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 02-06-2013, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,912 posts, read 24,652,966 times
Reputation: 5163

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
How can you acknowledge the right of self defense, but not the right to the tool? I really don't of a better way to defend your life than with a gun.
I just wanted to touch on this, because what I said was very specific. The remark I was replying to said "irrevocable right". The right of self defense is indeed an irrevocable human right, so basic you don't even have to spell it out anywhere. But what that means is if I've injured or killed someone in the process of defending myself I am not liable. If some guy broke into my house and I managed to stab him with a kitchen knife, or strangle him, or hit him with a baseball bat, or shoot him, and he dies (or even if he doesn't, really), that falls under self defense. I'm in fear for my life and I kill someone in the process of defending myself. Self defense. Justifiable death. Not pretty, but necessary. Irrevocable human right.

The right to have the gun specifically as a possible tool to do it, however, is not necessarily irrevocable. As I described, it is, in the US, guaranteed pretty strongly but is in the end merely highly unlikely to be revoked. And I am not in favor of revoking it! I am just pointing that out, that it is a difference, a separation in those two parts of the right to self defense. Those little differences are meaningful, like it or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2013, 01:58 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 5,455,089 times
Reputation: 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42 View Post
Quite frankly the entirety of that sentence is delusional. There's nothing overall politically incorrect about gun ownership in the US (Overall! I'm sure you can find some pockets where there are a majority who are anti-gun.) And there's nothing difficult about finding pro-2nd Amendment sites, news stories, etc, etc. There's a little extra noise about gun control in the larger public eye right at this moment, but that does not at all equate to a general climate against gun ownership. Again only two possible sides, a little talk about gun control apparently equals "OMG they're all against me". Note: in case it isn't clear, I am not making a statement in support of the talk about gun control. I am just stating that the talk exists. I do not believe this talk means gun ownership is suddenly politically incorrect in any significant new way.
The bolded portion is the only part of your post I would disagree with. It seems fairly evident to me that there is an overall anti-second amendment atmosphere in the country. I'm not saying that the pro-second amendment isn't huge, but when it comes to who has the loudest voices and who gets to dictate what normal americans think, it seems solidly on the side of the anti-gun crowd.

As an example, I think that the biggest of your pockets of anti-gun sentiment seems to be the media as a whole, and that is one hell of a huge pocket. Sure you can find Fox news––and Fox news isn't worth a pile of horse crap––and a couple of blogs to the contrary, but almost every major news organization seems to be against gun ownership in general. Incidents like last year's mass shootings have gotten them more boisterous in their demands than normal, but their demands are there even during quiet and peaceful years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42 View Post
I just wanted to touch on this, because what I said was very specific. The remark I was replying to said "irrevocable right". The right of self defense is indeed an irrevocable human right, so basic you don't even have to spell it out anywhere. But what that means is if I've injured or killed someone in the process of defending myself I am not liable. If some guy broke into my house and I managed to stab him with a kitchen knife, or strangle him, or hit him with a baseball bat, or shoot him, and he dies (or even if he doesn't, really), that falls under self defense. I'm in fear for my life and I kill someone in the process of defending myself. Self defense. Justifiable death. Not pretty, but necessary. Irrevocable human right.
Philosophically, I agree with you. But it isn't that simple. It would be unnecessary to spell it out only if and when everyone agrees with it. But not everyone does. The majority of human history seems to have shown us that people in power don't agree with it. It has only been a relatively few times in the history of humanity that a government promotes the rights of the people, including the right to self defense.

Quote:
The right to have the gun specifically as a possible tool to do it, however, is not necessarily irrevocable. As I described, it is, in the US, guaranteed pretty strongly but is in the end merely highly unlikely to be revoked. And I am not in favor of revoking it! I am just pointing that out, that it is a difference, a separation in those two parts of the right to self defense. Those little differences are meaningful, like it or not.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. The problem lies in one's ability to defend one's self. The often-used phrase, "even the odds," is a flawed concept when it comes to self defense. In order to be able to defend myself, I need a weapon that is superior to those being used against me in order to reasonably come out of the encounter uninjured.

If I am attacked by someone with balled fists, my baseball bat or frying pan will likely be enough to end the threat. But if I am an elderly person with a bad back and a weak heart, or if I am a 110 lb woman, a large man wielding nothing but balled fists will still likely be enough to hurt or kill me. And if I am attacked by someone with a knife or a steel pipe, unless I'm an eskrima champion, me pulling out another knife in answer to the threat is not enough to give me a reasonable guarantee of self defense. In this case, I'd need a taser at the very least, but a firearm would be preferable. And this is not even considering that a large percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated with firearms, not balled fists, steel pipes and knives.

So in actuality, limiting a person to very basic, innocuous weapons (as if there is such a thing) of self defense really is revoking one's right to self defense in a majority of violent confrontations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 01:50 PM
 
5 posts, read 3,660 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Yes but how many times have guns TAKEN lives instead of saved them? Not only heroes are allowed to buy guns, you know. Easier availability of guns really means easier availability for EVERYONE, even if they themselves don't get buy them, it's much easier for them to FIND a firearm and then who knows what they will do. So here in Australia, I'll be safe in the knowledge that my kids will never have to worry about school shootings, because we've never even had one here - a mass school shooting - and most Australians don't own a gun.
Here is your answer.

actionamerica.org/guns/gun-web-widget.shtml
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 01:52 PM
 
5 posts, read 3,660 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bpobill View Post
Where's the "rate this post negatively"?


The stats don't lie. Guns save lives, and the president knows this. He has other agenda, which is why he is pushing for more rules. People with common sense will understand how guns truly affect violence.
Here are the stats.
actionamerica.org/guns/gun-web-widget.shtml
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 01:55 PM
 
5 posts, read 3,660 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
False sense of security.
You want statistics here look at this scroll to the chart.
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 01:58 PM
 
5 posts, read 3,660 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42 View Post
Is your premise that "guns save lives" referring to the fact that some guns save lives irrespective of the fact that guns as a whole also end lives? If that's the case, where exactly is the debate?

If you want to propose that guns (privately owned by citizens in the US) in general save lives I think you are stuck with bringing into it the fact that they also end lives and comparisons of how many lives they end to how many they save (among other discussions) would be perfectly reasonable.

Do you have any stats on lives saved or just a number of one-off examples?
Yes here are stats.
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 02:02 PM
 
5 posts, read 3,660 times
Reputation: 10
Default Seeker6

Here are the stats everyone ask for.
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 04:48 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,493 posts, read 4,551,910 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
Take a moment to lookup sights such as gunssavelives.net or keepandbears.com
Read some of the storys about the average person using a gun to stop a crime. "It takes A good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun."
I liked the story of a man using his revolver to shoot back at a criminal on a shooting spree; saving a cops life. oh yeah the cop was pinned down while holding his ar-15.
Some years ago I was able to stop a killing. A man stabbing of a woman, the guy had a knife, I had a gun. you know the old saying dont we.
I am for the citizens right to bear arms. I have heard so many times from people that defend the right to bear arms say "guns don't kill..." To me it would be a contradiction to agree with the OP title "Gun save lives" so I cannot support such concept.

To me people are the ones that save or kill lives. Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 01:36 AM
 
998 posts, read 1,215,143 times
Reputation: 536
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45. Pearl High School Link

The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Appalachian Law School Link

Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their "gnawing hunger for crack cocaine" fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Muskegon Shooting Link

The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit. New Life Church Link

The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot. Santa Clara Gunshop Link

The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one. Aniston Shoney's Shooting Link

July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier. Golden Food Market Shooting Link

In Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle. Stacy made a very long shot with his revolver, three times as far as the perpetrator was from the police officer, who had an AR-15 type rifle. Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link

Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots. AT&T store Link

College Park, GA, May 4, 2009. Two gunman entered a party and ordered the men separated from the women. Then they started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey. When one of the assailants prepared to rape a girl, a student was able to access a handgun and engage the two attackers in a firefight, driving one off and killing the other before the thug could rape his girlfriend.
“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey. College Park Link

Another off duty police officer stopped the Trolley Square shooting with his personal handgun. He stopped the killing and contained the shooter until police reinforcements arrived and ended the situation. Trolley Square Shooting Link

Winnemucca NV shooting, 25 May, 2008 The shooter, Ernesto Villagomez, entered the Players Bar and Grill and killed two people. He reloaded and was continuing to shoot when a citizen with a concealed carry permit shot him and stopped the killing. Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting 14 Year old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others when he was confronted by James Strand who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived. Parker Middle School Dance Shooting LinK

Destiny Christian Center Shooting, April 24, 2012 Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing. Destiny Christian Center Shooting LinK

Tyler Courthouse shooting, 2005 While police officers were involved in this shooting before and after Mark Alan Wilson intervened, no more people were killed after he shot the shooter, who had body armor, and who was able to return fire and kill the CCW holder, Wilson. Tyler Courthouse Shooting Link

Clackamas Mall Shooting I include this story because it is recent and has been getting some interest on the net. This case is not as clear as the others listed. This incident is similar to the more common defensive uses of guns because the mere display of the gun was enough to defuse the situation. We can never know if the shooter decided to commit suicide because he was confronted by Nick Meli, the CCW holder, as the shooter is dead. However, many mass shooters commit suicide when they know that armed resistance is at hand. Clackamas Concealed Carry Showdown Link

These shootings rarely made the national news. Of course, when a mass shooting is stopped by an armed citizen, there are not as many victims. This leads to the charge that it would not really have been a “mass shooting”.

Last edited by KrazeeKrewe; 04-14-2013 at 01:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
22,216 posts, read 21,667,670 times
Reputation: 7608
I don't think this graph has much use in this discussion. Do you really think the UK has 13 times the rate of violence that Ireland does? or that Portugal is 4.2 times less violent than Cananda. There is no indication of murder rates as well -the US would be top of the list if that was the case. Violent crime is reported differently in different countries and this graph is a waste of space.

I'm in favour of people been able to defend themselves from harm with firearms, if need be. But I don't see that graphs like this show anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazeeKrewe View Post
Guns save lives. Violent Crime & Murder rates are higher in countries that ban guns. Murder is murder regardless of what tool is used to commit murder. Only a stupid tool would claim lower gun murder is good when actual murder skyrockets when guns are banned.



Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police. Police shoot innocent people over 550% more often than armed civilians do even though armed citizens shoot 250% more criminals than police. Civilians are there when the crime or altercation began & know who the bad guy is. Police have no clue when they finally arrive on scene & end up shooting the wrong person. Police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the police are not required to protect you. You have to protect yourself.

Governments Democide have disarmed & murdered 285 million citizens in the last century. That was as large as the population of the entire USA over this time.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:49 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