Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Yep, I will get bored, because for each of these stories, there are dozens of stories where guns cause death or injury when it isnt needed. According to the US Centers for Disease Control/prevention, about 1400 total people die from accidental gunshot wounds and about 100,000 are injured accidentally with gunshots per year. So thanks for your ...um.... SEVEN stories of when they helped out... 164215[/snapback] And according to various sources (including the US Department of Justice) privately owned firearms prevent between 750,000 and 3,000,000 crimes annually in the United States. Over 95% of the time, the gun is never fired. Simply brandishing it is enough to stop the crime. Currently there are approximately 1800 citizens per police officer in this country. They'll be more than happy to outline you in chalk when you are a victim.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 "...But only an idiot can't see that they have done more harm than good." another LIE. How do you suppose this country got out of the grips of tyrrany? couldn't have been our ability to produce and operate fire arms. Nah, that just doesn't match your "stats". you are so blind that it's comical. really it is. and sad at the same time. 164255[/snapback] Produce?? Operate I will give you... No... We can thank the French for supplying us with 95% of all ammunition to fight the English... Oh... Wait... Ooops.
stevestojan Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 you are so blind that it's comical. really it is. and sad at the same time. 164255[/snapback] another sign of a desperate man... tossing insults. Im blind, huh? http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/img_alt_srchttp_190.html http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...34216928630.xml http://kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2668293&nav=15MUTzYc http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/8904-totshot.html http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/technique/...10/news1-s.html http://www.ktvotv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=...01&nav=1LFrTMPK http://www.kovr13.com/09sep00/091900a.htm Ok, I think that's enough for now.. My point is, you are saying that this woman should have had a gun, because it would have HELPED the situation. I said, she would have been very nervous and perhaps she wouldnt have gotten two perfect shots off. Someone said they were sure if she had a gun she was trained well enough to know how to use it... as seen above, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case.
mary owen Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 another sign of a desperate man... tossing insults. Im blind, huh? http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/img_alt_srchttp_190.html http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...34216928630.xml http://kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2668293&nav=15MUTzYc http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/8904-totshot.html http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/technique/...10/news1-s.html http://www.ktvotv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=...01&nav=1LFrTMPK http://www.kovr13.com/09sep00/091900a.htm Ok, I think that's enough for now.. My point is, you are saying that this woman should have had a gun, because it would have HELPED the situation. I said, she would have been very nervous and perhaps she wouldnt have gotten two perfect shots off. Someone said they were sure if she had a gun she was trained well enough to know how to use it... as seen above, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case. 164291[/snapback] steve. or is it Stevie as in Wonder? Try this: BTW, you are the one who threw the "idiot" reference out there.
Guest Guest Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 What liberal morrons do not understand about statistics: In the 2004 presidential elections the counties that voted for Al Gore owned 1/3 of the number of guns owned in the counties that voted for GWB. Yet in these same "low gun counties" people were six times as likely to be killed by a hand gun. The knowledge that some one may likely be able to defend themselves deters crime and changes statistics. Please note that England has the most strict gun control laws in the western civilizations and by far they also have the highest crime rate. Crime is so bad that their unarmed police cannot deal with it. This speaks volumes about the safety of gun control.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 And according to various sources (including the US Department of Justice) privately owned firearms prevent between 750,000 and 3,000,000 crimes annually in the United States. Currently there are approximately 1800 citizens per police officer in this country. They'll be more than happy to outline you in chalk when you are a victim. 164278[/snapback] I knew you would chime in with some "fear stat"? You can't argure that in that situation, if a fire arm was innvolved, would have ended up either the WORST possible outcome or the BEST possible outcome. The fact of the matter is that they are both alive. I have no problems if you want to take that chance for higher gain... It never usually works the way you want it though.
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 another sign of a desperate man... tossing insults. Im blind, huh? http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/img_alt_srchttp_190.html http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...34216928630.xml http://kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2668293&nav=15MUTzYc http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/8904-totshot.html http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/technique/...10/news1-s.html http://www.ktvotv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=...01&nav=1LFrTMPK http://www.kovr13.com/09sep00/091900a.htm Ok, I think that's enough for now.. My point is, you are saying that this woman should have had a gun, because it would have HELPED the situation. I said, she would have been very nervous and perhaps she wouldnt have gotten two perfect shots off. Someone said they were sure if she had a gun she was trained well enough to know how to use it... as seen above, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case. 164291[/snapback] Well, I got through the first 2 links and that was about all I could stand. The first one, the baby got shot and the mother gave it tylenol and put it down for a nap instead of taking it to the hospital. The second one, the man was charged with felony possession because he was already a convict and wasn't legally allowed to have a gun. 20,000 laws on the books and yet criminals can buy guns. Apparently only law abiding citizens shouldn't have that right? Keep citing mass media stories meant to demonize and scare. They have no agenda.
KurtGodel77 Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 haha... you're funny. That's EXACTLY what I said. No, what I said was, gun supporters can come up with 7 stories. SEVEN. Whereas one simple google will tell you that EVERY YEAR 100,000+ people are injured or killed because obviously people aren't as well trained in gun handling as you assume they should be... 100,000 to SEVEN. Oh, and by the way, his SEVEN stories span 39 years... am i saying guns have only helped in 7 situations over that time span? Of course not. But only an idiot can't see that they have done more harm than good. 164230[/snapback] "am i saying guns have only helped in 7 situations over that time span? Of course not. " Well, if you don't know how many times guns have helped, why do you think that only an idiot would say they've done more harm than good? Guns help in three ways: 1. Deterring individual crimes. A single woman whose home gets invaded can probably chase the rapist away with a gun. 2. Killing criminals in the process of committing crime; thus preventing those criminals from committing future crimes. 3. Discouraging the faint of heart from a life of crime; because they know that any given criminal act could result in their immediate death. In the Wild West, the per-capita murder rate was significantly lower than in modern American cities. The fact that nearly every able-bodied man owned a gun was probably a big reason why.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 What liberal morrons do not understand about statistics: In the 2004 presidential elections the counties that voted for Al Gore owned 1/3 of the number of guns owned in the counties that voted for GWB. Yet in these same "low gun counties" people were six times as likely to be killed by a hand gun. The knowledge that some one may likely be able to defend themselves deters crime and changes statistics. Please note that England has the most strict gun control laws in the western civilizations and by far they also have the highest crime rate. Crime is so bad that their unarmed police cannot deal with it. This speaks volumes about the safety of gun control. 164305[/snapback] "Straw purchasers"? You never get rid of the influx... The lax areas will always drive down the strict areas first.
mary owen Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 another sign of a desperate man... tossing insults. Im blind, huh? http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/img_alt_srchttp_190.html http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...34216928630.xml http://kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2668293&nav=15MUTzYc http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/8904-totshot.html http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/technique/...10/news1-s.html http://www.ktvotv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=...01&nav=1LFrTMPK http://www.kovr13.com/09sep00/091900a.htm Ok, I think that's enough for now.. My point is, you are saying that this woman should have had a gun, because it would have HELPED the situation. I said, she would have been very nervous and perhaps she wouldnt have gotten two perfect shots off. Someone said they were sure if she had a gun she was trained well enough to know how to use it... as seen above, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case. 164291[/snapback] all these stories have dumbasses in them. Steve, I have a brother who was shot THROUGH the heart at age 13. By a kid whose father didn't properly store a weapon away. Gun ownership has many responsibilities. If this nation wasn't so scared of guns, maybe the majority would learn to educate themselves more freely and openly on safety. Anywho, who better to ask about guns than someone who has narrowly avoided death in one of the stupid incidents you point out above? I will seriously PM you my brother Jimmy's number if you want. If you live in the Rochester area, he will meet you, show you the press clipping, and the scar across his chest. In your eyes, he should have the same views as you do. Want to find out for sure? I'm absolutely serious about this.
Gary M Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 haha... you're funny. That's EXACTLY what I said. No, what I said was, gun supporters can come up with 7 stories. SEVEN. Whereas one simple google will tell you that EVERY YEAR 100,000+ people are injured or killed because obviously people aren't as well trained in gun handling as you assume they should be... 100,000 to SEVEN. Oh, and by the way, his SEVEN stories span 39 years... am i saying guns have only helped in 7 situations over that time span? Of course not. But only an idiot can't see that they have done more harm than good. 164230[/snapback] 2 million times a year people use guns to deter crime, I listed 7 to save bandwidth. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/
_BiB_ Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 How about those that believe in having a gun have them, and those that don't -don't? This is another one side will never convince the other. One can not discuss logic here. Some people don't mind being a victim, other's don't plan on ever being one. For every "they're both still alive" there's probably a "they both are dead".
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 How about those that believe in having a gun have them, and those that don't -don't? This is another one side will never convince the other. One can not discuss logic here. Some people don't mind being a victim, other's don't plan on ever being one. For every "they're both still alive" there's probably a "they both are dead". 164341[/snapback] But if I go, somebody's coming with.
Gary M Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 haha... you're funny. That's EXACTLY what I said. No, what I said was, gun supporters can come up with 7 stories. SEVEN. Whereas one simple google will tell you that EVERY YEAR 100,000+ people are injured or killed because obviously people aren't as well trained in gun handling as you assume they should be... 100,000 to SEVEN. Oh, and by the way, his SEVEN stories span 39 years... am i saying guns have only helped in 7 situations over that time span? Of course not. But only an idiot can't see that they have done more harm than good. 164230[/snapback] And which story would you rather read, "3 yr old gets stabbed", or "dirtbag gets shot by women" ? Me, I'll laugh everytime the dirtbag picks the wrong "prey"
Gary M Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 How about those that believe in having a gun have them, and those that don't -don't? This is another one side will never convince the other. One can not discuss logic here. Some people don't mind being a victim, other's don't plan on ever being one. For every "they're both still alive" there's probably a "they both are dead". 164341[/snapback] How about I believe,"you never bring a knife to a gun fight"? Especially in my house.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 For every "they're both still alive" there's probably a "they both are dead". 164341[/snapback] So true... So true... And the firearm is gonna make it better?
gmac17 Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 You guys are idiots. In recent years Great Britain and Australia have both made very strict gun control laws. As a result, crimes committed with guns are way down in both places, right? actually, crimes committed with guns in both countries are way up.
_BiB_ Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 I really don't care what the anti-gun ownership folks have to say, as long as it stays talk. Someone breaks into my place, I'll do what I'll do-as they will do what they would do. I do have a lot of issue, strong issue, with the idea of making me into a criminal through anti-gun legislation efforts. Even if 911 response time is 90 seconds (unrealistic) 90 seconds is an awfully, awfully long time in a bad situation. This "having a gun around will make things more dangerous" is a bunch of crap, providing someone knows what they are doing as opposed to just having it there to have it.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 And which story would you rather read, "3 yr old gets stabbed", or "dirtbag gets shot by women" ? Me, I'll laugh everytime the dirtbag picks the wrong "prey" 164351[/snapback] I see your point... Yet, it doesn't always go smooth. Most likely the story would have read "3 yr old gets accidently shot by mother," or " dirt bags shoot mother and child with mother's gun." What we just laid out are the possible outcomes... Of course I would take the best, it also carries the most risk... Some don't see it that way, fine. Lay out all possible outcomes and you will see that introducing a firearm makes EVERYTHING that much more risky... Nothing works perfectly in life.
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Lay out all possible outcomes and you will see that introducing a firearm makes EVERYTHING that much more risky... Nothing works perfectly in life. 164372[/snapback] Uh, OK.
Recommended Posts