assuming we were speaking of the US, while Steller apparently was speaking in a vast generization. I was coming from inside my culture, and he was talking outside all cultures.

I state that I am not sure what Steller's actual point is, because he jumped in on a discussion I was having with Andy.

I'm trying to figure out what is slanderous other then the first line?

Nothing I said has any bearing on America or Americans. I merely presented an alternate hypothetical that opposed yours... once again, to show how silly and dead-ended hypothetical arguments are. The fact that you're trying to turn my hypothetical scenario into some kind of anti-american slander seems to indicate to me that there is no rationale behind your stance. Rather, you're arguing from emotion, and I will not feed into it. Your further assertion that I somehow "don't like guns" confirms this, in my eyes, as I have not stated one way or another whether I like or do not like guns. I have made my statement: Hypothetical situations don't prove anything --- agree or disagree, thats up to you.

So here we are... We're not talking about the US apparently? I was definately talking about the US. The hypotheticals I posted were Given the US culture as the background.

The only "slander" I see is that I suggested that you have a "negative opinion of Americans". Given that I was coming from a completely American POV, and given your posts, I don't think that is a unreasonable assumption.

If you think I seriously slandered you, hit the Report button and a Mod will PM me to not "attack" you anymore. Or they will tell you that what I posted was not an attack by the UM rules.

I didn't see exactly where I said you don't like guns. I stated that someone who professes your position usually does not like guns. That is a generalization. So maybe we both made wrong assumptions?

The thing with Hypothetical situations is that it stirs debate, which turns into research, which turns into data, which allows for informed choices. So, hypothetical situations and debate (What we are doing here) are Critical to making decisions here in America.

Edited June 2, 2014 by DieChecker

[andy4]

I know you're talking to stellar with the above post, but it's great to hear that you can agree that hypotheticals can produce some form of action. I think that's what we try to do in here. Although it's internet based, the multitude of information and discussion on this site can be taken to the real world, in informed discussions with others. It's most of the reason why I enjoy coming on here and trying to reasonably debate with others, because new ideas, from both sides you wouldn't normally hear can be discussed.

[+DieChecker]

Oh for sure there is. But what you're basically saying is that if even if they were banned this would still occur. Than legally purchased guns wouldn't find their way to criminals, which according to the following link, stolen guns only account for, "10-15% of all gun related crime." That's 90-95% of all gun crimes are committed by using legally purchased guns. Assuming an average of 12,000 gun deaths per year, that would drop to about 1,500 per year, if the statistics are reasonably correct.

Keep in mind, that the number is below the average for cutting or stabbing deaths in the USA altogether.

http://www.pbs.org/w...rocon/guns.html

Your link basically says corruption is to blame for guns getting into criminal hands. Do you think criminals would stop buying guns if they are made hard to sell?

Is cocaine impossible to get in Chicago? Drugs have no trouble showing up, why would guns?

And also check out this link.

http://www.usatoday....hicago/1969227/

"States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower."

From the link...

Despite the findings, researchers did not establish a cause and effect relationship between guns and deaths. Rather, they could only establish an association.

That failure illustrates the limits of the study, said Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

"Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study," Wintemute said, explaining that the study doesn't provide critical answers to which laws work and why.

[+DieChecker]

So honestly, you'd rather have a criminal try and break into your house using a gun rather than some close quarters or a non lethal object such as a taser? I understand that you, and I myself would feel more comfortable using a gun against a criminal who has one, but the problem is just that. The criminal also has a gun.

I myself, actually don't own a gun. But I don't believe that the right to have a gun should be removed. Until someone shows me a good way to prevent guns getting to criminals I'm going to demand that right to own guns.

As for the numbers on gun crime, please refer to my last post in this thread. I really don't think that knifing deaths would sharply increase due to a luck of guns.

This link from Chicago, a tight gun control city, shows that only 9% of all murders were due to stabbing. Yes the criminals could and still use guns if they were banned but have a look at this link.

http://heyjackass.com/category/2013/

I believe that crime in Australia did spike with stabbings for a short time, but it did settle down. But the US is not an island that can retard smuggling. We have a barely secured southern border, which allows drugs and potentially guns to just walk right across.

Your link does make a good point. That 3 out of 10 assaults are with knives, while 4 out of 10 are with guns. Yet the death rate is about 1 out of 10 for knives and 8 out of 10 for guns. So guns are almost 10 times more likely to kill then a knife. So my previous opinion that if there was 12k killings by guns would translate into near the same with knives would be incorrect by this data.

And look at this link too. Most guns used in crime in Chicago are purchased somewhere else than Chicago. And most are purchased legally.

http://www.theguardi...anuel-shootings

I think this does not matter, as getting them in Iowa, or Kansas, or Michigan might just as well be Canada or Mexico. It is just a couple hundred dollars to drive a semi-truck full of guns up to Chicago from Mexico.

[Gunn]

Oh for sure there is. But what you're basically saying is that if even if they were banned this would still occur. Than legally purchased guns wouldn't find their way to criminals, which according to the following link, stolen guns only account for, "10-15% of all gun related crime." That's 90-95% of all gun crimes are committed by using legally purchased guns. Assuming an average of 12,000 gun deaths per year, that would drop to about 1,500 per year, if the statistics are reasonably correct.

Keep in mind, that the number is below the average for cutting or stabbing deaths in the USA altogether.

http://www.pbs.org/w...rocon/guns.html

And also check out this link.

http://www.usatoday....hicago/1969227/

"States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower."

Yeah, pretty much so, as far as the other possibilities go. Even if there was a total gun ban in the U.S., probably not without a civil war and the loss of a lot life I wager, most people who were honest sane gun owners would eventually become criminals doing a lot of the other things I just mentioned. Now I don't doubt the the stolen handgun percentage used in related crimes you just presented to me, as of today, but you really didn't address the other possibilities as to how today's criminals get guns. And I'm willing to bet you that those other ways of getting guns that I mentioned, would skyrocket after a total gun ban across the country was put in effect. Especially homemade weapons and it's not impossible. You can see a lot of 'how to's' even on the Internet with a simple google, like in these two cases:

This one has been selling a book on how to make 9mm machine gun. I wonder how many pro-gun proponents have downloaded or bought that book of his since gun control first came up a while back?

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

Here's another, talking about how to make a AK-47 with just parts imported.

http://www.motherjon...-building-party

Like I said, you can google on how to build a gun like I just did, it's that easy. And I'll bet the know-how is gaining momentum since the gun control talk first came up in this country.

https://www.google.c...gun&btnK=Submit

(Hey there's even a cache of google pictures too! What'ya know...I like pictures.) Anyway....

Cause you see, Andy...where there is a will there is a way and a lot of Americans love their guns, guns are part of our heritage and American culture since this country was first colonized. It's ingrained in quite a few people's upbringing since childhood. And I promise you, you won't see a total gun disarmament in the U.S. in your lifetime, not at least without a dire civil conflict involving the deaths of many across the country. Because people will only tolerate so much gun control on their personal freedoms and 2nd amendment, because there's going to be a point when enough is enough and people who want to protect their personal freedoms will start taking action. You can only whip the lion for so long to control it, before it eventually charges at you, digging it's claws into you, ripping you to pieces.

Now you mentioned this in one of your posts to Fess;

And for those reading I'm only saying banned for reasons other than hunting, target practice or a deactivated gun for hanging on a wall. I, and I'm sure any other anti gun advocates don't have a problem with guns for use in these areas.

Aaah but you see, if we give the government and the anti-gun proponents an inch on gun control or semi total gun banning, they'll take a mile. They'll not just stop banning guns in the same way as other governments have done in other countries, but they'll eventually restrict total gun use all together here in the U.S; even for the hunter and those who target practice with guns. So it's in the best interest for pro-gun proponents to put a stop to it here and now (I mean legally of course) and not give the opposing side another inch.

[Thorvir]

Sometimes they get them on the black market. Sometimes they steal them from homes, pawn shops, gun stores. Sometimes they get them smuggled in from across the borders.

Some have even been caught building their own from spare gun parts or with the help of a gunsmith. You just need the main components and the rest (frame, barrel) you can make out of good steel with a lathe.

There's a way around gun laws and criminals eventually figure it out.

That's because they're criminals, and won't obey any laws. That's the whole point. The laws will only restrict the law-abiding.

[Thorvir]

Even if there was a total gun ban in the U.S., probably not without a civil war and the loss of a lot life I wager, most people who were honest sane gun owners would eventually become criminals doing a lot of the other things I just mentioned. Now I don't doubt the the stolen handgun percentage used in related crimes you just presented to me, as of today, but you really didn't address the other possibilities as to how today's criminals get guns. And I'm willing to bet you that those other ways of getting guns that I mentioned, would skyrocket after a total gun ban across the country was put in effect. Especially homemade weapons and it's not impossible.

Cause you see, Andy...where there is a will there is a way and a lot of Americans love their guns, guns are part of our heritage and American culture since this country was first colonized. It's ingrained in quite a few people's upbringing since childhood. And I promise you, you won't see a total gun disarmament in the U.S. in your lifetime, not at least without a dire civil conflict involving the deaths of many across the country. Because people will only tolerate so much gun control on their personal freedoms and 2nd amendment, because there's going to be a point when enough is enough and people who want to protect their personal freedoms will start taking action. You can only whip the lion for so long to control it, before it eventually charges at you, digging it's claws into you, ripping you to pieces.

Aaah but you see, if we give the government and the anti-gun proponents an inch on gun control or semi total gun banning, they'll take a mile. They'll not just stop banning guns in the same way as other governments have done in other countries, but they'll eventually restrict total gun use all together here in the U.S; even for the hunter and those who target practice with guns. So it's in the best interest for pro-gun proponents to put a stop to it here and now (I mean legally of course) and not give the opposing side another inch.

It is wise to keep in mind that the existence of the 2nd Amendment helps to protect all of the other Amendments.

[+DieChecker]

Aaah but you see, if we give the government and the anti-gun proponents an inch on gun control or semi total gun banning, they'll take a mile. They'll not just stop banning guns in the same way as other governments have done in other countries, but they'll eventually restrict total gun use all together here in the U.S; even for the hunter and those who target practice with guns. So it's in the best interest for pro-gun proponents to put a stop to it here and now (I mean legally of course) and not give the opposing side another inch.

All it would take is 5 or 10 hunting accidents in one year and the Anti-Gun people would be howling about unnecessary deaths.

[F3SS]

All it would take is 5 or 10 hunting accidents in one year and the Anti-Gun people would be howling about unnecessary deaths.

We don't need to hunt anymore. We have grocery stores now! You're right, that's what you'd hear.

[CrimsonKing]

Many people have guns for the sole purpose of either hunting,to defend ones home and families,or recreational target shooting.Beating hypothetical dead horses over and over again just serves the purpose for others to hear themselves talk.

Everyone has has the right to keep talking about these points,as much as i could care less to hear them i would still not be in favor of removing their right to freedom of speech.Sometimes ideology can have unforseen future consequences that are far more dangerous than the present actions of a few.

[Gunn]

It is wise to keep in mind that the existence of the 2nd Amendment helps to protect all of the other Amendments.

Boy I'm glad too, or you, me and others probably wouldn't have the right to voice our opinions on this very subject right here and now.

All it would take is 5 or 10 hunting accidents in one year and the Anti-Gun people would be howling about unnecessary deaths.

We don't need to hunt anymore. We have grocery stores now! You're right, that's what you'd hear.

Now - now, you two need to hug a tree and be one with nature. Because you know - it's good for the animals and gives respect to the animals, especially in case some animal decides to kill you and have you for lunch. In this way, you will definitely be one with nature. Right? - rrriiiiiiiiiiiight. Now, let's all join hands and sing 'kumbaya'.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Purifier

[Stellar]

Here Stellar states why my hypothetical situations are silly

Hypothetical situations are silly. Not just your hypothetical situation, but all are silly. The very situation andy4 set up, is silly, because they're completely baseless and can be designed in such a way to get any response you would like. That was and is my point. You say x would happen, well I can say X wouldn't happen, Y would happen. Who's statement is more valid? No ones. Its a hypothetical situation. Silly way to make an argument.

He gets a little heated.

​Perhaps I did, perhaps I didn't. We're back to assumptions now, aren't we? Does it make you somehow feel like your argument is more valid if you pretend that I got "heated"?

So here we are... We're not talking about the US apparently? I was definately talking about the US.

My claim had to do with humans, human nature, and how humans may react to stressful situations. It had nothing to do with how Americans specifically react, and your statement clearly tried to make it seem that I am somehow biased against Americans.

[+DieChecker]

My claim had to do with humans, human nature, and how humans may react to stressful situations. It had nothing to do with how Americans specifically react, and your statement clearly tried to make it seem that I am somehow biased against Americans.

I think a large part of how someone reacts is involved with their culture. If someone is from a violent warlike culture, that person would be a lot less likely to run screaming.

[Stellar]

I think a large part of how someone reacts is involved with their culture. If someone is from a violent warlike culture, that person would be a lot less likely to run screaming.

Ahh, now this is going to be an interesting discussion!

I do believe you are right --- to a degree. Fight, flight or freeze are the 3 responses a human will exhibit in a life-threatening (or perceived life-threatening) situation. I do fully believe that the culture can impact that response, as that response is train-able (to a degree), and that's what the military aims to do. The way you train it, though, is by encouraging aggression, first of all, next, a sense of peer pressure, and also recreating these situations as closely as possible and guiding a persons actions until they become instinctive in nature. I do see how a culture may slowly, over time, instill an aggressive "fight, not flight" mindset into people; however, do you really think this is happening anywhere in the western world? People speak of the "pussification of america", a phenomena that I think applies to most, if not all, western countries at the moment. Kids are shielded from danger, not exposed to it, so I don't believe that any western culture in particular instills a fight response rather than flight or freeze. Hell, I think WWII American culture, and the culture around that era did a better job of instilling a "fight" mindset into their population than we do now (purely my opinion).

But having a fight response is not all there is, no. The next problem faced is the ability to think clearly and calmly and being able to perform just as effectively under stress as you can out of stress, which is something else the military tries to do. They call it "Stress inoculation", where, by once again recreating stressful situations over and over, the situations become mundane and hopefully the real situation would therefore be perceived as less stressful than it would have been without the training. Why do this? Because its not enough to simply decide to "fight" the enemy and shoot back, they need to hit the enemy too! Without the proper training, you risk a soldier (even though he's responding by fighting) going into the "black" (as David Grossman describes), not thinking, not looking through his sights, and not firing accurately, or controllably, maybe even hitting the wrong targets, yet he's fighting none-the-less.

The military spends tens of thousands of dollars per soldier, if not hundreds of thousands, in an effort to train them to fight instead of freeze and flight, and in an effort to teach them how to react appropriately not inappropriately when fighting. Despite this massive amount of money and resources going in to this kind of training, there are still some that react catastrophically (they freeze) when they encounter their first real situation. Many others don't react catastrophically yet still react inappropriately (in the sense of their drills being "sloppy", such as snapping the trigger, not looking through their sights appropriately, bad habits taking over, etc.)

Theres a story of a police officer who got in a gunfight. Did he run? No, he fought. He was found dead with a pocket full of empty casings though. His overall actions were correct (firing back, fighting, instead of fleeing or freezing), but despite whatever level of training he had, he went into the "black" state of stress-reaction, in which he was simply acting-not thinking. In that state, his bad habits of picking up the brass on the range and putting it in his pocket took over and thats what he started doing in the middle of the gunfight. If you asked him beforehand if thats something you should do in a gunfight, he would have undoubtedly told you no --- yet he did it. Thats the kind of thing that happens to humans in life-or-death situations.

How many people in the civilian world would you say have gotten even a fraction of the training that soldiers do to surpass these problems? Going to the range and firing a couple hundred rounds a few times a week may make you a good shot at the range, but that doesn't directly correlate to being able to shoot well when someone is actually there with a gun, shooting people.

Its easy to talk about how you would react in such a situation. The difficult part is actually reacting that way.

I do have a question for you or anyone else though: How many people obey the "No guns allowed" signs that get posted in some places? I've been wondering this for a few days now.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Stellar

[Agent0range]

Great post Stellar. And that is the exact reason why if I am in a gas station and it is getting robbed, I would much prefer the hero in the candy bar aisle with the gun let the guy get the $60 and leave.

[Stellar]

Great post Stellar. And that is the exact reason why if I am in a gas station and it is getting robbed, I would much prefer the hero in the candy bar aisle with the gun let the guy get the $60 and leave.

Indeed. Makes me think of a story that came out a year ago roughly.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/

The police ended up directly hitting 3 people by accident.

This goes back to my point regarding why these hypothetical situations are completely pointless. In a mall shooting, what would happen? No one knows. Maybe someone draws their pistol and kills the guy before he kills him or anyone else. Maybe 6 people draw their pistol, but 3 of them mistake the bad guy for one of the other "good guys with pistols" that are shooting at each other and kill the wrong people. Maybe the gunfight that ensues between these 6 people plus the bad guy kills 18 other people trying to run away. Depending on the hypothetical outcome, you can use it to either support the "pro-gun" stance or the "pro-gun-control" stance--- but no one can actually say with any authority how the situation would truly end up.

[aztek]

how many heros at the gas stations have you heard about from VT orTX, or any other state for that matter????

it is faulty assumprtion that people who carry guns, and are aware of every consequence of discharging it, will use it every little chance they get, well reality proves this myth has nothing to do with reality. it is a myth spread by people that hever carried a gun legaly ,

to talk about how pineapple tastes you need to try it.

where are the rivers of blood, and shootouts everywhere in VT?? the least restrictive state? no permit needed for carring, or buying. where is all that hell that antigunners scare us with????? VT has LOWEST crime rate in usa, and on pair with some european countries. i can't say for sure the guns are responcible for such low crime rate, but they sure do not hurt.

Edited June 3, 2014 by aztek

[F3SS]

Here's a good one...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/10/dad-watched-in-horror-as-two-armed-men-held-a-gun-to-his-teen-daughters-head-then-he-did-something-about-it/

Two armed criminals reportedly put a gun to a 17-year-old girl’s head on Monday night as she was outside retrieving something from a car. The man, whose intentions still aren’t entirely clear, then ordered the teenager to take them into her house - a decision that would prove to have deadly consequences.

Peering out the window of the St. Louis home were the girl's mother and father, each prepared to protect their daughter with deadly force. There was also a 5-year-old boy in the house, though his relationship to the family wasn't known on Tuesday.

The girl’s father, a 34-year-old man, reportedly observed the men walking towards his home while holding a gun to his daughter's head, a sight that no father ever wants to see. He quickly retrieved his firearm and his wife did the same.

The brave dad then confronted the two criminals and opened fire, hitting both suspects with accurate shots. The girl's mother also fired off some rounds, but failed to hit either suspect.

One of the men was reportedly pronounced dead at the scene while the second suspect escaped only to later be arrested after calling his brother to take him to the hospital because he had been shot.

Edited June 11, 2014 by F3SS

[+DieChecker]

Indeed. Makes me think of a story that came out a year ago roughly.

http://www.cnn.com/2...state-shooting/

The police ended up directly hitting 3 people by accident.

This goes back to my point regarding why these hypothetical situations are completely pointless. In a mall shooting, what would happen? No one knows. Maybe someone draws their pistol and kills the guy before he kills him or anyone else. Maybe 6 people draw their pistol, but 3 of them mistake the bad guy for one of the other "good guys with pistols" that are shooting at each other and kill the wrong people. Maybe the gunfight that ensues between these 6 people plus the bad guy kills 18 other people trying to run away. Depending on the hypothetical outcome, you can use it to either support the "pro-gun" stance or the "pro-gun-control" stance--- but no one can actually say with any authority how the situation would truly end up.

While that is all true. What is required would be data, right?

[Rafterman]

Here's a good one...

One of the issues is that these stories typically only get a single mention in local media. And while they might get picked up (as this one did) by outlets such as the Blaze or other pro-2nd Amendment sites, it's certainly not going to find its way into the Washington Post, NYT, etc.

In essence you end up with uninformed people only seeing one side of the gun discussion - guns are bad - and coming away with the opinion that guns have zero positive benefit to society. Frankly, this is exactly the image that the anti-2nd Amendment groups are wanting to spin.

[Yamato]

If you do something bad with a knife, knives are bad.

If you do something bad with sex, sex is bad.

If you do something bad with gasoline, salt, glue, drain cleaner, electronics, ephedrine, rat poison, hot peppers, cheap drugs from China, etc., all that and etc. is bad.

Nope, there's only one politically-charged object that being bad applies to: If you do something bad with a gun, guns are bad.

Why didn't O.J. Simpson's sensational neck-cutting murders usher in any knife-control? Libs?

[aztek]

Why didn't O.J. Simpson's sensational neck-cutting murders usher in any knife-control? Libs?

it would be racist

[preacherman76]

it would be racist

[Yamato]

it would be racist

People discriminate against guns these days as much as they do race. It's the same disease, in fact. It's the same intolerance, just different human carriers. But no, one doesn't explain all of the other.

It's been my observation that republicans are often racist and democrats often jealous. Both greedy as all hell. US politics is little more than a game of racism vs envy.