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 01-22-2013, 10:10 AM
 
1,733 posts, read 2,429,180 times
Reputation: 2119

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by catt_al View Post
I'm sorry, I stopped reading after "12,000 gun related deaths". Did you say something else?
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2013, 06:54 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,190,315 times
Reputation: 11862
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2013, 06:11 PM
 
2 posts, read 3,335 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.
No need. Anyway, the point I'm making is not that guns should be banned, but that viewing 12,000 deaths as a positive thing is a bit ludicrous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2013, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,058,733 times
Reputation: 7808
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.
False sense of security.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 04:17 PM
 
922 posts, read 1,912,378 times
Reputation: 507
Default secure in my knowledge of guns

Like I asked before can you anti gunners post a chart on guns saving lives? Please show me where YOU have found they never save an innocents life. You might learn something. As for my false security, I'm very secure knowing 1)there are bad people with guns 2)NO law will stop them from being bad guys, 3) I will defend myself to the fullest extent if I need to. If you want to help, try working with gun owners, we have discipline, ability and a desire to see gun violence end. As to countries that have banned guns, sorry tobe you people. It will NOT happen here in my country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,912 posts, read 24,711,285 times
Reputation: 5165
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,761 posts, read 7,853,733 times
Reputation: 5328
If a defender has to take one life to save several, or just one, where is the problem? You have the attacker who was already intent on causing the death, or injury, of one or more persons. The problem is a defender never knows the true intentions of their attacker. The attacker may have no intentions of causing harm and only use a firearm to intimidate. Of course, the attacker may have every intention of causing the most damage possible and leaving no witnesses.

Just as firearms can be used to commit crimes, hammers can be used to bend nails, knives can be used to slash tires, and airplanes can be used to take down buildings. It's not the tool that is the problem. It's the idiot operating it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,912 posts, read 24,711,285 times
Reputation: 5165
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq View Post
If a defender has to take one life to save several, or just one, where is the problem? ...
Not sure if directed at me or everyone or what. I'm not sure if there is a problem as you've stated it there, but the OP seems to want to make charts of gun murder rates and similar irrelevant to this debate, and I don't see how they can be, unless the goal is to point to a handful of examples and say "Look, guns save people". Well yeah, duh.

If "Guns save lives" on a more grand scale in aggregate, I think we should look at some stats about how many lives they save in aggregate. I will say I have a suspicion that nobody really collects stats like that, but I'd be happy to be mistaken. To come to a conclusion that "Guns save people" on a wider scale, I think they'd at least have to save more than they kill each year.

Of course, to use the context of your ending remark, it's actually people using a gun correctly (so to speak) who save people and those using it, er, incorrectly, who kill people. But I was using the terminology of the premise of the thread. "Guns save lives" it states. Okay, so setting aside the fact that the objects themselves don't do anything without a person attached, I would be interested to see someone try to demonstrate that statement on the scale of all personally owned guns in general in the US (the individual right to bear firearms is what is typically in question, not the right of the armed forces or law enforcement to issue firearms, so those are outside the scope), rather than point to a few anecdotes. If that was not the goal here then I think there isn't much to debate.

The idea that "Guns save lives" as a simple statement regarding gun control debate in the US would hold much more water if it turns out that in fact it can be demonstrated that more lives are saved than taken with guns. I am not convinced of how such a comparison would come out, actually. I could easily see it going either way. If there really are more instances of lives being saved, then it would mean that these situations are far more common than my own personal experience and those of friends/family/acquaintances would suggest. If instead there are few of these situations where guns truly do save lives, well, we can chalk some of it up to things such as people inclined to want a gun for protection are getting the feeling of protection instead of significant demonstrable protection, which is true of a lot of precautions taken in the name of security. But I really don't have a good feel for where the numbers would fall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 02:58 PM
 
922 posts, read 1,912,378 times
Reputation: 507
"guns save lives" is to simple for some it seems. Now pro-gunners need to show they save more lives than are killed? What happened to the "if it saves just one life" idea. There are fewer stats on when a bad guy runs away when a person defends themselves. I agree. How many drunks drive home after the super bowl? Not the ones stopped by police. Maybe we should ban beer on that day!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh area
9,912 posts, read 24,711,285 times
Reputation: 5165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
"guns save lives" is to simple for some it seems. Now pro-gunners need to show they save more lives than are killed? What happened to the "if it saves just one life" idea. There are fewer stats on when a bad guy runs away when a person defends themselves. I agree. How many drunks drive home after the super bowl? Not the ones stopped by police. Maybe we should ban beer on that day!
How does it "save just one life" if more people are killed with guns than saved with them? Seems to me that math would be out of whack, if it is the case.

The math is pretty simple: lets say 8000 people are killed with guns and 8001 are saved. Then, yes, literally just one life right? Hey, maybe that number saved is 15000, or even 50,000. I don't know, just an example. The higher the number, the better the argument, many more saved than killed.

But instead, lets say 8000 people are killed with guns and 6000 people are saved. How can you argue that guns saved "just one life", let alone all 6000, when the net effect of having the guns is 2000 more people dead than without them? I don't see anything complicated there; it's quite simple in fact. Take away the guns completely, and only 6000 people would die vs the 8000 people who died with the guns. See? Yes, those particular 6000 people were saved, but at the expense of 8000 other people being killed. The net effect of "guns" in general in that example would be that 2000 more people died than if there were zero guns.

Your beer analogy is backwards. Banning beer would be the "save just one life" argument.

I'm not saying you or "pro-gunners" NEED to do anything. Hell I'm not even saying you're wrong! I'm just looking for a coherent argument that "Guns save lives" and not seeing one yet. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.
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 05:33 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