[LV10101]

Originally Posted by swagger

Oh, the quantity matters? I didn't realize that. You have been arguing as if it never happens, and it does. The first one I posted is a clip I grabbed from the local news a few years ago. The second I happened across coincidentally while browsing another site. It happens. A lot. The stories typically only get local coverage, if any, so you don't hear about them, but they're happening.

If you want quantity, you'll have to do better than 500 if you want the numbers on your side. Here's about 6,500 examples for you to explore. Have fun.

NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen


On that, we most certainly agree.

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse victims between 1990 and 2005.
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.
2010 alone there were 8,775 murders by firearm.
2011 there were 19,990 suicides by firearm.

Sorry but your "examples" of defense are lacking to the amount of destruction that guns cause in our society. Please if guns are so good why do other nations that control guns have a lower murder rate?????????

[Raiderman]

Originally Posted by LV10101

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse victims between 1990 and 2005.
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.
2010 alone there were 8,775 murders by firearm.
2011 there were 19,990 suicides by firearm.

Sorry but your "examples" of defense are lacking to the amount of destruction that guns cause in our society. Please if guns are so good why do other nations that control guns have a lower murder rate?????????

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Chicago have one of the highest rates of death by gun, while also having one of the strictest gun control measures?

[LV10101]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Maybe not to buy a gun, but to carry one concealed, in almost all jurisdiction (including NV), requires a license.

This is patently false. No one will really know what the status of the officers in the Brooklyn shooting was immediately before the attack. But the shooter completely got the drop on them. As far as anyone could tell, they had no clue that the attack was going to happen, or even that they were being approached, until the shooter opened fire. This is the definition of condition white.

Let's look at Seattle. From the Wikipedia article

:Lakewood, Washington police officer shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Four of them sitting in a booth in a coffee house, heads down in their laptops, oblivious. No clue someone was walking up on them with a gun. Again, the definition of condition white.

Las Vegas has a double cop murder a few years back in essentially the same circumstances.

So don't tell me that cops are never condition white. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.



Actually people with concealed carry permits commit crimes at a much lower rate than the general population, despite the fact that they almost always own, and likely carry, a gun.

BBMW...Nevada requires a license to carry concealed...how much training does it require to get the license? The State of Nevada does NOT require licensing for buying a gun or open carry of a gun.

Your condition "white" theory has no claim if you yourself say "No one will really know the status of the officers..." You keep mentioning condition white when it's really a tactical advantage of the shooter was able to get. Furthermore if LEO's are in condition white what are normal citizens in? How would a normal armed citizen react to such an encounter or a robbery attempt. You do yourself no justice by saying these trained officers are in condition "white"...again what are most citizens in???
Sorry but FOUR armed officers in Seattle should prove a point of being able to react to a shooter. These were four trained law enforcement officers...and the average person would be able to defend...please.

[LV10101]

Originally Posted by Raiderman

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Chicago have one of the highest rates of death by gun, while also having one of the strictest gun control measures?

Top 10 US States with the highest amounts of gun violence;
1. Louisiana
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Arizona
5. Mississippi
6. South Carolina
7. New Mexico
8. Missouri
9. Arkansas
10. Georgia

The states on this list with higher gun violence tend to have much less stringent gun laws than other states with less violence like New Jersey, Connecticut and Hawaii. For instance, none of the states on with the highest gun violence require permits for handgun purchases. In the 10 states with the lowest gun violence, seven have this requirement, including all six states with the lowest levels of gun violence.

[BBMW]

First, it's total murder rate that counts, not just murders with guns. Dead is dead. So you're ranking are off.

The top three states for total murders are Washington DC (Yes, I know it isn't a state. But given it's unusual status, it's ranked separately.), Louisiana, and Maryland. Both DC and MD have some of the toughest gun control in the country. Doesn't do them any good.

The safest three states are New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa. NH and VT have some of the loosest gun laws in the country.

Source: Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LV10101

Top 10 US States with the highest amounts of gun violence;
1. Louisiana
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Arizona
5. Mississippi
6. South Carolina
7. New Mexico
8. Missouri
9. Arkansas
10. Georgia

The states on this list with higher gun violence tend to have much less stringent gun laws than other states with less violence like New Jersey, Connecticut and Hawaii. For instance, none of the states on with the highest gun violence require permits for handgun purchases. In the 10 states with the lowest gun violence, seven have this requirement, including all six states with the lowest levels of gun violence.

[Raiderman]

Originally Posted by LV10101

Top 10 US States with the highest amounts of gun violence;
1. Louisiana
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Arizona
5. Mississippi
6. South Carolina
7. New Mexico
8. Missouri
9. Arkansas
10. Georgia

The states on this list with higher gun violence tend to have much less stringent gun laws than other states with less violence like New Jersey, Connecticut and Hawaii. For instance, none of the states on with the highest gun violence require permits for handgun purchases. In the 10 states with the lowest gun violence, seven have this requirement, including all six states with the lowest levels of gun violence.

I was not able to find 2 matching lists on the results of my search. But, I guess, statistics can be drawn up to "prove" whatever you need them to prove. But, it seems, that no one really knows where the most deaths occur due to gun violence, as I can easily produce a list with 10 other places at the top.

[BBMW]

In point of fact, when looking at murder rate, social and economic issues trump gun laws. And, most of the time, it's criminals killing criminals. I read somewhere that 68% of murder victims have prior convictions.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by LV10101

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse victims between 1990 and 2005.
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.
2010 alone there were 8,775 murders by firearm.
2011 there were 19,990 suicides by firearm.

Sorry but your "examples" of defense are lacking to the amount of destruction that guns cause in our society. Please if guns are so good why do other nations that control guns have a lower murder rate?????????

First of all, I was responding to your implication that defensive gun use doesn't exist. It does. These situations occur daily, all over the country.

Second, guns don't cause destruction, people do. Someone mentioned that you've claimed to be a current or former LEO. Anyone in law enforcement would already know that. I've never seen a cop ask a gun to keep its hands out of its pockets. I've also never seen a gun get arrested or be charged with a crime.

If you want to reduce gun violence in this country, you have to approach the problem in a way that will actually have a positive impact. Creating a bunch of new laws that only the law abiding will follow doesn't do that - it merely strips people of their rights, while giving the criminals a new and justified sense of security with regard to their chosen vocation.

To reduce the violence in this country, you must first determine the cause. After you subtract the suicides, gang violence is behind the bulk of the shootings. Why are gang members shooting each other? Dig deep into that question if you want to stop the killing. Unless and until you do that, there's no way in hell that I'm going to believe that you're serious about solving the problem.

No matter how badly you may want them to, guns aren't going away in this country. The trend over the past couple of decades has been quite decidedly pro-gun, and the momentum is gaining. You've already lost, if outlawing or severely restricting guns is your goal. If reducing violence is your goal, as you say it is, then you should really start down a path could actually lead you there. Pushing for more gun control measures is the wrong path, for a variety of reasons, and will never, ever get you to where you want to go.

And I just realized that we've strayed very far from the topic, so I'm stopping here. Respond if you like, but the odds are pretty high that I'll never read it, as the OPs question has been answered reasonably well already and I doubt I'll return to the thread.

Merry Christmas.

[qingguy]

Wow did this thread ever take a turn . . .

[BBMW]

They usually do.

Originally Posted by qingguy

Wow did this thread ever take a turn . . .