U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-01-2016, 09:38 AM
 
32,229 posts, read 26,059,306 times
Reputation: 18888

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Thank you, but "10 quick examples" is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone posted with a fair amount of confidence that the count was 500,000 in one year but with no source of such numbers. Never said there were NO such cases, but 10 is not 500,000. 10 is nothing really, if the idea is to demonstrate that civilians with guns somehow reduce crime. As your article also admits, "Naturally, such examples will be rare." Agreed!
here are a few reports for you then;

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

How Guns Stop Crimes | Cato Institute
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2016, 09:39 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,988,453 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I repeat...

"Yes, of course I've read all versions of how an assault weapon may be defined, and I have heard all argument both pro and con as to the worthiness of efforts to ban such a weapon. Point at any comment I have written anywhere that suggests I don't well understand all of this...

In fact, the point of this thread...

What is an assault weapon?

... is to generally raise the question as to whether ANY weapon might be so defined and/or banned that can kill so many people in such a short period of time. Needless to say, as also pointed out in this thread again, there are many such weapons already in the hands of all too many people to think any ban can really keep a nut case with such a weapon from doing what this one did in Florida, but if this keeps up, I can only guess what measures may be taken to keep these sorts of weapons from being sold.

Do I think there is an answer or solution that will effectively prevent another such act of terrorism with such a weapon in America, frankly no. Are there rightful questions as to why in America unlike any of the other advanced countries in the world? I think so.

Does this mean I don't know or understand all aspects of the gun-control debate? Hardly!"
I will debate one of your points here. I don't view this as terrorism. I view it as criminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 09:42 AM
 
12,160 posts, read 3,119,103 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
The population is growing, thanks to immigration (both legal and illegal).

Plus, the vast majority of immigrants coming here have grown up with crime and violence, which is their "normal." They are usually unskilled, and do not assimilate into working-class America because even the children of working class Americans can't achieve the lifestyle their parents led. With virtually no jobs for young men in particular, they will use their high energy to get ahead in the only way available--through crime and the drug economy. The only other thing they can do is sell themselves into military slavery and die or be maimed halfway across the world, in order to enrich the Military Industrial Complex, and most are smarter than that.

Therefore, we'll have more crime, and crime using guns, than we had in the past.
Have you got the data to prove these "truths?"

Have you a count, for example, of how many immigrants bought those 7/11 franchises? Own restaurants? Landscaping companies? My parents are immigrants and did pretty well all considered, well above average by just about all measures...

"Of the 25 million employed foreign-born workers ages 16 and older in 2014, 30 percent worked in management, professional, and related occupations; 25 percent in service occupations; 17 percent in sales and office occupations; 13 percent in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations; and 15 percent in production, transportation, and material moving occupations (see Table 2)."

Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States | migrationpolicy.org

Or right, why not just claim whatever we like? We don't need no stinking data!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 09:46 AM
 
18,438 posts, read 9,486,717 times
Reputation: 5153
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Thank you, but "10 quick examples" is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone posted with a fair amount of confidence that the count was 500,000 in one year but with no source of such numbers. Never said there were NO such cases, but 10 is not 500,000. 10 is nothing really, if the idea is to demonstrate that civilians with guns somehow reduce crime. As your article also admits, "Naturally, such examples will be rare." Agreed!
We have to all agree that defense gun use is a difficult thing to count or estimate.

Let's just use the low estimate of 50,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defens...s_of_frequency

It still dwarfs the gun homicide number even we unethically lump in suicide and justifiable homicides with murders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 09:50 AM
 
12,160 posts, read 3,119,103 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
once again you show your ignorance. you want to stop someone from from going further in a criminal act. if you deem deadly force necessary to save your life, you are permitted to use said force. that said, once again you want to STOP the person, not necessarily kill them. some criminals will stop before they die, some wont. that is their choice, as the criminal drives the action.
Once again you claim ignorance, as you will insist I suppose. Your way and that of others that I suspect need that sort of intro statement to feel smarter yourselves, but this is not rocket science by any means...

If and when a law enforcement officer feels the need to shoot at "center mass," I won't argue the officer is necessarily out to kill the aggressor, but I think most people who carry guns will readily agree that when confronted with the fear of being killed by an aggressor, their aim is to "put down" that aggressor, "dead or alive" perhaps, but preferably dead.

I think the same holds true for a police officer faced with someone who they feel is trying to kill them. They are trained to shoot at "center mass" and not to worry about whether the attacker ends up dead or alive.

That's pretty much "shoot to kill" in my book, though perhaps the term is not entirely appropriate.

Without wasting too much more time with regard to these semantics, might we at least agree the point of disagreement is NOT one of ignorance? Fair? Possible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:00 AM
 
12,160 posts, read 3,119,103 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Incorrect. I didn't accuse you of being dishonest. I said you were being dishonest because you said and I quote and see the highlighted part:
Perhaps we do have a bit of a reading comprehension issue here and maybe the issue is mine, but I have a very hard time distinguishing the difference between being accused of "being dishonest" versus "being dishonest."

Funny!

Regarding what you claim is me being "dishonest" either way, I simply asked the question as to "whether or not this means that guns tend to inspire acts of violence," I answered "hard to say."

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some people are "inspired" buy guns? Judging from lots of comments in lots of gun threads, I think the possibility is very real.

You also bolded my question about whether guns "simply make it easier?" And I answered, "I think perhaps so."

Is it not easier to kill someone with a gun than with most other weapons?

Why are any of these honest questions somehow "dishonest" in any case? Confusing to say the least...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:03 AM
 
12,160 posts, read 3,119,103 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
If it was shoot to kill then Cops wouldn't try to do CPR on a perp after a shooting yet they do.
That's simply ridiculous logic.

There is a big difference between shooting at an attacker that is in a position to threaten one's life as compared to someone incapacitated and not yet dead. Shooting the attacker dead is acceptable, watching and/or letting the attacker die after being put down is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:05 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,988,453 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Perhaps we do have a bit of a reading comprehension issue here and maybe the issue is mine, but I have a very hard time distinguishing the difference between being accused of "being dishonest" versus "being dishonest."

Funny!

Regarding what you claim is me being "dishonest" either way, I simply asked the question as to "whether or not this means that guns tend to inspire acts of violence," I answered "hard to say."

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some people are "inspired" buy guns? Judging from lots of comments in lots of gun threads, I think the possibility is very real.

You also bolded my question about whether guns "simply make it easier?" And I answered, "I think perhaps so."

Is it not easier to kill someone with a gun than with most other weapons?

Why are any of these honest questions somehow "dishonest" in any case? Confusing to say the least...
Hey a very reasonable response! Kudos.

Do guns inspire violence? Does porn inspire sexual assaults? Does exposure to drug paraphernalia inspire curiousity?

All questions social science have looked at in depth with one resounding conclusion: for some people YES. For most NO.

Which begs the whole original question, chicken or egg? Is it gun or individual that is the issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:06 AM
 
12,160 posts, read 3,119,103 times
Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
500,000 is hyperbole.

30,000 deaths by firearms is hyperbole. Can't factor suicide into the equation.

So both sides use skewed 'facts' to accomplish... Nothing.

However, I would suggest you read the crime prevention link at the bottom of the article.
Call it what you wish, but I call it the simple separation of fact from fiction, data vs anecdotes, facts that can be substantiated, whether they include suicide numbers or not...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:07 AM
 
18,438 posts, read 9,486,717 times
Reputation: 5153
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Perhaps we do have a bit of a reading comprehension issue here and maybe the issue is mine, but I have a very hard time distinguishing the difference between being accused of "being dishonest" versus "being dishonest."

Funny!

Regarding what you claim is me being "dishonest" either way, I simply asked the question as to "whether or not this means that guns tend to inspire acts of violence," I answered "hard to say."

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that some people are "inspired" buy guns? Judging from lots of comments in lots of gun threads, I think the possibility is very real.

You also bolded my question about whether guns "simply make it easier?" And I answered, "I think perhaps so."

Is it not easier to kill someone with a gun than with most other weapons?

Why are any of these honest questions somehow "dishonest" in any case? Confusing to say the least...
Your answer of "hard to say" is being dishonest.

An honest person would say after looking at the facts:
1. We have the highest gun ownership in the world.
2. We don't have anywhere near the highest murder rate. If not for gang and drug issues, we wouldn't even have any problem.

Yes, some people may be inspired by guns but whether or not this means that guns tend to inspire acts of violence in general? The honest answer is it does not because if there's any sort of correlation or causation, our gun crime would rank easily No. 1 or at least top 10.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top