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.
Personaly I see many sides to this issue. I see how people with children do not want them around guns. They are dangerous and kids many times want to play with them. I see how people want to defend themself with a firearm, and I see how people in the innercity with gun shots going off all night want them off the streets. I think personally that I would never want to get rid of my guns totaly, but some control is not out of line. The NRA goes way to far and they are aonly concerned about big business, like Colt and S&W. Not people. I have been to gun shows where an old company now out of business called RHINO ARMS used to sell all the parts to make an AR15 an M16 and sub sonic ammo and when anyone would give a name it was usually John Doe. Kind of spookey when some guy wants 800 rounds of sub sonic ammo. The gun companys always go over the line in many cases, advertising no fingerprint grips, or 200 round drums.
If you own a gun for protection, the stats tell us (for anyone who is wants a little facts with their NRA paranoia, that reference is located in my other post on this thread) that said gun is twenty-two times more likely to kill/wound a family member than it is to be used against an intruder.
Again: I would like to see you back that up with something more than skewed stats that have been regurgitated from The Brady Group or some other anti firearms source. Good grief! If there was even a shred of 'fact' to this, with those odds, every household with a firearm in it would have had, or will soon have, a negligent shooting. And the police officer who takes his duty weapon home? Is his family in the same danger then? Or the Secret Service, FBI or ATF agent? Statistically speaking of course. Nobody is immune right?
President Obama about his girls: "And dating I think will be an issue because I have men with guns surrounding them at all times [laughter], which I'm perfectly happy with..." (c) Why can he protect his family with guns and I cannot?
For the same reason he gets to ride in Marine One and you don't.
Again: I would like to see you back that up with something more than skewed stats that have been regurgitated from The Brady Group or some other anti firearms source. Good grief! If there was even a shred of 'fact' to this, with those odds, every household with a firearm in it would have had, or will soon have, a negligent shooting. And the police officer who takes his duty weapon home? Is his family in the same danger then? Or the Secret Service, FBI or ATF agent? Statistically speaking of course. Nobody is immune right?
I fully support gun rights, but this tired excuse doesn't make sense.
Yes, criminals break laws. That's what makes them criminals. Using this as an argument against a law is nonsensical. We may as well usher in anarchy, because after all, "Do you think that criminals who have no regard for the law to begin with are going to follow any...law?"
My point was that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would then put them only in the hands of criminals who wish to do harm, leaving citizens wide open for attack. So yes, it makes perfect sense, gun control laws do not affect criminals, it only affects people using them for protection or sport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Try this: A thief will ignore robbery laws, so we shouldn't enact any laws against robbery.
Law abiding citizens aren't robbing people. Comparing gun ownership to robbery is what doesn't make sense.
...most private citizens that have had to use a firearm for defense fire only once or twice if at all.
Not if they're smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
With all the trainin that police officers recieve it would seem that officer involved shootings would be far less dramatic. Lol, if a private citizen were to go that trigger crazy in a defensive shooting he/she would no doubt be prosecuted for excessive force.
If you have to shoot a suspect you believe is armed you shoot until he or she stops moving and you're sure they're no longer a threat.
If you own a gun for protection, the stats tell us (for anyone who is wants a little facts with their NRA paranoia, that reference is located in my other post on this thread) that said gun is twenty-two times more likely to kill/wound a family member than it is to be used against an intruder.
Geechie, I was raised by a father who was a career Marine Corps officer and fought in three wars. He was also an avid gun collector, an ace marksman and drilled gun safety into me before I ever fired my first round at about age 6. I, in turn, spent 20+ years carrying and using guns as both a soldier in my own right and as a peace officer. My children grew up with them and I drilled gun safety into them. Three of the five own guns of their own.
Pity the intruder and don't worry about my family members. Even on my worst days I can tell the difference.
If you have to shoot a suspect you believe is armed you shoot until he or she stops moving and you're sure they're no longer a threat.
Somwhere in there you missed my point. The purpose of shooting is hitting.Yes, the spray and pray tactic has been applied to LE training and the results I have already gone over. Shoot until he stops moving or is no longer a threat is fine, but this is contingent on whether any of the rounds sent downrange have actually hit the suspect. I do not subscribe to the advocacy of unaimed fire.
The gun in your home- the one that makes you feel "safe"- is 22 times MORE likely to kill/injure a family member than it is to repel an intruder.
That figure is based on what, exactly?
Statistics that are "staggering" are also often misleading, especially when they are raised in the context of gun control. Various organizations and individuals responsible for pushing the anti-gun agenda have produced and popularized many "statistics" that are significantly flawed. I recognize the "22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend" as a restatement of discredited research done by Arthur Kellerman. Here are just a few of the flaws in Kellerman's research:
The best estimates indicated that over 90% of firearm uses in self-defense occur without firing the weapon, much less killing anyone.
The original research did not track "family member or friend" deaths; it tracked deaths that were "known associates". People who fall into that category include abusive ex-husbands, abusive ex-boyfriends, and the drug dealer down the street who you called the police on last week.
The original research counted suicides using the firearm.
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.
Again: I would like to see you back that up with something more than skewed stats that have been regurgitated from The Brady Group or some other anti firearms source. Good grief! If there was even a shred of 'fact' to this, with those odds, every household with a firearm in it would have had, or will soon have, a negligent shooting. And the police officer who takes his duty weapon home? Is his family in the same danger then? Or the Secret Service, FBI or ATF agent? Statistically speaking of course.
Nobody is immune right?
