Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Swagger, directly on topic means that no one would ever post more than once.
Yes, having a weapon makes you more likely to be shot, versus someone who is unarmed. It's common sense--you deal with the greater threat first. And the armed person is more of a threat than the unarmed person.
This thread just goes on and on despite the research being totally flawed by the fact that it does not include people who were not shot because they were armed. This is stupid.
The first years of defense were from abusive parents, thank you. Then there were always the bullies in school--who thought they could attack the shorter, lighter kids because they were bigger than them. Sound familiar?? Then there were bullies who didn't get the lesson as children, who had to get it as adults.
There was also the attacks made on my by my schizophrenic wife--who I had to be careful not to hurt badly. Because it wasn't her fault she was attacking me, it was her mental condition. See, that's where control is more important than striking. When it's someone you don't actually want to bring harm to, yet still be able to defend yourself.
And another reason not to have a gun in one's home.
Good decision not to have a gun with a schizophrenic wife.
"more likely" imples that not ALL armed people were shot. Just that it is probable that they were. Obviously, some would escape being shot.
. Oooook. Again, when the number of firearms in private hands is considered here, by this logic a fair portion of the US population would have suffered gunshot wounds. It, don't wash. This same logic would have to apply equally, to ALL armed people as well. That includes the police, military, armed security, Secret Service etc. Funny how this stigma is only being apllied to private citizens here. Maybe there is an agenda at the core of this? Nahhhhh, say it isn't so!
To reiterate. The study is quite likely statistically biased. There is certainly not enough information provided to support the claims being made. The source has a reputation of past bias.
No one has refuted this and yet here we are on page 32 of the thread.
So, with no further delay...this myth is busted. Next!
Now, I'm going to give you a chance to manipulate the data, so we can see where you stand. What is the approximate annual number of peaceful, law abiding Americans minding their own business that this happens to? (remember, you said "to death". I will not disagree with you that is the end of the world.)
Just to let you know where I stand, I would guess that the number is smaller than the number who claim to have been abducted by aliens.
"Peaceful, law abiding Americans" is a subjective term, and I think I would have a bit of trouble googling hard numbers enumerating such a demographic. But googling "Knoxville Horror" will show you two such people who were tortured to death. And I believe that googling "Wichita Massacre" will show you four more. Then, you might want to look up the crime career of Angel Maturino Resendiz.
The media do their best to ignore crimes like these, and so they are hard to come across. But less spectacular examples of "Peaceful, law abiding Americans" who are murdered during abductions/home invasions may well approach or exceed the number of persons claiming to have been abducted by (extraterrestrial) aliens. But I'm sure you know a lot more about wack-jobs than I do.
As to your own mental problems.... You may think you have them well-hidden, but they're pretty obvious to me.
. Oooook. Again, when the number of firearms in private hands is considered here, by this logic a fair portion of the US population would have suffered gunshot wounds. It, don't wash. This same logic would have to apply equally, to ALL armed people as well. That includes the police, military, armed security, Secret Service etc. Funny how this stigma is only being apllied to private citizens here. Maybe there is an agenda at the core of this? Nahhhhh, say it isn't so!
And if you consider the number of people who have either been wounded or killed by gunfire in the past 225 years or so...it is quite a significant number.
A lot of things CAN be used to kill people, but it isn't the primary purpose. With guns, the primary purpose it to kill people or animals.
That's strange, I never used any of my guns to kill people, I've gone deer hunting before, and it filled up my freezer with venison, but for the most part I use them shoot paper targets and get accurate groups with the ammo that I load.
Your statement is flawed TKramer, bottom line is - Man has been killing man since the very begining of time, long before guns were invented.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Oooook. Again, when the number of firearms in private hands is considered here, by this logic a fair portion of the US population would have suffered gunshot wounds. It, don't wash. This same logic would have to apply equally, to ALL armed people as well. That includes the police, military, armed security, Secret Service etc. Funny how this stigma is only being apllied to private citizens here. Maybe there is an agenda at the core of this? Nahhhhh, say it isn't so!
