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.
NRA is biased but I have to give it credit that the list cited sources.
If you read my local newspaper, that some intruder got shot is like daily event here.
Of course NRA is biased, but who else will compile and publish this information.
No one can argue that the stories are not real because the NRA is smart enough to cite the local stories.
Self defense gun uses are found in local news everyday. The national news will never draw attention to these stories.
why not try some REAL statistics here, instead of the crap you have posted. granted the stats in this article are from 2007, but they are still relevant today;
mexico had 11,309 homicides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 15,500,000
the phillipines had 7,349 homcides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 3,900,000
south africa had 8,319 homicides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 5,950,000
the US had 9,146 homicides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 270,000,000
venezuela had 11,150 homicides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 2,850,000
jamaica had 1080 homicides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 215,000
honduras had 5201 homcides by firearm in 2007, while having a population of 500,000
guatamala had 5009 homicides by firearm in 2007 while having a population of 1,650,000
so given those statistics, and given that the US has 88 firearms per 100 people, can you tell me wich countries truly have a problem with murders by firearm? i can tell you the US ranks about 28th in the world.
Really? You are comparing America with Mexico, Venezuela, Jamaica and Honduras. As a first world nation we should be comparing ourselves to other first world nations.
Yeh - honors in Econ from a top 10 school, and an MBA. You?
Don't need to have an MBA to understand that the people in these 7000 stories were successful in their use of defensive firearms.
There is a difference between lawful gun owners and people that possess guns illegally. I don't understand why people cant distinguish between the two.
People that carry concealed firearms in public legally have a license. Otherwise they are in violation of the law.
Really? You are comparing America with Mexico, Venezuela, Jamaica and Honduras. As a first world nation we should be comparing ourselves to other first world nations.
NRA is biased but I have to give it credit that the list cited sources.
If you read my local newspaper, that some intruder got shot is like daily event here.
Defensive shootings are actually more common here than criminal ones, and there's, thankfully, not one every day. I do believe that many people have a lot of misconception about defensive carry/CCW, and home defense gun ownership. There seems to be this view, among the anti self defense crowd, that people who take personal initiative in their personal defense, somehow, WANT someone to attack them or invade their home. Kerosene that gets tossed on the anti gun fire.
My experiences tell a different story. Having to use a weapon, any weapon, in self defense isn't anything anyone I know is wishing would happen. We tend to praise people who do, successfully, defend themselves against criminal violation, which is understandable, but that doesn't make us a nation of killers. Defensive cases do to us that we are better off armed than not, and it eludes me, how this nonsense about being less safe as an armed populace can be given credibility, by anyone with half a brain.
Someone very dear to me, would not be in my life today, were she not armed, so, its impossible for me to think she would have been better off not. Or that anyone is. It not a myth, the "armed good guy/gal". Though I prefer to think of that in different terms. Perhaps the "prepared guy/gal", is better, as the former term smacks of an insulting insinuation that these people are carrying visions of heroics. I.can attest, that there are no such thoughts involved, for someone who has had to resort to lethal force. For 99.999% of people who have been there, its something they would as soon forget, as receive any praise for.
This is the burden and responsibility we carry, as armed citizens. The realization of that, is exactly why we are safer being armed ,than not. This notion that personal arms somehow place us in higher danger is flat ludicrous. I don't see any sort of pressure being put on anyone to rush out and buy a gun, and I don't believe that there is any movement to glorify gun ownership by the armed community. We, as a whole, I believe, think that anyone who doesn't want a firearm, should not have one. Its a commitment and responsibility, and its not for everyone. The 2A, however, is there, for those who accept both the commitment and responsibility and choose to exercise the right to personal arms that we have.
As far as I'm concerned, the "debate" was over in 1776. All the discussion about firearms rights we have, here or anywhere,...well, its just chin music, I reckon.
Please. Not everyone was born in a mall. Firearms are a normal part of growing up in most areas of the US. You know, farms, ranches, even urban areas.
My grandfather owned several hundred acres of gazing land in Idaho in a very remote place, real "God's country" type of environment. During the entire course of his life he only owned 1 gun, a 1902 Springfield. Of which he rarely actually needed to use. To him a rifle was a tool, like a hammer or shove. I don't know where this whole growing up on a farm = guns culture came from but it wasn't that way back in the day.
I am fine with responsible gun ownership. The police can't be everywhere and it also takes time for them to arrive. And with the current unrest and dissatisfaction of our chronic poor, I have no desire to ever make it easy for them to take my possessions. You come for my stuff or to try to harm those I love, then I will defend them with deadly force. I will not be the victim of looting or rioting.
In college, I had an apartment break-in and my stereo stolen. Ten years ago, my boyfriend's garage space was broken into and a lot of expensive car parts went missing. The police could do nothing about catching the thieves let alone retrieving the stolen items. Therefore, it's on us to secure our belongings. I will not have any of the have-nots take from us. I feel no social guilt over their impoverished lifestyle. We don't owe them anything.
I would find a firearm good for shooting out the tires of their getaway vehicle... and then the police would also have their fingerprints...
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.
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.
