Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2009, 05:56 AM
 
Location: NY
2,011 posts, read 3,871,777 times
Reputation: 918

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Again,

If you own a gun for protection, the stats tell us (for anyone who is wants a little facts with their NRA paranoia, that reference is located in my other post on this thread) that said gun is twenty-two times more likely to kill/wound a family member than it is to be used against an intruder.
That number is fictional and was made up by The Brady Bunch. Please try to use information from a reliable source such as FBI unifirm crime statistics. Just because you repeat it, doesn't make it true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2009, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,701,824 times
Reputation: 6745
Notice how if you live in a state with rather strict gun control laws your more likley to be killed with gun....
Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2007 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html - broken link)

Note also the number of justifiable homicide by non LEO...
1 The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen
Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 - Crime in the United States 2007 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 07:36 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,169,069 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon26pdx View Post
What, you didn't see a part about local limtations in the 2nd amendment, but you somehow *did* see something in the constitution about M16's and AK47's not being appropriate for the general public to own? Which way do you want it here, because you seem to be picking battles.

The fact is there are rules, caveats, and limitations to the 2nd amendment, and only the dimmest people in here won't be able to admit that. Part of the problem is that this country is so large and diverse that simple blanket laws regarding firearms at the federal level don't cut it. What passes for acceptable in rural Wyoming may not be acceptable for a place like New York City. (Yes, I believe it *is* appropriate to limit people's firearm rights in places like NYC. It's a matter of public safety in densely urbanized areas such as that.)

actually, it says arms, and the federalist papers state the same arms as the militia.

meaning all weapons that the individual soldier can use in the standing army, not just the semi-auto firearms, but all of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,665 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
if you care so much about the constitution, please cite the full amendment every time you refer to it, if you cannot do that all you are doing is taking part of it out of its context to support a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
the second amendment does have the qualifier "in order to form a well regulated militia."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,665 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Again,

If you own a gun for protection, the stats tell us (for anyone who is wants a little facts with their NRA paranoia, that reference is located in my other post on this thread) that said gun is twenty-two times more likely to kill/wound a family member than it is to be used against an intruder.
Again,

From YOUR source - the same page that your "22x" stat was located - I pulled a pie chart that had been grossly falsified to misrepresent the numbers it was supposedly graphing. Your "22x" stat also includes suicides, which account for MORE THAN HALF of all gun deaths each year.

Find a new piece of propaganda to use as the basis of your argument. That one is so old, tired, discredited (especially when it's coming from your own source! LOL!) and outright FALSE, it's truly laughable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,665 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
The facts come from the crime stats.

You can argue with the FBI.

But it still won't change the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Man, you're easy...

You obviously don't do even the most cursory research into the numbers you cite. It's really, really funny.

Go look at your PDF. See the little "1" just after where that statistic is cited? Now look at the end of the last page of the PDF. Find the little "1". The words that follow it tell you where that information came from. Do you see the letters F,B & I there? No. Their source is "Kellermann et al., Journal of Trauma, 1998".

I'm not even going to bother posting a link to an analysis that absolutely destroys the Kellermann report. It's found easily enough on Google for anyone who cares. You're the only one who thinks it has any credibility, anyway - not even the rabid anti-gunners are supporting you on this one.

You're standing alone on your use and defense of this false, baseless propaganda statistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 02:53 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,394,969 times
Reputation: 29336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Again,

If you own a gun for protection, the stats tell us (for anyone who is wants a little facts with their NRA paranoia, that reference is located in my other post on this thread) that said gun is twenty-two times more likely to kill/wound a family member than it is to be used against an intruder.
And I guess that in a time of home invasion, if we're unfortunate enough to experience one, we should show them that statistic and let them know they're safe from us, huh?

Thanks but no thanks. I'll take my chances with a handgun fully loaded with frangible ammunition or a shotgun!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2009, 03:03 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,169,069 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon26pdx View Post
Nobody is going to take your guns away in Nevada. They might tell you that you can't wear your six-shooter on a hip holster when you ride your horse into town for supplies, but seriously, you gun guys are bunch of drama kings sometimes.


please talk about drama kings and queens when you are talking about global warming and climate change, not gun rights.

put the drama where it already is, in the forum of climate change, not the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 12:04 AM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,372,729 times
Reputation: 3086
Swagger. Can you tell me what the word "qualifier" means?

Assuming you don't know what qualifier means it means:

One that qualifies: as a: one that satisfies requirements or meets a specified standard b: a word (as an adjective) or word group that limits or modifies the meaning of another word (as a noun) or word group.

The very fact that I phased it that way would suggest to a logical person that there is more then that in the amendment. What I was arguing against, is the use of common misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment as simply "The right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed." I was explaining that there is much more to the amendment then that pharse to the poster I was responding to, and from that you took my remarks out of context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2009, 01:40 PM
 
24 posts, read 24,872 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleMan View Post
To all those opposed to guns, and all for abolishing our 2nd amendment rights, I have a few questions:

- Do you honestly think it's a good idea for citizens not to be allowed the right to bear arms?

- Do you think that criminals who have no regard for the law to begin with are going to follow any gun restriction law?

- Don't you think that once criminals are the only people with guns that the rest of society aren't sitting ducks for home invasion, robbery and a number of other crimes by gunpoint, because the criminal will know you have absolutely no way to defend yourself?

- Do you honestly think that if guns had been outlawed that incidents like Columbine would have never happened, that they wouldn't have gone to a black market arms dealer to carry out their horrifying act?

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but I think extreme gun control policies would do much more harm than good. I personally think one should have the right to bear arms for protection of one's self and one's family. Your thoughts?

Do you honestly think it's a good idea for citizens not to be allowed the right to bear arms beyond the check points at airports and court houses?

Do you think that criminals who have no regard for the law to begin with are going to follow any gun restriction law past the check points at
airports and courts houses?

Don't you think that once criminals are the only people with guns that the rest of society aren't sitting ducks for home invasion, robbery and a number of other crimes by gunpoint, because the criminal will know you have absolutely no way to defend yourself once they get past these same kind of check points in your apartment or neighborhood?

- Do you honestly think that if guns had been outlawed that incidents like Columbine would have never happened, that they wouldn't have gone to a black market arms dealer to carry out their horrifying act yet still gotten by these same check points?

Do you feel there is any need to protect a gun owners rights once they have past the check points at the court house or airports?
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:01 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top