Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Guns save lives thread


F3SS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Assuming they trust the US to get involved. But then, youre putting off your self defense to someone else and hope they are never perceived to be weak-willed...

And then there's all the other countries that don't have strong ties to nuclear powers...

As far as I know, almost every nation is allied to another nation that does have nukes. Not only that, but nations like Italy, Greece or Romania all are allied to dozens of other nations, with multiple nuclear nations.

Perhaps, but how many countries are really going to want to get involved in a nuclear war between to other nations?

My personal opinion? All of them. If Iran nuked Cyprus for some reason, every nation would decry the act and many would act militarily immediately.

Look at non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction being used. Some countries stockpiled them as deterrents... But when Saddam gassed the Kurds, and Iraq gassed Iranians, and Syria supposedly gassed the FSA, did the US or other countries retaliate? Did them stockpiling any WMD work as a deterrent?

Chemical WMD was the reason the US and the UK invaded Saddam's Iraq, right? Saddam had used up his chances to stop.

In both cases, police and nukes, you're putting your life in someone else's hands. That's the fundamental issue that people are opposed to when it comes to guns. Why hope someone else will respond/reapond in time, when you can protect and deter for yourself?

Well, we've already established that nukes are in another category or weapon, and that on the small scale of individual firearms that the police are very likely to be too late. So, I'd say the average nation does not need a nuke, as treaties protect them. And the average individual should have the right to own and use a firearm to protect themselves, family and their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better question to the Establishment is, how can the Constitution be old fashioned when you can amend it? The amendment procedure is in the Constitution. That's why it's a timeless design that's never out of fashion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, almost every nation is allied to another nation that does have nukes. Not only that, but nations like Italy, Greece or Romania all are allied to dozens of other nations, with multiple nuclear nations.

It still takes away their ability to depend on themselves, which is something people are against, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion? All of them. If Iran nuked Cyprus for some reason, every nation would decry the act and many would act militarily immediately.

But would they nuke Iran? If the answer is no, then the nukes arent a deterrent. Had Cyprus had had nukes in your scenario, they would have been able to retaliate effectively. That capacity for effective retaliation may have even prevented the situation from happening in the first place.

In either case, the police act like a similar deterrent. You trust that they can protect you and a criminal won't be able to do anything and get away with it, hence deterring the bad guy from committing a crime. When the police is seen as not being able to effectively prevent the crime, the deterrent effect is gone. Similarly, you count on other nuclear countries to retaliate with their nukes. If there is any doubt that these countries are willing to do so, then the deterrent is gone. In both cases, at that point, you're left without an effective deterrent as/or defensive capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better question to the Establishment is, how can the Constitution be old fashioned when you can amend it? The amendment procedure is in the Constitution. That's why it's a timeless design that's never out of fashion.

But but but it's too hard to amend it... It's not fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I just found out by accidentally sorting the forum by 'most replies' I would like to thank everyone for making this the most popular thread ever in the history of UM's United States/Politics section leading by a crushing 1100+ replies and falling short on views by only 3000ish for a close second.

In light of that I think it's safe to say that our Second Amendment is our most treasured and controversial right and it's never ever going to go away!

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chemical WMD was the reason the US and the UK invaded Saddam's Iraq, right? Saddam had used up his chances to stop.

Yet nothing was done when they were used against Iranians or Kurds. Nor were they used in Syria after chemical weapons were used there. The deterrent aspect of having allies with WMDs didn't really help in those cases, did it?

Well, we've already established that nukes are in another category or weapon, and that on the small scale of individual firearms that the police are very likely to be too late. So, I'd say the average nation does not need a nuke, as treaties protect them. And the average individual should have the right to own and use a firearm to protect themselves, family and their property.

Does not need a nuke? Well, what if they just darn want one? The average person does not need an AR 15, but they should be allowed to own one anyway. And isn't preventing a nations right to own nukes an infringement upon their right to self defense?

Listen, I completely agree with you. Nukes are a different category of weapon, and I do think that they should be tightly controlled. My point is that there's a number of other factors that should be considered when it comes to weapons, as youre clearly bringing up. When it comes to guns and anti-gun-control, the arguments insist that all the other factors don't matter. "We don't need to have a reason to own a gun. Simply wanting one is enough." "We have a right to own one". "We have a right to self defense! We have a right to own weapons so that we don't have to rely on the police for protection!" "We need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government". They're all quite absolute statements that insist that those arguments are the be-all end-all arguments. All external factors concerning the subject are irrelevant, and all proposals that would increase control over guns are seen as an infringement, and a right can not be infringed therefore that change is immoral and to be dismissed without consideration. If this were all truly the case, then it would be irrelevant what kind of weapon it is were talking about. The fact that its not, and the fact that people quite understandably support nuclear non-proliferation despite the ability for those same previous arguments to apply to the subject of nuclear weapons indicates that those other factors, like the type of weapon, how many people it can kill, and how dangerous it is if it fell into the wrong hands, are important and do need to be considered. They cant simply be hand-waved away and dismissed. Its only once we accept that that we can rationally look at the subject and come up with a plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the Constitution is timeless.

Do you understand what timeless means?

The constitution is not timeless. The fact that the constitution has been amended shows that it can be out dated and requires modification to remain applicable. The fact that the mechanism for amendments is in the constitution indicates that it is aware that it is not timeless and may need modification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a Convicted Felon Broke Into a Kentucky Woman’s Home and Found Her Hiding in the Closet, She Had a Little Surprise for Him

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/24/when-a-convicted-felon-broke-into-a-kentucky-womans-home-and-found-her-hiding-in-the-closet-she-had-a-little-surprise-for-him/

Huh. Looks like she may have also prevented a massive killing spree.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Veteran With Concealed Carry Permit Shoots Back At Chicago Gunman.

veteran and three of his friends were leaving a party on the city’s south side. When the group reached their vehicle, a container with liquor was sitting on top of it. A woman from the group asked another group gathered next door who the liquor belonged to and removed it.

The move angered 22 year-old Denzel Mickiel, who approached the veteran and his friends shouting obscenities. The man then went into his residence and returned with a gun.

As Mickiel opened fire on the group, the veteran took cover near the vehicle’s front fender, according to assistant state attorney Mary Hain, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The veteran fired two shots, hitting Mickiel both times.

Two of Mickiel’s friends also began shooting at the group, which was able to flee the scene in their vehicle.

Had Friday’s shooting occurred a little more than a year ago, the veteran would not have been legally permitted to conceal carry his firearm.

http://news.yahoo.com/veteran-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-back-chicago-gunman-031804649.html

i see more and more articles like this lately.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One from the hometown...

Intruders Shoot Their Way Into Apartment and Demand 'Stuff.' What Tenant Gives Them Leaves One Crook Dead, the Other in Critical Condition.

Two armed men who reportedly shot their way into a Pittsburgh apartment and demanded “stuff” from the tenant got the tables turned on them when the resident pulled out a shotgun and fired at the intruders, killing one and critically injuring the other.

-----

The 19-year-old tenant, who wasn’t identified by authorities, lives there with his 17-year-old girlfriend. He told police that the men pushed inside the apartment after shooting into the door and then shoved him into a bedroom and demanded "his stuff," TribLive reported.

That’s when the tenant pulled out a shotgun and fired three times, hitting both men, Toler said.

The rest... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/24/intruders-shoot-their-way-into-apartment-and-demand-stuff-what-tenant-gives-them-leaves-one-crook-dead-the-other-in-critical-condition/

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DARBY, Pa. (AP) — A psychiatrist who was grazed by gunfire from a patient at a suburban Philadelphia hospital Thursday helped stop the gunman by apparently using his own weapon to shoot and wound him, but not before a caseworker was killed, authorities said.

.

.

.

The hospital has a policy barring anyone except on-duty law enforcement officers from carrying a weapon anywhere on its campus, a spokeswoman for the Mercy Health System said.

But Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux said that "without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives."

"Without that firearm, this guy (the patient) could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition," the chief said

http://news.yahoo.com/doctor-fired-back-gunman-hospital-attack-214524705.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Family's terror as ferocious bear spent hours trying to tear open RV while a mother and her two children cowered inside

  • Sami Graham was with her children when the bear approached the RV, which was parked in Book Cliffs
  • The family tried to shoo the bear away and frighten it
  • The bear tried to getting inside two and a half hours and left heavy scratch marks in its wake on the trailer's exterior
  • It finally left after her husband arrived and fired a warning shots into the sky

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741567/Stay-away-Bear-spends-HOURS-trying-inside-Utah-family-s-RV.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://facts.randomh...un-control.html

one intersting fact:

In 1996, a law was passed that banned federal research on gun violence. Funding for gun-violence research by the CDC dropped from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to just $100,000 per year in 2013. Only under a recent order from President Obama can federally funded research resume.a

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Researchers note that gun violence among youth dramatically increased from 1984 to 1994, but decreased from 1994 to 2002 just as dramatically. They also note that the increase was due to the introduction of crack cocaine, the availability of cheap handguns, inadequate after-school supervision, and a general prevalence of violence in America. The subsequent decrease is attributed to increases in the number of police, the receding crack epidemic, and the legislation of abortion two decades earlier which resulted in fewer children at risk for violence.a

http://facts.randomh...un-control.html

looks like no new laws or even AWB had any effect on crime drop. so why do stooges keep wanting new laws????

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually weapons "control " issue is not new.

  1. Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) writes in his Politics that ownership of weapons is necessary for true citizenship and participation in the political system.a
  2. Plato (428-348 B.C.) writes in The Republic that a monarchy with a few liberties is the best form of government and the disarming of the populace is essential to the maintenance of an orderly and autocratic system.a
  3. The Roman politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) writes in De Officiis that he supports bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for preventing tyranny.a
  4. The Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) argues in his Discourse that an armed populace of citizen soldiers is important to keeping headstrong rulers in line.a
  5. One of the first documents to link a militia with the bearing of arms is the English Assize of Arms in 1811, which directs every free man to have access to weapons. It forbids the use of arms only when the intention is to “terrify the King’s subjects.”a
  6. In 1328, under the reign of King Edward III (1312-1377), Parliament passed the Statute of Northampton, which prohibited the carrying of arms in public places but did not overrule the right to carry arms in self defense.a

http://facts.randomhistory.com/facts-about-shooting-deaths-and-gun-control.html

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. When England fell briefly under the control of a military government in 1660, the government authorized its officers to search for and seize all arms owned by Catholics or any other person it deemed dangerous.a
  2. The Game Act of 1671 in England is an early example of gun control law and was enacted to keep the ownership of hunting lands and weaponry in the hands of the wealthy and to restrict hunting and gun ownership among the peasants. The law was repealed in 1689 when Queen Mary II (1662-1692) and King William III (1650-1702) were installed as co-rulers of England and wrote a new Bill of Rights.a

http://facts.randomhistory.com/facts-about-shooting-deaths-and-gun-control.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good one there. Too bad he survived. Now we have to foot his hospital bill and his time in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand what timeless means?

The constitution is not timeless. The fact that the constitution has been amended shows that it can be out dated and requires modification to remain applicable. The fact that the mechanism for amendments is in the constitution indicates that it is aware that it is not timeless and may need modification.

Indeed, but the amendments have to be in the proper constitutional context to be genuinely modified, otherwise, they'll go beyond the scope of the Constitution.

Circumventing the law is senseless and, also, illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you hand an Uzi to a child in which case guns do not save lives, they blow your damn head off.. :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Public Health Needs a New Gun Doctrine

a society, our focus on guns and not gun users derives from the shock of mass killings, such as those in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO, Virginia Tech, and Norway, which has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet. Mass killings, however tragic, get distorted by saturation media hysterics and 24-hour political grandstanding. What gun opponents refuse to discuss is the precipitous fall in violent crime and deaths by firearms over the past 20 years, and how it coincides with an equally dramatic increase of guns in circulation in the US.

While that isn’t cause and effect, the association is certainly curious.

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control, produced a report on firearms violence that has been ignored by the mainstream media. The upshot: defensive use of firearms occurs much more frequently than is recognized, “can be an important crime deterrent,” and unauthorized possession (read: by someone other than the lawful owner) of a firearm is a crucial driver of firearms violence.

That report went away for political reasons. Translation. Nobody wanted to talk about it because it raised more questions than it answered.

Public education works and is central to many public health issues, from highway safety to tobacco use reduction, but for some reason, when it comes to guns, the public health establishment’s histrionic reflex is not to educate but to control and confiscate. According to the FBI, in 2012 there were 8,855 firearms homicides, down 7% since 2008. By contrast, 33,516 people died on the nation’s highways in 2012, and alcohol abuse claimed 88,000 lives.

more herehttp://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/09/11/why-public-health-needs-a-new-gun-doctrine/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Map Shows America’s Most Armed Counties. #1 Might Surprise You.

The most heavily armed county in the US is (drum roll, please) – Faribanks North Star Borough, Alaska. Second place goes to Tooele County, Utah and third is Nez Perce County, Arizona. City-Data.com compiled the list (We should note there’s no source posted for the city-data list) and Reddit user Ramsesses_Deux created the map.

Texas, one of the most gun friendly states in America, is surprisingly not one of the top 10 most armed counties. The Lone Star State’s first entry is Harris County at no. 73.

map.jpg

more here; http://www.city-data.com/top2/co8.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.