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 10-22-2017, 02:30 PM
 
19,731 posts, read 10,155,727 times
Reputation: 13097

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Actually, there's lots of scientific data that says just that. Here's two:

"Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article...eath-in#ref-30

"In fact, guns kept in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone known to the family than to be used to kill in self-defense."

Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population | AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS | Pediatrics

These are facts.
Actually that says nothing about people owning more than one gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2017, 04:52 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,699,815 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Actually that says nothing about people owning more than one gun.
The fact remains: There is an increased risk of death for those who live in households with a gun present.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2017, 05:03 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,161 posts, read 15,652,523 times
Reputation: 17152
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Actually, there's lots of scientific data that says just that. Here's two:

"Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article...eath-in#ref-30

"In fact, guns kept in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone known to the family than to be used to kill in self-defense."

Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population | AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS | Pediatrics

These are facts.

There's something you're failing to understand. There's all this scientific mumbo jumbo, statistics, studies, and such, and then there's the real world. There's people who have never had a violent crime touch their lives (I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong that you fall into this group), people who have been victims of violent crime and people who turned an attempt at a violent crime back on itself.


Group one who have never felt the aftermath of a violent crime make up the large portion of anti firearms rights types. Having never experienced what it's like to go through that , or worse see a dearest loved one go through that are the ones who really just don't get it. These crimes can happen anywhere , anytime to anyone. Where you live, where you work, the lifestyle you lead, none of that matters a fart in a high wind. When it happens you won't see it coming. You can't anticipate it. It just happens. And this is something I know all to well.


I have been training and competing with firearms since I was quite young. No, I didn't start out with action (some say tactical) type shooting. Even before CCW became the law of the land I never went anywhere without my pistol in the truck. When I was just starting out in my 20s I lived in some less than savory areas and I slept with a pistol on my nightstand. Time went on and I moved up in the world, never had to defend myself when I had to live in a shabby studio in the Barrio.


My Dad passed away and I moved my family to the ranch and picked my roots back up. Couldn't have had a safer place to be. But trips to the city were necessary. On one such trip out of nowhere and for no other reason than I was there I had to defend myself. Not all that far from where I had my first apartment. Two attackers, one dead the other fled and caught later. The one who died had a gun. If the other was armed I didn't see it. He hauled azz when his buddy hit the pavement. Both were gang affiliated. It was an ordeal, and one I don't want to repeat, but had I not been armed I would no doubt be dead or crippled.


Both these guys were well known to the police and had violent felonies on their records. Spin the clock up 20 years give or take. My wife and I divorced and I moved away. I wound up in a relationship with the love of my life. Never before and never again will I love anyone this way. She was a night shift nurse at the regional hospital and one night when she was leaving shift early in the wee hours she was assaulted in the parking lot going to her car. The hospital campus is one of the very best places in town. You'd never in a million years actually expect such a thing to happen anywhere near there.


This particular bipred was a nasty customer. A real predator looking for a specific prey. A woman that might go a buck ten soaking wet in workboots late at night in a large parking area was just the ticket I guess. He vastly under estimated her. Suffice it to say he's the one in the wheelchair spending the rest of his miserable existence in prison. But she didn't get out unscathed. You want to know anger, fear, have your heart torn out? Get a phone call like I got and see someone you love more than life on a gurney in the ER because some varmint attacked her.


You could never hope to convince me that statistics mean more than our right to the means to defend ourselves. Me and a LOT of other folks. As a general rule, this town is very quiet. Not much in the way of violent crime. A very good place to live. But criminals don't just keep to "bad" areas. They are everywhere. Anytime you venture out, no matter where, you could be singled out as prey. For no other reason than just for kicks. When it happens to you it's a very sobering feeling.


I can never in good conscience accept laws that take away our rights to defend ourselves, with lethal force if necessary. Any further than such things have already gone here in my home state is unacceptable. You need not worry about me moving to CA. Or even crossing the border for any reason. I will not be turned into a criminal merely because I'm prepared to defend myself and my loved ones, and in CA that does make me a criminal. That's just WEIRD man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2017, 07:14 PM
 
19,731 posts, read 10,155,727 times
Reputation: 13097
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
The fact remains: There is an increased risk of death for those who live in households with a gun present.
Not what you claimed. You said the more guns they had, the more risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 09:38 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,161 posts, read 15,652,523 times
Reputation: 17152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Not what you claimed. You said the more guns they had, the more risk.

Either way, this theory is convoluted and very polluted with biased and quite less than factual opinion. Just like all death by firearms "statistics" the information the antis point to for this uses suicides and even home defense incidents where it's a criminal who is killed in the home. They would have everyone believe that these numbers only cite incidents where an unwitting and innocent child was playing with Daddy's gun that was carelessly left on the nightstand.


Just like all their "arguments, it won't hold water let alone pass for airtight.

Last edited by NVplumber; 10-23-2017 at 09:56 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 09:49 AM
 
29,567 posts, read 14,714,442 times
Reputation: 14488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd View Post
It is pathetic.
What is it with the Liberal world where the good guy is the bad guy and actual criminals are the victims of our society?

People have a choice to pick up a gun and go on a crime spree. The law abiding live by the rules and they are being made the enemy of the state.

It should be simple. If you mug someone you go to jail. If you use knife, you go to jail for a longer time, if you use a gun then you go away for even longer.

Why do they want to protect the criminals and turn their backs on their would be victims?


It is beyond logic. I just can't figure this out, and yet sheeple keep voting these dolts in. SMH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,841,952 times
Reputation: 24863
NV Plumber - Thank you for your excellent essay on the need to be able to defend yourself and the agony of not being there to defend the people you love.


I believe the opposition to being armed is based on two sets of fear. The first is the misguided notion that if I am assaulted and I offer no resistance the assailant(s) will be sympathetic and not hurt me. This is a very risky way to think because attackers are driven by both the need for money and the overwhelming need to feel and be powerful. They get their first wish by stealing your money. The fill the second by hurting you. They get off on hurting people. They have no desire to get hurt in the process so they look for weak unprepared victims. This completely contradicts the belief that if you are cooperative enough you will not get hurt.


The other fear is worry about the guilt you will feel if you do have to injure or kill assailant. I consider this to be a lesser problem because it I do kill the attacker I will still be alive to feel guilty. Generally a talk with a priest or a shrink will take care of the guilt. Letting yourself get injured or killed is not worth avoiding guilt. Not to me anyway.


What will deter most, but not all, criminals is to stay alert and if a dangerous situation starts put your hand on your weapon and face your assailant and look it in the eye and just think I will kill this thing. If the assault stops let them walk away. If it continues use your weapon to kill the creep. Do not waste your time on trying to wound it.


Then make your call to 911 and explain the situation to the police and to your lawyer. In Cali tuo will probably need one. Getting a lawyer anywhere is a good idea anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 10:35 AM
AFP
 
7,412 posts, read 6,914,188 times
Reputation: 6632
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
We must thank Californian voters for this.
Nope the Supreme court ruled in 2011 that California is to reduce it's prison population due to overcrowding and a time line was established. Because overcrowding violated the prisoners constitutional rights. This mandate has had an effect on policy. You can blame the "war on drugs" and the pendulum domino effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,865 posts, read 3,307,126 times
Reputation: 9149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday View Post
The restrictions need to be national in order to be effective. California can ban and regulate ti'l the cows come home but when Nevada next door has a free for all on guns it won't work. I say ban the private ownership of bullets. People can go to ranges to shoot. Yes, I know bullets can be made but this will lower the ability of the average American to gun down others in movie theaters, malls, elementary schools, concerts, churches, synagogues, temples, workplaces, military installations, colleges, tourists traps, public transportation, highways, dowtowns, cities, suburbs, etc...
Ban ownership of bullets? OMG that has to take the cake. Personally I own almost 10k in ammo. I have never once hurt anyone. Other than the defense of my family I will never even think of using a firearm. Your statement is unbelievable!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 12:24 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,592,411 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP View Post
Nope the Supreme court ruled in 2011 that California is to reduce it's prison population due to overcrowding and a time line was established. Because overcrowding violated the prisoners constitutional rights. This mandate has had an effect on policy. You can blame the "war on drugs" and the pendulum domino effect.
Can’t they just build more prisons? When did this become rocket science?
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 03:48 AM.

© 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