General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)How about a scoreboard with # of tyrants in countries with 2A vs # of tyrants in countries without it over the last 220 years?
And, of course, you could have all the tick marks for the millions upon millions of co-workers, students, spouses, store clerks, etc... killed by those tyrants.
And no... if you start to list US presidents as tyrants... you just prove that you haven't a clue what the word means.
Aristus
(72,187 posts)but it's hard not to think that the gun-supporters do. All their talk about the 'eeevil gubmint gonna take mah gunzzzzz!"
There should be a separate score box for 'Guns confiscated by the government from law-abiding gun-owners' with a similar zero-count.
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)... but it wasn't hard to guess the types of posts a thread like this would bring.
but it's hard not to think that the gun-supporters do.
Of course that's ridiculous. There are almost as many guns in the country as there are people. It's building a straw man to pretend that "gun supporters" are predominantly "militia" types or paranoid about the government taking their guns.
OTOH... there clearly are people on the other side who absolutely would like for the government to do just that.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
(snip)
The findings contrast with the impression left by a flurry of news reports about people rushing to buy guns and clearing shop shelves of assault rifles after the massacre last year at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
(snip)
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)... that tens of millions of households are far RW militia types?
The findings contrast with the impression left by a flurry of news reports about people rushing to buy guns
Was any of the data post-flurry? The most recent poll I've seen said 39% - which would support rather than contrast the impression.
Then there's the fact that other surveys don't show the same thing that GSS does.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=1&
That decline, which has been studied by researchers for years but is relatively unknown among the general public, suggests that even as the conversation on guns remains contentious, a broad shift away from gun ownership is under way in a growing number of American homes. It also raises questions about the future politics of gun control. Will efforts to regulate guns eventually meet with less resistance if they are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands — or more resistance?
(snip)
But researchers say the survey done by the center at the University of Chicago is crucial because it has consistently tracked gun ownership since 1973, asking if respondents “happen to have in your home (or garage) any guns or revolvers.”
(snip)
Gallup, which asks a similar question but has a different survey design, shows a higher ownership rate and a more moderate decrease. No national survey tracks the number of guns within households.
(snip)
Tom W. Smith, the director of the General Social Survey, which is financed by the National Science Foundation, said he was confident in the trend. It lines up, he said, with two evolving patterns in American life: the decline of hunting and a sharp drop in violent crime, which has made the argument for self-protection much less urgent.
The report states there are several dynamics which back up this reduction in the rate of guns owned by the general populace.
1. Rural areas where gun ownership is highest is decreasing as urbanization spreads.
2. The decline of hunting.
3. More women are single head of households and women have a lower rate ( less than a third of men) of gun ownership.
4. A growing Hispanic and Latino population which also has lower a rate of gun ownership 14%.
5. A smaller % of the population in the military as compared to the days of Vietnam, the military being an introduction to guns for many people.
6. While gun ownership among the elderly has stayed constant since the early 70s, it has dropped dramatically among people 44 or younger.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Ah! I see. In the minds of 80,000,000+ fellow American "gun supporters."
Do you lay awake at night, fearing tyrants?
Aristus
(72,187 posts)I was referring to the gun-nuts and their hysterical, kindergarten fears of the nasty evil 'gubmint.'
I don't live my life in fear. That's no kind of life at all.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)lest, in the future, some may see your remarks as stereotyping millions of people in the service of a winless culture war.
Aristus
(72,187 posts)at least don't sport it around openly where everyone can see it. Don't assume you need one so you can order a meal in Applebee's. Don't cower in a corner and insist that someone is trying to take your gun away. Don't loudly insist that the deaths of innocent children are inconsequential next to your right to own an instrument of mass-murder. Don't stick one of those cockamamie "God, Guns 'N' Coffee" stickers on your car.
If you're not one of those people whose every action screams "gun-fanatic", then I have no problem with you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Aristus
(72,187 posts)If I see someone flaunting a gun in public, waving it around and intimidating the customers at Sam's Club, what do I need to know about this guy that I don't get from the gun behavior?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Aristus
(72,187 posts)Congressmen to support legislation that would make this behavior punishable.
They can't ignore 80,000,000 of you. Unless you don't write.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)who leave the keyboard long enough to volunteer for any meaningful work? Or is it all on a consultant's fee schedule?
Aristus
(72,187 posts)To pro-sanity people and the general public, those gun-waving assholes are the face of the pro-gun community. If you don't like the stereotype of the gun-humper, and think they make 'responsible, law-abiding gun-owners' look bad, it's your job to do something about it, not mine.
I'm fine with the pro-mass-murder, guns-everywhere, limp-dick stereotype. It makes my job that much easier.
"my work" 
You're the one opposed to the stereotype, not me...
TrollBuster9090
(6,129 posts)A) There are PLENTY of countries that have managed to avoid tyranny, despite not having a policy of giving away guns in boxes of crackerjacks, and
B) Somehow all those legions of losers in camo fatigues, shooting at beer cans with Barrack Obama's picture taped to them with their Bushmasters didn't manage to prevent: warrant-less wiretaps, NSA meta-data mining, indefinite detention, torture by proxy, suspension of habeas corpus, targeted assassinations, voter suppression, and/or election rigging. And again, there are PLENTY of countries that have managed to avoid all those things without having to cater to the every whim of gun-fetish loonies.
Anybody who thinks the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was to give American citizens the power to overthrow their own government hasn't read their history. Particularly the history of the Militia Acts, and the Whiskey Rebellion.
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)A) There are PLENTY of countries that have managed to avoid tyranny
So? It's the cartoon that's trying to pretend that the only argument made for 2A is overthrowing tyrants. But you seem to be confusing a correlation with some type of unity (that is... all non-tyrant governments have a 2A parallel). We can certainly respond to the silly cartoon pretending that 2A supporters do so just for avoiding tyranical regimes... by pointing out that if that WERE the only purpose, it would be successful not by overthrowing a tyrant, but by avoing them.
B) Somehow all those legions of losers in camo fatigues, shooting at beer cans with Barrack Obama's picture taped to them with their Bushmasters didn't manage to prevent...
As if the 300 million + firearms in the country are exclusively (or even predominantly) owned by far-right militia nuts.
Anybody who thinks the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was to give American citizens the power to overthrow their own government hasn't read their history.
Tell it to James Madison. It wasn't THE pupose... but it was certainly A purpose.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)....so the murder of 6 year olds is simply the price we have to pay to sooth the irrational fears of a few. Joe? Is that you?
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)I fail to see the connection.
so the murder of 6 year olds is simply the price we have to pay to sooth the irrational fears of a few
??? Was that supposed to make sense? Are the deaths of children in drunk-driving accidents the "price" we have to pay for a free society (without prohibition laws)? Are those children killed in car accidents the "price" of allowing people to drive cars?
There are countries with high gun ownership rates with far lower violence statistics (and vise-versa). I'm sure that you would like to blame deaths on opposing viewpoints, but that doesn't make it so.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Yep those guns have kept us safe from tyrants! Like GW kept us safe from terrorists.
Stupid!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That was back when Democrats believed "majority rule" meant the minority had no rights.
(Which is why they were in the minority)
dilby
(2,273 posts)Wonder if the 1st Amendment is only needed to protect us from Tyrants, maybe we can toss that one out as well.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)The Alien and Sedition Acts and McCarthyism.
If anything the Second Amendment prolonged the Civil War as the North had most of the nation's armaments, Southerners primarily depended on personal weapons.
The South feared the 1st Amendment above a more heavily populated and better armed North, they knew freedom of speech would eventually win out in the debate regarding the morality of slavery, thus they were compelled to leave.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Something another Uncle Joe would be proud of. No, the Second Amendment did not prolong the civil war. If the Bill of Rights never existed people in the South would have still had personal weapons. It was a largely rural, agrarian society and weapons were part of that. James Madison would have a good chuckle at your post.
They certainly had no fear about a morality debate on slavery. What they feared was the Constitution banning the importation of slaves after 1807. They knew that would eventually make slavery economically nonviable and it did.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)but if there hadn't been a 2nd Amendment, logic dictates there would've been fewer weapons.
The Second Amendment was an ingrained part of the culture.
The South knew the North had a superior population and held the most armaments yet they left risking war regardless because the oligarch plantation owners in the South feared the power of the 1st Amendment even more as it posed the greatest danger to their ability to "justify" holding slaves on any moral grounds.
Slavery was very profitable to the big slave owners long after the importation of slavery was outlawed, the invention of the Cotton Gin virtually assured it.
Indeed the 1st Amendment was instrumental in bringing about the outlawing of slave importation and the rise of the abolitionalists.
If the slaveowners hadn't feared the 1st Amendment, teaching slaves to read and write wouldn't have been against the law but they knew eloquent slaves and reason would more so humanize them versus making them easy demonization targets.
Slaveowners above all else feared reason and its' accompanying compassion from taking hold, empathy was their enemy.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)And add a mark for mine?
Thank you.
SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)Would like to hear how a gun saved your life.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)Someone tried to murder me. Another person shot and killed the person trying to murder me.
Fla Dem
(27,633 posts)Now if only we could get rid of the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time with a gun taking innocent lives.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You might get more support if these people..."the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time with a gun taking innocent lives"...were the focus
Instead, it seems most want to ignore that this latest tragedy happened in CA, a state which has assault weapon ban, waiting periods, registration, universal background checks and magazine capacity regs, and take it up with the other 99.5 percent of us that didn't kill anyone and never will.
And were supposed to just shut up and take it, apparently.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)became the wrong person. Take away the gun from the good person and they won't become the wrong person.
beevul
(12,194 posts)So before this tragedy you'd have been fine being this guys room mate?
I didn't think so.
"Take away the gun and even the wrong person is not the wrong person."
You didn't think that one through very well did you.
Take away the gun, and your still left with the three people he stabbed to death before he shot anyone.
That doesn't make him a "wrong person" in your eyes?
Someone said, "its the guns", and you've just made that blatantly clear.
"Its the guns" to you antigunners alright.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Take guns away and they won't have a "chance to become the wrong person."
Unless they then acquire a knife and a killing field apartment.
So much for free will.
SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)Specifics would have been nice, so I'll just assume that it was not a policeman who did the shooting, as obviously cops will always have guns.
Seeing as your life was in danger, I'm also assuming that the person trying to kill you also had a gun. Did that person also have the 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun, without restriction or regulation, as the NRA insists?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Four unwarranted assumptions:
"obviously cops will always have guns."
This is not the case for beat cops in the UK. Some can obtain access fairly readily, but most do not carry at all.
"I'm also assuming that the person trying to kill you also had a gun"
Why? Can people not be stabbed, beaten, choked, etc?
"Did that person also have the 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun"
When engaged in criminal activity, no, you don't, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony, like attempted murder, is a sentence amplifier that has withstood numerous court challenges.
"without restriction or regulation, as the NRA insists"
The NRA crafted the 1934 NFA, which restricts fully automatic weapons. The NRA also attempted to derail the Heller vs. DC case, for a variety of reasons. The NRA supported the 1994 CAWB portion that established the NICS background check, and the prohibition on armor piercing handgun ammo.
(Edit: four, not two.)
devils chaplain
(602 posts)...on those certain occasions where being ejected from your car is a preferable outcome to being secured inside it.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)Given that the amendments to the constitution require an underlying Constitution to amend, and that the Constitution could not exist without the Declaration of Independence, why can't we rely on higher precedent from that document declaring that
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ....
No-one has the right to take a life. Anyone showing the propensity to do so, should be divested of the means to the best of our ability.
As many others have said, it's not perfect, but do have the ability to rewrite statute and reinterpret the Constitution using expanded awareness of the prevailing conditions at the time they were written.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)as the cornerstone for the legal authority of our government?
That's disgusting.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)Having said that I don't view the term "Creator" as being strictly deistic either.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create?s=t
cre·ate/kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled [kree-eyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing.
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
3. Theater . to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Plus "Supreme Judge of the world" and "Divine Providence"
All clearly deistic language.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)can mean evolution decades before Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution came to light.
"Supreme Judge of the World" is calling to a higher morality and let history be the judge.
"Divine Providence" can mean the best aspects of human nature.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divine?s=t
12. the Divine.
a. God.
b. ( sometimes lowercase ) the spiritual aspect of humans; the group of attributes and qualities of humankind regarded as godly or godlike.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/providence?s=t
prov·i·dence/ˈprɒvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [prov-i-duhns] Show IPA
noun
1. ( often initial capital letter ) the foreseeing care and guidance of God or nature over the creatures of the earth.
Again this pertains to evolution pre-Darwin.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
The primary thrust of the document is that being the right of the people, not the clergy, not the king nor dictator in determining their own course.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)something else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Providence
The term has specific meaning. Jefferson was a deist. He even re-wrote the new testament to remove all references to miracles, etc.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080704190612AAZUkpj
From what I understand, Tomas Jefferson was the primary author of the United States Declaration of Independence. It is a fact that Jefferson has been accused of being an atheist. Here are some direct quotes from Jefferson regarding his religious beliefs, “Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone”. Another is, “Am of a sect by myself, as far as I know”. It is a common misconception that our founding fathers were all Christians. Here’s a website with the EXACT information you are looking for.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fa...
Edit for Jersey Guy: I'm well aware of what an atheist is. Notice the wording I used... I said he has been accused of being an atheist. That is a fact. I never said he actually was. Of course atheism has always been frowned upon, so he could have said those things to avoid confrontation over his beliefs. Only President Jefferson truly knows.
Source:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quot...
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fa...
Asker's rating & comment
most informative
http://www.wallofseparation.us/founding-fathers/
Thomas Jefferson (principal author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third President) – Jefferson was a leading Deist who voiced respect for Jesus as a human teacher of moral truths, but was not an active churchman and rejected the doctrinal teachings of the Bible. Other than Baptists (who loved Jefferson for allying with them on enacting religious liberty for all and church state separation in the new American nation), many Christians of the day dismissed Jefferson as a heretic, infidel, and even an atheist.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Unfortunately, we would have to ask him to know for certain. I infer deist from his writings, but, I cannot claim to know that for certain.
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)My Creator is my Dad, and I Occasionally capitalize words Wantonly 
unblock
(56,198 posts)This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
the declaration of independence is occasionally cited in court decisions, but it is not a "precedent" and it is certainly not "higher" than the constitution. strictly speaking, all it does is assert that we are not subject to british law. no more, no less.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)If someone is attacking me or a third party with the intent to kill or cause serious injury I may take a life to preserve my life or the life of an innocent third party. I may also use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. This has been upheld by numerous court rulings.
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)If that were the case, there would never be a reason to change the law.
Thinking that " This has been upheld by numerous court rulings. " is a justification for taking a life is completely against everything I was taught.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You were taught that it was morally acceptable to allow an aggressor to harm or kill an innocent third party rather than intervene and stop the assault? Were you taught that you had no right to self defense against an aggressor and must allow that person to maim or kill you without attempting to stop the attack?
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)I was taught that defense was acceptable and even that attack is the best form of defense.
However, as Mr Miyagi said "Better: never fight" ("Karate Kid" movies).
Killing was NEVER acceptable in what I was taught.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)However, we do not live in a perfect world, we live in the current reality. In that reality, there are people bent on murder and mayhem and the only way to effectively stop their aggressive action is to incapacitate them, sometimes permanently. Given that fact; yes I do have the right to take another live to protect myself or a third party from the threat of death or serious bodily harm. While such a decision is not to be made lightly it is mine to make if sufficient cause exists.
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)Are you always the best judge of who is attacking you?
If I saw a runaway car behind you and ran towards you to move you out of its way would you feel justified in shooting me because I looked like I was attacking you? (Right before the car takes you out anyway).
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)If you are running at me to move me out of the way are you shouting "hey look out" and pointing toward the car? In order to justify self defense I would need to articulate something more than you were running at me; you would have to be doing something more to convince a reasonable person of prudent caution that my actions were justified. Your simply running in my direction would not, in and of itself, present a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
Regarding "Stand Your Ground"; this has become a convenient rally cry but is generally misunderstood. All a Stand Your Ground law does is allow the use of force to defend oneself from an attack without first attempting to retreat; this is a concept which I fully support. Any other interpretation, such as "Duty to Retreat" places the attacker on a higher moral plane by requiring the victim, by law, to retreat before acting in self-defense. In most states Stand Your Ground is common law regarding self defense cases, Duty to Retreat came along later and has not resulted in reduced violence as a result.
dickthegrouch
(4,528 posts)incapacitated me after bumping into him in the airport.
Jet lagged and tired after a sleepless few days, I walked into a guy in the airport. He jabbed me in the ribs hard enough to leave me gasping for breath on the floor. I never saw who he was, he ran (f'ing coward), and this was long before ubiquitous cameras.
No, it is far too easy to make a mistake even when assessing 'attack'. '24' just had an excellent example of that on Monday's show in the International arena. It is no different when up close and personal.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)as your walking into him did not present a threat, especially in an airport. That is likely why he ran, as he was aware he had broken the law by assaulting you. I doubt he was truly paranoid, just a violent jerk who enjoyed hurting others and did not want to answer for his actions.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)How silly to assert otherwise.
What philosophy (assuming you actually have one and this wasn't just a platitude) do you ascribe to that denies you the right to self-defense?
Dpm12
(512 posts)just how true this is
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thanks for the thread Uncle Joe !!!
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)Firearms are also used for legitimate self defense.
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense?
By Paul Barrett December 27, 2012
***snip***
So how often do Americans use guns to defend themselves? If it almost never happens, then the NRA argument is based on a fallacy and deserves little respect in the fashioning of public policy. If, on the other hand, defensive gun use (DGU) is relatively common, then even a diehard gun-control advocate with any principles and common sense would admit that this fact must be given some weight.
***snip***
What’s the upshot?
1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.
2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy....emphasis added
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
My mother was walking home from work in the 1920 time frame. A man hiding behind some bushes rushed her. Fortunately she had a tiny S&W revolver in her purse and she was able to draw it in time to fire two shoots over her attacker's head. He ran.
A man tried to force the sliding glass door of our home open one night. He was halfway through the door when my daughter pointed a large caliber revolver at him. He also ran.
In most incidents involving DGU (defensive gun uses) no shots are fired. The fact that the victim is armed with a lethal weapon causes to predator to stop his attack. Such incidents never make it into the statistics.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)square with the statistics.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
But the 2012 murder rate — 4.7 murders per 100,000 people — was significantly higher than in most other wealthy nations.
The comparable rate is 0.4 in Japan, 0.8 in Germany, 1.0 in Australia 1.1 in France and 1.2 in Britain, according to figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(snip)
The United States is one of the world’s most heavily-armed nations, with between one-third and one-half of Americans owning guns and strong political resistance to regulations on ownership.
The survey showed that violent crime rates tended to be higher in the historic South and lower in the Northeast and Midwest.
The South is the region with the most guns and highest murder rate.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRreg
REGIONAL MURDER RATES, 2001 - 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURDER RATES PER 100,000 PEOPLE
REGION 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 EXECUTIONS SINCE 1976
(As of 5/6/14)
South 5.5 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.6 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.7 1126
Midwest 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 165
West 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 84
Northeast 3.8 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4
NATIONAL RATE 4.7 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.6
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
Region
East 22 %
Midwest 39 %
South 50 %
West 37 %
spin
(17,493 posts)It only seems logical that the skyrocketing sale of firearms would in turn create a skyrocketing crime rate. The opposite seems to be true. Obviously there are many factors in the violent crime equation but if more guns do indeed cause more violent crime and are the most important factor, than surely the crime rate would have shown a dramatic increase.
FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows
Monday Jun 11, 2012 3:17 PM
By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News
Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows, according to new FBI data released Monday.
Instances of murder declined overall by 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while rape, robbery and aggravated assault declined by 4 percent nationwide, according to records from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country, FBI spokesman Bill Carter told msnbc.com.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite
OP/ED | 2/21/2012 @ 1:32PM |223,884 views
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby
As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.
National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
Surely in Florida where over 1,000,000 residents have concealed weapons permits violent gun crime must have surged. Maybe not:
Thursday, 21 March 2013 15:46
Florida Update: Concealed Carry Permits Up, Violent Crime Down
Written by Bob Adelmann
The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history, delighted Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “We’re happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win,” he said.
Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.
There were naysayers, but their voices are becoming muted as more and more states have adopted “shall-issue” carry laws and have seen their own crime rates drop as well. One of the naysayers was Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who calls himself “as liberal as they get.” He said the link between more permits and less crime might just be a coincidence. He said that nationally, crime has been falling steadily since 1991 and Florida’s numbers might just be part of that trend. He warned against drawing too hasty a conclusion that one statistic caused the other. "The real problem there in drawing conclusions is that you’re guessing why that decline or change in gun violence has occurred," he stated.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)OP/ED | 2/21/2012 @ 1:32PM |223,884 views
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby
As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.
National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
The early 1960s was a time when the U.S. had a very large young population as the baby boomers were in their teens and early 20s on top of that the 60s was a most turbulent decade with racial strife and Vietnam Vets returning home with PTSD.
From a demographic standpoint, the nation has been aging ever since and Florida has led with the way with the nation's largest % of senior citizens and despite that Florida still has the 17th highest murder rate in the nation as of 2012.
spin
(17,493 posts)They definitely are part of the equation and a significant part.
My point is that gun control advocates often seem to feel that if we could only pass gun laws such as exist in Great Britain we would live in a crime free utopia. In my opinion that is a simplistic way of looking at a very complex problem.
If indeed civilian firearm ownership was the most important factor then considering the skyrocketing sale of firearms and ammunition in the last decade, we would surely by now see a significant increase in violent crime. Obviously criminals with firearms cause violent crime. So do people with severe mental issues, those who suffer from anger management problems and people who tend to abuse alcohol. However much of the negative effect of firearm availability on the crime rate is offset by their deterrent value.
Explaining the falling crime rate in Florida by saying that the aging population is responsible ignores the fact that Florida is not just attracting residents who are elderly retirees. For example when I first moved to the Tampa Bay Area in Florida in 1969, St Petersburg was a fairly sleepy town with green benches for the elderly to sit on and socialize.
Over the 37 years that I lived in the Area the demographics changed. The green benches are gone and an influx of younger people who left the industrial rust belt occurred. Younger people from states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York State, Michigan, Wisconsin came to work and raise families in the urban areas of Florida. I worked with people from many states and it was unusual to find a native Floridian.
Florida also had a wave of immigration from other nations such as Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Columbia. I lived in a neighborhood in Tampa and when I retired I was one one the few homeowners on my street who had been born in the United States. In order to talk to one of my next door neighbors, one of his children had to interpret. My neighbor on the other side did speak English but he was from Columbia. The demographics in Florida are far more complicated than most people realize especially in the urban areas.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
(snip)
The findings contrast with the impression left by a flurry of news reports about people rushing to buy guns and clearing shop shelves of assault rifles after the massacre last year at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
(snip)
The increase of Hispanics as a share of the American population is also probably having an effect, as they are far less likely to own guns. In the survey results since 2000, about 14 percent of Hispanics reported having a gun in their house.
spin
(17,493 posts)Imagine for a minute that you are a gun owner. You have in your home a small collection of firearms. Included are two pistols that might be considered an assault weapons and also an AR-15. You also have several "high capacity" magazines for each weapon although they are the standard size for your weapons but do hold more then 10 rounds.
You often listen to right wing programs and firmly believe that your government is planning to ban and confiscate all civilian owned firearms and the ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons is just the first step.
You hear a knock on your door and when you open it you find a stranger who states he/she is conducting a survey. You agree to be interviewed. Among the questions she asks is, "Are you a gun owner or are their firearms in your home owned by another individual?"
How do you answer? Do you say, "Yup, I proudly own firearms and in fact have an AR-15 and two Glock pistols in my collection."
I'll bet not. You just say, "Nope, no guns in my home. I wouldn't allow one here as they are very dangerous and likely to kill someone."
Let me assure you that many gun owners would refuse to answer the survey question truthfully. I know a good number of gun owners and I know how they think.
Unlike my fictional character, I have no fear that the government plans to ban and confiscate all civilian owned firearms in my lifetime. That's simply right wing propaganda and I am not a right winger but instead a liberal Democratic gun owner. Still, I would refuse to admit to any stranger conducting a survey either at my door or on the phone that I own firearms. Why should I? It's simply none of their damn business.
I realize that many gun control advocates love to point out that fewer gun owners own more guns. Unfortunately the survey they base this belief on is questionable at the best.
Gun-safety class attendance surges
By Jessica Tully and Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Updated 8/7/2012
A growing number of people — many of them women — are acquiring guns for self-protection, says Don Kates, a retired professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law who has studied the issue of gun control extensively.
Kates says increased interest from women is a significant factor. "Women used to be told that owning a gun is a man's thing," Kates says. "That is not the case anymore because women are being told that they should be able to defend themselves."
***snip***
To accommodate the increased number of students attending gun classes, the National Rifle Association has certified 5,000 additional instructors since April 2011, adding to the almost 150,000 instructors already working.
Greg Block, a law enforcement instructor for city, county, state and federal agencies, says he has noticed a "dramatic" increase in class attendance since 2008. He says he now instructs about 100 individuals per month.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-06/gun-safety-classes-attendance/56832968/1
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)supposedly that's been going on since God asked Cain where his brother Abel was.
This survey has been ongoing since the 1970s.
There are other dynamics which backup their assertions as well, the decline of huntinig being one of them, people would have little reason to lie about whether they hunt or not.
There has been a rise in background checks but there is no way to tell whether that's a first time purchase or repeat customer.
They never asked about the legality of guns and according to the article illegal guns make up a very small % to total owned guns.
I'm all for gun safety and perhaps increased awareness, education and availability has led to the rise in gun classes but according to the report women still only own guns at about 10% less than a third of men and this 10% has stayed constant since the 70s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=1&
According to an analysis of the survey, only a quarter of men in 2012 said they hunted, compared with about 40 percent when the question was asked in 1977.
Mr. Smith acknowledged the rise in background checks, but said it was impossible to tell how many were for new gun owners. The checks are reported as one total that includes, for example, people buying their second or third gun, as well as those renewing concealed carry permits.
(snip)
The survey does not ask about the legality of guns in the home. Illegal guns are a factor in some areas but represent a very small fraction of ownership in the country, said Aaron Karp, an expert on gun policy at the Small Arms Survey in Geneva and at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. He said estimates of the total number of guns in the United States ranged from 280 million to 320 million.
(snip)
The country’s changing demographics may also play a role. While the rate of gun ownership among women has remained relatively constant over the years at about 10 percent, which is less than one-third of the rate among men today, more women are heading households without men, another possible contributor to the decline in household gun ownership. Women living in households where there were guns that were not their own declined to a fifth in 2012 down from a third in 1980.
spin
(17,493 posts)
MARCH 12, 2013
Section 3: Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics
***snip***
The General Social Survey (GSS), conducted roughly every two years by the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation, provides a widely-used look at the rate of gun ownership over time. The GSS data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns. When the GSS first asked about gun ownership in 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage. When the survey first asked about personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey.
The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.
The Gallup Organization has been tracking gun ownership in their surveys over this time period as well, but their trend suggests no consistent decline. A Gallup survey in May 1972 found 43% reporting having a gun in their home. The percentage subsequently fluctuated a great deal, reaching a high of 51% in 1993 and a low of 34% in 1999 – but the percentage saying they had a gun in their home last year was the same as it was 40 years earlier (43%). ...emphasis added
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
In my opinion gun owners may answer a Gallup poll more honestly than some other polls. Still many gun owners will lie to even the Gallup poll so the real figure on the number of people who own firearms may be far higher than even Gallup estimates.
Hunting is a different topic. Much depends of where you live. Currently I live in north Florida and many people here hunt deer or hog. I was actually surprised at how many women hunt here. I know women who hunt deer in bow season and use black powder rifles in the black powder season as well as hunt in the regular season. It's often a family sport.
Of course the survey shows that few people own illegal firearms. Would you tell a surveyor that you had an illegal firearm in your home?
Like you I am all for firearm safety classes but most experienced gun owners rarely take such courses unless they have to in order to get a carry permit. The majority of the students in these classes are probably first time gun buyers. The explanation for why so many women are attending these classes is probably because they have more commonsense than most men and also they don't feel they learned much about gun safety by watching movies and TV.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)MARCH 12, 2013
Section 3: Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics
***snip***
The General Social Survey (GSS), conducted roughly every two years by the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation, provides a widely-used look at the rate of gun ownership over time. The GSS data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns. When the GSS first asked about gun ownership in 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage. When the survey first asked about personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey.
The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.
The Gallup Organization has been tracking gun ownership in their surveys over this time period as well, but their trend suggests no consistent decline. A Gallup survey in May 1972 found 43% reporting having a gun in their home. The percentage subsequently fluctuated a great deal, reaching a high of 51% in 1993 and a low of 34% in 1999 – but the percentage saying they had a gun in their home last year was the same as it was 40 years earlier (43%). ...emphasis added
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
By my count that's two against one.
spin
(17,493 posts)40 years ago.
Since the accuracy of any poll depends on the validity of the raw data that's input, then obviously a poll largely depends of the honesty of those surveyed.
That's why I take any poll on gun ownership with a grain of salt. More than a few gun owners will simply lie about their gun ownership to the survey taker. The percentage could easily be as high as 20 to 30%.
While anecdotal, I once asked fellow shooters at the range if they would reveal they owned firearms to a survey taker. Not one said he would.
Of course this offers a gun control advocate a chance to claim that many gun owners are less than honest. Many of us would have to plead guilty to that change when it comes to answering questions from survey takers about gun ownership. So be it.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)I used to be a gun owner, I grew up hunting rabbit, squirrel, deer with my two best friends, none of us have hunted in many years.
I don't have guns anymore, neither does one of my friends, the other one I'm not sure about but I know he doesn't hunt.
So insofar as the hunting trend declining goes according to two of those polls, this makes sense to me.
spin
(17,493 posts)when you talk about hunters.
Hunters who mainly own their weapons for the sport of going into the woods and hunting game are, in my opinion, the group of gun owners most likely to be honest with a survey taker about their gun ownership.
There is another significant group of gun owners who believe that the government plans to incrementally ban firearms and to eventually confiscate them. If so, they tell me, we will lose of democracy and will live under the thumb of a dictatorial government without any means to effectively resist. While I don't buy into this right wing propaganda and often waste my time arguing with these individuals, they are adamant and refuse to consider my viewpoint. This group of gun owners is very unlikely to admit to a survey taker that they own firearms.
A third group of gun owners own firearms mainly for home defense and some have carry permits. This group also often read right wing propaganda and many have some distrust of government. They may or may not decide to be honest with a survey taker.
A final group of gun owners use their weapons primarily for target shooting. Like other gun owners they tend to be Republican and read right wing propaganda saying that Democrats wish to ban and confiscate all civilian firearms. Consequently a percentage will lie to a survey taker and a percentage will be totally honest.
Of course some people have inherited a firearm and hold on to it for sentimental value. Or they may have enjoyed shooting years ago and still have the firearm stored somewhere in their home. These people may be fairly honest with a survey taker.
In the end much depends on the gun owner and his or her beliefs about the trustworthiness of our government.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)They are based on your take of NRA (and possibly John Lott) contentions. I don't see the armed citizen as social policy. The citizen who chooses to arm him/her self is taking the rightful step of self-defense, an eminently personal and lawful measure. That someday armed citizenry (or more specifically, armed and Carrying citizenry) may be linked to falling crime/homicide rates in the future is another matter.
One thing seems clear: The tired meme that "more guns = more crime" has manifestly been unproved.
Logical
(22,457 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)Still defensive gun uses do occur and consequently victims are able to stop attacks that could put them in a hospital or six feet under.
Guns are neither good or evil. The determining factor is in how the owner sues these weapons.
Any fair debate on gun control has to not only discuss the misuse of firearms to injure or kill innocent victims but also the legitimate use of firearms for legitimate self defense.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Checkmate, liburals!
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Have to fudge here a bit, because all the latest data isn't in...
Gun Homicides (per FBI UCS) in 2012: 8,855
Gun Suicides (per CDC) in 2010: 19,392
Gun Accidental Deaths (per CDC) in 2010: 606
Now we're mixing 2012 and 2010 numbers, but they've been reasonable stable over the past few years.
But that's 28,853 firearms deaths in one year.
During 2012, the FBI reports 258 cases of confirmed justifiable homicide.
So that's 343 gun deaths for every case of justifiable homicide.
In one year.
That's 17 Sandy Hooks for every person whose life was saved by a justifiable homicide.
Every year.
343:1
It's a sucker's bet if ever there was one.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)It doesn't take into account people who successfully defended themselves with a firearm without killing their attacker. Numerous persons have acted in self defense without firing a shot or only wounding an attacker who did not die. Since these incidents far outnumber those who actually kill an attacker it skews the numbers badly.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)is that it doesn't include a health dollop of NRA bullshit.
Because when you're talking homicide data, you really should include data on non-homicides to avoid skewing the data. You know...the data on homicides. Include those non-homicides and talk about them as though they were homicides. You know...to avoid skewing the data.
The fact that there is no hard data on the subject is not relevant. Let's just pull a number out of our ass to avoid skewing the data.
All statisticians do that. Sure.
Uh huh.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)You would need to include people who successfully defended themselves, period, without a firearm at all. I'm guessing that numbers is far greater than your number. Talk about skewing...
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Let's put up all the numbers regarding self defense using any kind of weapon, to include martial arts skills versus homicides. It would give a far more accurate picture than just comparing justifiable homicide versus non-justifiable homicide numbers.
The point I was making is that it is dishonest to only compare deaths caused by legitimate self-defense to homicide crime stats. Just about any legitimate self-defense training instructs the person defending themselves that use of force must stop once the threat has ended. No such constraint is on the criminal who is assaulting with the intent to maim or kill. Therefore, if I indicate I am armed and ready to defend myself and the assailant leaves I can, legally, take no further action. The same applies if I draw my weapon, fire a shot and miss or shoot and only wound the attacker. All are legitimate self defense and should count in the overall stats. If you wish, you may also count any situation where an intended victim uses any other means (taser, pepper spray, ball bat, golf club etc) for defense. Firearms are used by a number of people due to age, physical infirmity and small stature where other means would not be practical.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Then we must include all the times where there was no physical confrontation at all, and everything is solved with words. For instance, a friend of mine was up at 5 am with her infant son, and her husband had gone outside with the dogs and when he came back in, he forgot to lock the door. Some drunk guy wandered in. My friend said, "what the hell are you doing in here? Get out!" The drunk guy left. Then she yelled for her husband, who went outside and asked the guy some questions. Turns out he was visiting from another province, and walked home from the bar and forget where his friend lived. He missed the house by 2...my friend's husband walked the guy to his friend's house and made sure he got in okay.
This was in Canada. If that guy would've walked into your home, I'm guessing he would be dead. I'm pretty sure when he sobered up he was happy he was in Canada.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Absent the person wandering into my house presenting an imminent threat I would have no justification to use deadly force.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Taking statistics for homicides and mixing them with a phenomenon for which there is no reliable data.
Yes. Let's indeed talk about skewing.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Also if guns are responsible for gun suicides are bridges and tall buildings responsible for jumping suicides?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Will I have to listen to this idiotic non-issue?
Tell you what...
After 20,000 people per year jump off the Empire State Building, we'll consider putting a fence around the observation deck. Oh, wait, we already did that.
Here's the thing with guns and suicide. They're really freaking efficient. Women attempt suicide nearly twice as often as men, but men are twice as likely to be suicide victims as women. The reason? Men overwhelmingly use firearms -- which in a moment (usually a drug- or alcohol-impaired moment) of despair has permanent consequences. Jumping from a tall building requires effort and time -- and both of those things mitigate against a completed suicide attempt.
So you can take your Straw Man and throw him off the Golden Gate Bridge.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)But some how it's the guns fault though...?
Response to EX500rider (Reply #87)
Post removed
tclambert
(11,193 posts)Waving all those guns around might have saved us from millions of potential tyrants.
Or zero.
The word "potential" is funny that way.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Insultingly stupid and insincere cartoon.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)According to president Obama and the Democratic Party platform.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)The civil liberty is the right for Americans to keep and bear arms. Period.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)what's the purpose?
Why do we have that right, why is it so important?
hack89
(39,181 posts)which restored the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their own defense and to bar royal interference in that right. This stemmed from James II's laws that disarmed all Protestants as he attempted to suppress the religion.
The right to keep and bear arms was not some radical notion to the founding fathers. It was viewed as a fundamental right of all free men.
I guess the answer to your question is simply this: when putting together a list of unalienable rights, the right to keep and bear arms was as natural to them as the right to fair elections, the freedom of speech or the right to petition the government - all contained in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)today this Amendment has only served to put the American People in an arms race with "We the People."
Increasing numbers of the police force have been militarized, we have a growing for profit prison industry and an unending war against an ambigous code word of "terrorism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
The Bill of Rights[1] is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689.[2] It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".
James II's primary transgression wasn't the taking of arms but an infringment against freedom of religion. He was selective in the arms he confiscated only taking those of the Protestants in an attempt to give the Catholics an advantage.
The United States has an elected government not a monarchy and our most powerful Amendment is the First as it has been used twice in American History to overturn looming tyranny; the Alien and Seditions Act and McCarthyism.
It seems to me that if the people should ever rise up and use arms against an overwhelmingly superior United States government it will only open the door to major civil war, martial law and most probably some form of dictatorship.
The present day result of the 2nd Amendment has only served to make the killing of the American People by the people easier, more convenient and effective.
I don't have all the answers but I believe the 2nd Amendment should be revisited and updated to modern times and today's reality.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Anything short of an outright ban on handguns is perfectly legal.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Thinks about as well as he draws...
Unrepentant Fenian
(1,134 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)EAST POINT, Ga. —
A woman shot an intruder when he tried to force his way into her apartment early Thursday morning.
Police say at least three people approached the victim's door at the Laurel Ridge apartment complex just after midnight.
...
Neighbors say they are glad that the victim didn't back down and wasn't hurt, but they say the crime has to stop.
"I'm glad she did have something," said Ferrell. "It's sad that you have to walk around as a female with a gun to protect yourself."
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)