Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Gun Control Claims More Victims
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2
Skinny†
QUOTE
Gun Control Claims More Victims
by Benedict D. LaRosa

Last year, Virginia Tech University successfully lobbied the state legislature to prohibit concealed-permit holders from carrying a sidearm on campus. At the time, university spokesman Larry Hincker commented,

Iím sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assemblyís actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.
In June of last year, the university reemphasized its ban on carrying guns on campus by students, employees, and visitors. Last spring, it disciplined a student with a concealed-carry permit who brought his handgun to class. On April 16, 2007, 43 students and faculty members paid the price for such shortsightedness when a deranged student killed 33 and wounded the remainder with handguns.

Despite claims to the contrary, this is not the worst school killing in U.S. history. On May 18, 1927, a disgruntled school-board member killed 45 people and injured 58 ó most of them second-grade to sixth-grade children ó when he set off bombs at Bath Consolidated School in Bath, Michigan.

In response to the Virginia Tech incident, gun-control advocates predictably demanded more gun-control laws. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), author of the latest assault-weapon ban making its way through Congress, which is a more draconian version of the Clinton 1994 assault-gun ban that expired in 2004, suggested that we need to talk about guns on campus. For once, I agree with Representative McCarthy.

The gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean national with permanent resident status, had filled out the required forms and undergone the mandatory background check and waiting period, proving once again the uselessness of such laws.

The problem at Virginia Tech was not that there were guns on campus ó only the campus police and gunman were armed ó but that it was a ďgun-free zone.Ē As a result, there were not enough people carrying guns to neutralize the gunman once he began his rampage. He should have been outgunned after his first shots. To a criminal or deranged person bent on killing, a gun-free zone is a free-fire zone. As is obvious from all such incidents, the police arrive too late to prevent multiple killings.

Thatís not to disparage the police. In most cases, they act aggressively and competently. But they are rarely the first to arrive at the scene of a crime. The first ones there are the perpetrators and their victims. Thatís when self-defense weapons are needed, not after the damage is done.

...

In 1974, 34 Israeli students were gunned down in a bus on a school trip. Israel responded by arming teachers, administrators, bus drivers, and others to protect their children. Israel has not had a repeat of that tragedy. The U.S. governmentís response? Prohibit guns within 1,000 feet of schools, as if criminals and deranged people obey laws.

In October 1997, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick used a gun to stop a violent teen who was shooting up his high school in Pearl, Mississippi. The student killed two and wounded seven before Myrick could stop him. Why did it take Myrick so long to disarm the shooter? His gun was in his automobile, which was parked more than 1,000 feet from the school in compliance with the law.

In January 2002, a disgruntled student at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, shot and killed the dean, a professor, and a fellow student. He was disarmed and subdued before he could harm anyone else by two students who retrieved guns from their automobiles.
Utah and Oregon allow concealed-permit holders to carry their weapons on campus. To date, no school shooting incidents have occurred in these states.

The most heavily armed populations are the Swiss and the Israelis. Crime is negligible in both countries.

The Luby Cafeteria shootings in Killeen, Texas, on October, 16, 1991, where a gunman killed 23 people, provide a stark example of the danger of gun-control laws. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who was having lunch with her parents, left her gun in her car in compliance with state law. Her parents were among those killed. Two other diners also left their guns in their cars for fear of violating state law. Hupp had a clear shot at the killer several times as he reloaded and leisurely executed patrons.


Full article here

I never understood how anyone can be pro gun control. It does us no good. Criminals say they are more afraid of a victim being armed than a victim calling the police, so why are guns bad?
Marney1
Gun control does'nt cut gun crime, sounds stupid but its true.
Second amendment is being torn up by the do gooders.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Bad article. Preaches to the choir but still manages to offend those sitting on the fence by being needlessly aggressive and making no persuasive points, apart from the Israeli example, which, if I'm being scientific, is cherry-picking and unempirical.

in b4 a self-rightous right winger comes in and calls me a liberal douche without knowing my views on gun control.
Skinny†
QUOTE
making no persuasive points, apart from the Israeli example

Did you somehow miss the other five examples?
TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Apr 7 2009, 08:12 AM) [snapback]1494313[/snapback]
Bad article. Preaches to the choir but still manages to offend those sitting on the fence by being needlessly aggressive and making no persuasive points, apart from the Israeli example, which, if I'm being scientific, is cherry-picking and unempirical.

in b4 a self-rightous right winger comes in and calls me a liberal douche without knowing my views on gun control.


What a liberal douche.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 7 2009, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1494326[/snapback]
QUOTE
making no persuasive points, apart from the Israeli example

Did you somehow miss the other five examples?
define:persuasive

Preaching absolutely to the choir, to think of any of those points as even slightly persuasive you would have to first accept that gun control increases gun crime, which renders them redundant in any and every sphere of argument (nodding in agreement and patting each other on the back is in no way argument).
Skinny†
QUOTE
to think of any of those points as even slightly persuasive you would have to first accept that gun control increases gun crime

No you don't. All they are, are examples of where gun ownership helped, or could have helped. If you would like more examples, don't hesitate to ask me.

The incident in texas was probably the best example on the dangers of gun control. She had a CLEAR SHOT, but didn't have her gun with her because she wanted to obey the law. Many of those people would still be alive, if it wasn't for the liberal douches.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Then again, coming from a country where gun control is the law and the culture, there's been one shooting of defenceless people in...a very long time. And even then, the only people that could theoretically have shot back were preschoolers.
Darth Sexy
I really can't be arsed arguing endlessly about whether gun control kills more people or not. All I'll say is that in Australia, where we have strict gun control laws, I can't think of any school shootings, and only a handful of armed mass murders.
Marneyo Juano
I think this has been discussed over before, gun control isn't doing any good.
Except for that, all I've gotta add that the Israelis are nothing like heavily armed (atleast not legally). To get a gun permit here, you have to work at some dangerous place such as Gaza and it's surrounding (electricians and such who work in that area can carry guns) except for that, you'll never get a gun license outside the army. Maybe the only thing keeping up the statistic are the soldiers that carry their weapons outside the base for security measures. And the crime here is nothing like low, almost anyone can get grenades, pistols, rifles, charges etc with a couple phone calls. All that strict gun control here does no good cause all the criminal families and their soldiers carry illegal guns and the rest of the population who respects the law has to sit with their heads deep in the sand.
Heartless
QUOTE(Mario Juano @ Apr 12 2009, 10:54 AM) [snapback]1495257[/snapback]
I think this has been discussed over before, gun control isn't doing any good.
Except for that, all I've gotta add that the Israelis are nothing like heavily armed (atleast not legally). To get a gun permit here, you have to work at some dangerous place such as Gaza and it's surrounding (electricians and such who work in that area can carry guns) except for that, you'll never get a gun license outside the army. Maybe the only thing keeping up the statistic are the soldiers that carry their weapons outside the base for security measures. And the crime here is nothing like low, almost anyone can get grenades, pistols, rifles, charges etc with a couple phone calls. All that strict gun control here does no good cause all the criminal families and their soldiers carry illegal guns and the rest of the population who respects the law has to sit with their heads deep in the sand.


Sure, but do you want to be like the Arabs, and give everyone an AK?
Jasonhh
QUOTE(Der Metzgermeister @ Apr 12 2009, 12:15 PM) [snapback]1495261[/snapback]
QUOTE(Mario Juano @ Apr 12 2009, 10:54 AM) [snapback]1495257[/snapback]
I think this has been discussed over before, gun control isn't doing any good.
Except for that, all I've gotta add that the Israelis are nothing like heavily armed (atleast not legally). To get a gun permit here, you have to work at some dangerous place such as Gaza and it's surrounding (electricians and such who work in that area can carry guns) except for that, you'll never get a gun license outside the army. Maybe the only thing keeping up the statistic are the soldiers that carry their weapons outside the base for security measures. And the crime here is nothing like low, almost anyone can get grenades, pistols, rifles, charges etc with a couple phone calls. All that strict gun control here does no good cause all the criminal families and their soldiers carry illegal guns and the rest of the population who respects the law has to sit with their heads deep in the sand.


Sure, but do you want to be like the Arabs, and give everyone an AK?


True, every family in Iraq is allowed one fully automatic AK while full automatic weapons can hardly be found or bought legally in America. If school security was armed with more than a f**kin pepper spray and a little more training some of these crimes wouldn't be occurring. Banning guns isn't a good idea because you can always go out on the streets and buy one.
Marneyo Juano
lol pepper spray and training vs a 9mm. win.
If the terrorists (who can buy AK whether automatic weapons are legal or not) weren't shooting the American soldiers, the gun crime there wold be pretty low. Of course you can't compare the western world and the middle east when it comes to agression and gun crime. A whole different mentality.
Marney1
http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/ob...an-list-is-out/

Read it ^
Heartless
QUOTE(Mario Juano @ Apr 12 2009, 07:51 PM) [snapback]1495320[/snapback]
lol pepper spray and training vs a 9mm. win.
If the terrorists (who can buy AK whether automatic weapons are legal or not) weren't shooting the American soldiers, the gun crime there wold be pretty low. Of course you can't compare the western world and the middle east when it comes to agression and gun crime. A whole different mentality.


I'm not trying to compare them. I'm merely suggesting that the Jewish hierarchy views crime in a different way then the Muslim world. If I, as a Muslim man, took my wife into the backyard and shot her, I doubt I'd see any real repercussions, even with a heavy American presence. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
I'm not sure that's right.
Marneyo Juano
QUOTE(Der Metzgermeister @ Apr 13 2009, 05:01 AM) [snapback]1495370[/snapback]
QUOTE(Mario Juano @ Apr 12 2009, 07:51 PM) [snapback]1495320[/snapback]
lol pepper spray and training vs a 9mm. win.
If the terrorists (who can buy AK whether automatic weapons are legal or not) weren't shooting the American soldiers, the gun crime there wold be pretty low. Of course you can't compare the western world and the middle east when it comes to agression and gun crime. A whole different mentality.


I'm not trying to compare them. I'm merely suggesting that the Jewish hierarchy views crime in a different way then the Muslim world. If I, as a Muslim man, took my wife into the backyard and shot her, I doubt I'd see any real repercussions, even with a heavy American presence. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.


QUOTE
Of course you can't compare the western world and the middle east when it comes to agression and gun crime. A whole different mentality
(Middle east meaning the arabic countries, not Israel as it's closer to the western mentality.)
Marney1
http://www.gunbanobama.com/

Gun Ban On The Way? ^
Indy
These sites aren't biased at all.
Skinny†
QUOTE(Ind• @ Apr 17 2009, 05:17 AM) [snapback]1496310[/snapback]
These sites aren't biased at all.

Good idea, attack the source, then you won't have to come up with a proper argument!
Leon Kennedy
k, I'm new here, so let everyone flame the shit out of my response...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. How many times have you seen a gun just jump off the table, load itself, point and shoot at someone? I'd guess never.

Gun control laws don't work. Fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal in the US for as long as I can remember, and people still get a hold of them and use them to kill each other.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 21 2009, 12:02 PM) [snapback]1497552[/snapback]
QUOTE(Ind• @ Apr 17 2009, 05:17 AM) [snapback]1496310[/snapback]
These sites aren't biased at all.

Good idea, attack the source, then you won't have to come up with a proper argument!
True the source is never relevant.


QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 21 2009, 01:26 PM) [snapback]1497559[/snapback]
k, I'm new here, so let everyone flame the shit out of my response...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. How many times have you seen a gun just jump off the table, load itself, point and shoot at someone? I'd guess never.

Gun control laws don't work. Fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal in the US for as long as I can remember, and people still get a hold of them and use them to kill each other.
When was the last time you saw a kid kill 10 people with his bare hands?

Not that that's a conclusive argument on my end, but it's equally disingenuous.
Skinny†
QUOTE
When was the last time you saw a kid kill 10 people with his bare hands?

When he says "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."it's obviously hyperbole. The point to be made, is that in the hands of law abiding citizens, guns do no damage (well, there are accidental shootings, but the scale of the problem is so minor that they aren't even mentioned in the US government's health reports), and it's impossible to stop them from falling in to the hands of criminals.
Marney1
[youtube]xv-2XYOtgCg[/youtube]
Guns Don't Kill - Rappers Do ^
Leon Kennedy
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Apr 22 2009, 08:52 PM) [snapback]1497989[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 21 2009, 12:02 PM) [snapback]1497552[/snapback]
QUOTE(Ind• @ Apr 17 2009, 05:17 AM) [snapback]1496310[/snapback]
These sites aren't biased at all.

Good idea, attack the source, then you won't have to come up with a proper argument!
True the source is never relevant.


QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 21 2009, 01:26 PM) [snapback]1497559[/snapback]
k, I'm new here, so let everyone flame the shit out of my response...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. How many times have you seen a gun just jump off the table, load itself, point and shoot at someone? I'd guess never.

Gun control laws don't work. Fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal in the US for as long as I can remember, and people still get a hold of them and use them to kill each other.
When was the last time you saw a kid kill 10 people with his bare hands?

Not that that's a conclusive argument on my end, but it's equally disingenuous.

What I meant is that guns don't kill people on their own. People wielding guns kill people.

As far as your reference to the 10 year old killing someone with his or her bare hands, I have no response other than I can't believe you asked that. You obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say. dry.gif
Marney1
I still blame rappers.
Leon Kennedy
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1498117[/snapback]
I still blame rappers.

For what? Making guns sound cool? If so, then you should blame Dungeons & Dragons for making killing mythical creatures cool. You could blame rock & roll for sensationalizing sex and drugs. While you're at it, why don't you piss on the constitution because it gives people the right to bear arms? I know you have the right to your opinion, and that you have the right to speak your mind. That's all fine and dandy, but to blame the gun problem on rappers is short-sighted and inane.
DiO
QUOTE(Darth Sexy @ Apr 12 2009, 04:06 AM) [snapback]1495239[/snapback]
I really can't be arsed arguing endlessly about whether gun control kills more people or not. All I'll say is that in Australia, where we have strict gun control laws, I can't think of any school shootings, and only a handful of armed mass murders.



Same with Canada.
Marney1
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 23 2009, 08:39 PM) [snapback]1498179[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1498117[/snapback]
I still blame rappers.

For what? Making guns sound cool? If so, then you should blame Dungeons & Dragons for making killing mythical creatures cool. You could blame rock & roll for sensationalizing sex and drugs. While you're at it, why don't you piss on the constitution because it gives people the right to bear arms? I know you have the right to your opinion, and that you have the right to speak your mind. That's all fine and dandy, but to blame the gun problem on rappers is short-sighted and inane.


Fucking hell man! Get real I've already had my say, its a fucking joke - do you really think thats my opinion?
ViceMan
I hate the way rap music takes the rap (lol) for gun violence, maybe gangsta rap yes, but there are many subgenres of rap that don't involve lyrics about guns, sure there are plenty that mention guns in a way that mocks the gangsta imagery and glorification of guns.

Anyway that's my semi-serious opinion.
Mattay
Aw fuck. This is why I've been an NRA member the last four years...

The only thing excessive gun control does is limit the law-abiding citizen from protecting himself. You could ban guns, and criminals would still be able to get hold of them. And if Obama and that fucking whore Nancy Pelosi think they're going to take away my guns, they can fuck off. It's my American right to keep them. </hillbilly mattay>
TreeFitty
QUOTE(Mattay @ Apr 23 2009, 09:51 PM) [snapback]1498272[/snapback]
</American mattay>


fix'd
Leon Kennedy
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 02:48 PM) [snapback]1498186[/snapback]
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 23 2009, 08:39 PM) [snapback]1498179[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1498117[/snapback]
I still blame rappers.

For what? Making guns sound cool? If so, then you should blame Dungeons & Dragons for making killing mythical creatures cool. You could blame rock & roll for sensationalizing sex and drugs. While you're at it, why don't you piss on the constitution because it gives people the right to bear arms? I know you have the right to your opinion, and that you have the right to speak your mind. That's all fine and dandy, but to blame the gun problem on rappers is short-sighted and inane.


Fucking hell man! Get real I've already had my say, its a fucking joke - do you really think thats my opinion?

Being that I am new here and that I don't know anyone yet (nor do I know how they think and act), I can't say if I know that it's your opinion or not. For the time being, and until I get to know people out here, I have to take what you say at face value (unless what you say is blatantly and obviously a joke). In the case of your statement about rappers, there was no indication in this thread or your post to indicate that you were joking.

If it isn't your opinion that rap music is to be blamed for gun violence, then why did you post that it should be?
Marney1
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 24 2009, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1498307[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 02:48 PM) [snapback]1498186[/snapback]
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 23 2009, 08:39 PM) [snapback]1498179[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1498117[/snapback]
I still blame rappers.

For what? Making guns sound cool? If so, then you should blame Dungeons & Dragons for making killing mythical creatures cool. You could blame rock & roll for sensationalizing sex and drugs. While you're at it, why don't you piss on the constitution because it gives people the right to bear arms? I know you have the right to your opinion, and that you have the right to speak your mind. That's all fine and dandy, but to blame the gun problem on rappers is short-sighted and inane.


Fucking hell man! Get real I've already had my say, its a fucking joke - do you really think thats my opinion?

Being that I am new here and that I don't know anyone yet (nor do I know how they think and act), I can't say if I know that it's your opinion or not. For the time being, and until I get to know people out here, I have to take what you say at face value (unless what you say is blatantly and obviously a joke). In the case of your statement about rappers, there was no indication in this thread or your post to indicate that you were joking.

If it isn't your opinion that rap music is to be blamed for gun violence, then why did you post that it should be?


Because it was a fucking joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooke!!!!!!!
psychÝ
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 24 2009, 12:59 PM) [snapback]1498307[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 02:48 PM) [snapback]1498186[/snapback]
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 23 2009, 08:39 PM) [snapback]1498179[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 23 2009, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1498117[/snapback]
I still blame rappers.

For what? Making guns sound cool? If so, then you should blame Dungeons & Dragons for making killing mythical creatures cool. You could blame rock & roll for sensationalizing sex and drugs. While you're at it, why don't you piss on the constitution because it gives people the right to bear arms? I know you have the right to your opinion, and that you have the right to speak your mind. That's all fine and dandy, but to blame the gun problem on rappers is short-sighted and inane.


Fucking hell man! Get real I've already had my say, its a fucking joke - do you really think thats my opinion?

Being that I am new here and that I don't know anyone yet (nor do I know how they think and act), I can't say if I know that it's your opinion or not. For the time being, and until I get to know people out here, I have to take what you say at face value (unless what you say is blatantly and obviously a joke). In the case of your statement about rappers, there was no indication in this thread or your post to indicate that you were joking.

If it isn't your opinion that rap music is to be blamed for gun violence, then why did you post that it should be?

I have no idea why but I read that with the voice of Michael Jackson in my head, seems to make more sense that way.

On the issue of guns and shiz, no one should have them, but if they are already there you might as well just restrict the high powered ones, because as people are saying the criminals will still be able to get hold of all sorts so if everyone can have low powered ones for defence, then that will solve that problem without giving everyone snipers.
Skinny†
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 25 2009, 02:29 AM) [snapback]1498388[/snapback]
no one should have them

Of course they should. Just presenting guns stop thousands of crime every year. Why should people not have them?
Marney1
This video dates from before the election of
Obama and tells you his views on gun control in the US.
[youtube]pk9GwXJNM2c[/youtube]
psychÝ
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 25 2009, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1498570[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 25 2009, 02:29 AM) [snapback]1498388[/snapback]
no one should have them

Of course they should. Just presenting guns stop thousands of crime every year. Why should people not have them?

Because people are morons.
TwoFacedTanner
Weeell, I gotta say Hitler did gun control, and look how that turned out.
new major on the block
Banning guns or ammunition is never gonna solve theproblem. Crimminals are always gonna be just that. I love my 11 guns alot. And i plan to get more. people need to get off their damn high horse that have them thinking that they, because it seems to make society in their view more sophisticated and evolved if no one owns guns, is the only answer. IT ISN'T! Guns will always be around so get used to them. And if by some chance, as unlikely it will be, that guns were banned at least in the U.S., then we will start making our own. A world without weapons is only a perfect world for robots, not people. It is in our blood to kill, to engage in a hunt, to take any measure to protect ourselves. Fact is you have the right not to buy guns if you so choose. And when it comes down to it, the same guy or group of guys that try to rob you at gun point will also take the same chance robbing you at knife point. And when it comes to close quarters you are more likely to survive a gun assult than a knife assult. It doesn't make them any less dangerous of society any more safe when you remove someones right to carry a gun for protection or own one to protect their home.
If you wanna live in a world without guns, then i wanna live in a world without you. I think i would be safer, who knows what other freedoms hobbies or vices you would want to take away from me once guns are gone.
Skinny†
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2009, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1498742[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 25 2009, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1498570[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 25 2009, 02:29 AM) [snapback]1498388[/snapback]
no one should have them

Of course they should. Just presenting guns stop thousands of crime every year. Why should people not have them?

Because people are morons.

Let me rephrase, given that for every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use, what grounds are there for making them illegal.

A few facts from the above link if anyone is interested:

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed

59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are ďhot burglariesĒ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a ďhot burglaryĒ rate of only 13%

57% of felons polled agreed, 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminalís) is shed.

Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired
Leon Kennedy
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Let me rephrase, given that for every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use, what grounds are there for making them illegal.

A few facts from the above link if anyone is interested:

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

All this proves is that 83.5% of the people who were attacked and successfully defended themselves with a gun claim that the attacker used force first. It only proves that these people know how to claim self-defense.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Again, this is the word of the people defending themselves. I bet the actual number is truly much lower.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed

I'm curious to know if this takes into account only those citizens with guns that actually got a shot off, or if this includes those people who tried to get their weapon out and were screwed before they could.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed

I don't think so. Sounds like bullshit to me. Convicted felons will say anything to get themselves heard, and they will usually say only what someone wants to hear.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are ďhot burglariesĒ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a ďhot burglaryĒ rate of only 13%

No comment on this statistic. I can't because I'm not familiar with Britain's crime rate.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
57% of felons polled agreed, 'criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

I doubt it. Armed felons are more afraid of going to jail than anything else. Why would they be more afraid of an armed civilian, who in most cases has little to no training with the weapon, than they would be of a fully armed SWAT team?

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.

First, this is reported violent crimes, and not all violent crimes. Secondly, not using the weapon you brought with you is horseshit. The mere suggestion that you have a gun ("shut up or I'm gonna shoot you") qualifies as threatening to use a weapon.

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminalís) is shed.
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired

83.2% of all statistics are made up and completely fictional. There is absolutely no way to prove how many violent crimes are prevented by someone showing a gun.
Marney1
What is your point Marilyn?

Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?
psychÝ
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 27 2009, 02:11 PM) [snapback]1498917[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2009, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1498742[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 25 2009, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1498570[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 25 2009, 02:29 AM) [snapback]1498388[/snapback]
no one should have them

Of course they should. Just presenting guns stop thousands of crime every year. Why should people not have them?

Because people are morons.

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed


Well done, you just discredited all of your statistics as either there wasn't enough options or they are just lying as it is quite obvious some would just be like fuck off and just shoot them anyway. Yet according to that 100% of people wouldn't commit crime if guns existed, oh wait they do and in the US anyone might be armed so that 40% were lying in the first place.
Leon Kennedy
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
What is your point Marilyn?

My point was to point out the ridiculousness of the statistics that Skinny quoted.

QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?

Personally, I don't care for guns. I have no need for them, and I know my life is just fine without them. However, the law in this country states that law-abiding citizens have the right to own (and bear) arms, so I have to uphold and abide by the law.

Now, the real question is whether or not I agree with the law. Which I do. I don't like guns, but guns don't kill people on their own. And if the law states that everyone has the right, then everyone needs to police themselves on the use of the gun(s) that they own. This won't stop hardcore criminals from obtaining and using them illegally. Then again, nothing we do can stop criminals from breaking the law, now can we?

And before you go off on me, try to realize that I don't just blindly follow and obey the law. I don't agree with all laws in this country, and I have been known to break a few of them. But, according to the vast majority, the law is the law. And we in this country have no choice currently but to obey the law. It is high time this country had a revolution, but that's a different topic altogether...
Marney1
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 27 2009, 06:04 PM) [snapback]1498964[/snapback]
QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
What is your point Marilyn?

My point was to point out the ridiculousness of the statistics that Skinny quoted.

QUOTE(marney1 @ Apr 27 2009, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1498947[/snapback]
Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?

Personally, I don't care for guns. I have no need for them, and I know my life is just fine without them. However, the law in this country states that law-abiding citizens have the right to own (and bear) arms, so I have to uphold and abide by the law.

Now, the real question is whether or not I agree with the law. Which I do. I don't like guns, but guns don't kill people on their own. And if the law states that everyone has the right, then everyone needs to police themselves on the use of the gun(s) that they own. This won't stop hardcore criminals from obtaining and using them illegally. Then again, nothing we do can stop criminals from breaking the law, now can we?

And before you go off on me, try to realize that I don't just blindly follow and obey the law. I don't agree with all laws in this country, and I have been known to break a few of them. But, according to the vast majority, the law is the law. And we in this country have no choice currently but to obey the law. It is high time this country had a revolution, but that's a different topic altogether...



With all due respect you sound like a politition dodging a question; Are you in favour of law abiding citizens owning firearms or not?
Leon Kennedy
@Marney1: I believe I answered your question. You may not think so, but I did. You asked if I was in favour of law-abiding citizens being able to have guns, and I stated that I don't like guns, but the law is the law. On the flip side of this, let's say that I liked guns and wanted to own them, but the law stated that we could not have them at all. I'd still support the law. You'll find out that I may or may not like certain things, but I will always try to uphold the law as it stands where I live.

Now, if you really need it spelled out for you: No, I do not think that the average joe on the street should be allowed to carry a firearm. I also don't think that the cops, the military, the fbi, the cia, special forces, kids, criminals, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to carry firearms. But we shouldn't have to have laws that further control and confine what we can or cannot do. People should be more than responsible enough to police themselves when it comes to whether or not they should own a firearm, and what to do with it, and how to store it, and so on. It also isn't my place to force my ideas on someone by running off to congress and saying "I don't like guns, and I'm offended - treat me special and pass laws to eliminate guns or I'll cry and sue you in open court". And yes, that is a prime example of how laws in this country get passed. Someone gets offended at something, and they run off to their congressional representative, and they bitch until a law is passed.

Does this answer your question?
Marney1
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 27 2009, 07:59 PM) [snapback]1498977[/snapback]
@Marney1: I believe I answered your question. You may not think so, but I did. You asked if I was in favour of law-abiding citizens being able to have guns, and I stated that I don't like guns, but the law is the law. On the flip side of this, let's say that I liked guns and wanted to own them, but the law stated that we could not have them at all. I'd still support the law. You'll find out that I may or may not like certain things, but I will always try to uphold the law as it stands where I live.

Now, if you really need it spelled out for you: No, I do not think that the average joe on the street should be allowed to carry a firearm. I also don't think that the cops, the military, the fbi, the cia, special forces, kids, criminals, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to carry firearms. But we shouldn't have to have laws that further control and confine what we can or cannot do. People should be more than responsible enough to police themselves when it comes to whether or not they should own a firearm, and what to do with it, and how to store it, and so on. It also isn't my place to force my ideas on someone by running off to congress and saying "I don't like guns, and I'm offended - treat me special and pass laws to eliminate guns or I'll cry and sue you in open court". And yes, that is a prime example of how laws in this country get passed. Someone gets offended at something, and they run off to their congressional representative, and they bitch until a law is passed.

Does this answer your question?


Yes or No would suffice but I'm gathering that you're saying NO - 'you don't think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own firearms.'
Skinny†
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 28 2009, 02:09 AM) [snapback]1498944[/snapback]
All this proves is that 83.5% of the people who were attacked and successfully defended themselves with a gun claim that the attacker used force first. It only proves that these people know how to claim self-defense.

Not at all. The people were charged for using force, that's how they know it happened. If you don't think this is true, than feel free to prove that over 83.5% of juries on assault cases rule incorrectly. I also doubt that 83.5% of people who defend themselves with guns would lie to a survey for no reason.

QUOTE
I bet the actual number is truly much lower.
Exactly, you bet. Your opinion proves nothing.

QUOTE
I'm curious to know if this takes into account only those citizens with guns that actually got a shot off, or if this includes those people who tried to get their weapon out and were screwed before they could.

Is it relevant? Yes, it's possible to be attcked before getting your weapon out, but it's still much better to have a weapon than to be unarmed.

QUOTE
I don't think so. Sounds like bullshit to me. Convicted felons will say anything to get themselves heard
Your opinion proves nothing. How do you know they will "say anyting to get themselves heard" and for what purpose?

QUOTE
and they will usually say only what someone wants to hear.

How do you know this? It think it's just your opinion, which proves nothing.

Use empirical evidence, from criminology or psychology to show that they will lie to surveys, even when they have no reason to.

QUOTE
Armed felons are more afraid of going to jail than anything else.
Actually, I think they would be more afraid of dying; at least they get out of jail someday, and if they are only injured by the citizen, then they will likely be taken to jail anyway, but will be unable to run (far).

QUOTE
Why would they be more afraid of an armed civilian, who in most cases has little to no training with the weapon, than they would be of a fully armed SWAT team?

Because they aren't running up to the SWAT team or breaking into the SWAT team's house.... the SWAT team will be comming after them, meaning they can escape.

QUOTE
First, this is reported violent crimes, and not all violent crimes.
There are a lot less unreported crimes, than there are reported crimes. What makes you think the statistc will be any differet? Even if it is, reported crimes are still the majority, meaning the majority of facts on the matter support gun rights.

QUOTE
Secondly, not using the weapon you brought with you is horseshit.

If you think this is true, then simply find the study they took that stat from and prove it false.

QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 28 2009, 02:54 AM) [snapback]1498960[/snapback]
you just discredited all of your statistics

Try reading the actual source? It's a fact sheet, not one study. They refernce a different study for nearly every statistic.

QUOTE
they are just lying as it is quite obvious some would just be like fuck off and just shoot them anyway.
What the fuck did you just say? Assuming you mean criminals will just shoot people even if they are amred: criminals try to avoid firing shots (as proved by my other statistics) as they will likely attract attention, while citizens have no such concern, as their shooting is within the law.

QUOTE
in the US anyone might be armed so that 40% were lying in the first place.

All it proves is that these people either avoid sticking people up (it's 40% of criminals surveyed, not 40% of people convicted of stick ups) or that they stick to gun free zones.

Anyway, as much ass as I kick at pwning liberals, Penn & Teller have me beat:

[youtube]SCXtfR0_roE&feature=related[/youtube]


I loved where the victim asked why there are no mass murders at gun clubs or NRA conventions. Anyone want to take a crack at that?
Marney1
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 30 2009, 08:09 AM) [snapback]1499594[/snapback]
QUOTE(Marilyn.Manson @ Apr 28 2009, 02:09 AM) [snapback]1498944[/snapback]
All this proves is that 83.5% of the people who were attacked and successfully defended themselves with a gun claim that the attacker used force first. It only proves that these people know how to claim self-defense.

Not at all. The people were charged for using force, that's how they know it happened. If you don't think this is true, than feel free to prove that over 83.5% of juries on assault cases rule incorrectly. I also doubt that 83.5% of people who defend themselves with guns would lie to a survey for no reason.

QUOTE
I bet the actual number is truly much lower.
Exactly, you bet. Your opinion proves nothing.

QUOTE
I'm curious to know if this takes into account only those citizens with guns that actually got a shot off, or if this includes those people who tried to get their weapon out and were screwed before they could.

Is it relevant? Yes, it's possible to be attcked before getting your weapon out, but it's still much better to have a weapon than to be unarmed.

QUOTE
I don't think so. Sounds like bullshit to me. Convicted felons will say anything to get themselves heard
Your opinion proves nothing. How do you know they will "say anyting to get themselves heard" and for what purpose?

QUOTE
and they will usually say only what someone wants to hear.

How do you know this? It think it's just your opinion, which proves nothing.

Use empirical evidence, from criminology or psychology to show that they will lie to surveys, even when they have no reason to.

QUOTE
Armed felons are more afraid of going to jail than anything else.
Actually, I think they would be more afraid of dying; at least they get out of jail someday, and if they are only injured by the citizen, then they will likely be taken to jail anyway, but will be unable to run (far).

QUOTE
Why would they be more afraid of an armed civilian, who in most cases has little to no training with the weapon, than they would be of a fully armed SWAT team?

Because they aren't running up to the SWAT team or breaking into the SWAT team's house.... the SWAT team will be comming after them, meaning they can escape.

QUOTE
First, this is reported violent crimes, and not all violent crimes.
There are a lot less unreported crimes, than there are reported crimes. What makes you think the statistc will be any differet? Even if it is, reported crimes are still the majority, meaning the majority of facts on the matter support gun rights.

QUOTE
Secondly, not using the weapon you brought with you is horseshit.

If you think this is true, then simply find the study they took that stat from and prove it false.

QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 28 2009, 02:54 AM) [snapback]1498960[/snapback]
you just discredited all of your statistics

Try reading the actual source? It's a fact sheet, not one study. They refernce a different study for nearly every statistic.

QUOTE
they are just lying as it is quite obvious some would just be like fuck off and just shoot them anyway.
What the fuck did you just say? Assuming you mean criminals will just shoot people even if they are amred: criminals try to avoid firing shots (as proved by my other statistics) as they will likely attract attention, while citizens have no such concern, as their shooting is within the law.

QUOTE
in the US anyone might be armed so that 40% were lying in the first place.

All it proves is that these people either avoid sticking people up (it's 40% of criminals surveyed, not 40% of people convicted of stick ups) or that they stick to gun free zones.

Anyway, as much ass as I kick at pwning liberals, Penn & Teller have me beat:

[youtube]SCXtfR0_roE&feature=related[/youtube]


I loved where the victim asked why there are no mass murders at gun clubs or NRA conventions. Anyone want to take a crack at that?


I think its the discipline which comes with being a lawful gun owner.
Plus if you tried a carrying out a mass shooting on armed people.......well we know what would happen.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.