Another senseless reason why guns should be outlawed

K

Krgrecw

**NOT ACTUALLY RACIST
This is the dramatic moment a motorist with a concealed carry permit got out of his car and aimed his gun at a man who was punching a woman.

The unidentified man, hailed by witnesses as a hero, was driving along a road in the city of Southlake near Dallas, Texas, when he saw suspect MacMichael Nwaiwu, 28, attacking the female passenger on Friday.

He then pulled over, stepped out of the driver's side door and held up his weapon to the red car on the other side of the road.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mit-holds-gun-man-saw-punching-woman-car.html

I am sick and tired of so many law abiding citizens using thier guns to protect themselves and others. This needs to stop. We should all live in a country where it is hard for good people to obtain guns
 
Toddler accidentally shoots, kills Idaho Walmart shopper

HAYDEN, Idaho— A 29-year-old woman died Tuesday after a toddler reached into her purse and accidentally discharged her handgun, authorities said.

The woman, whose name has not been released, was shopping at a Wal-Mart in this Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, suburb with four children in tow. One of the children, a boy about 2 years old, reached into the woman's purse at about 11:15 a.m. MT, and the weapon accidentally discharged, said Lt. Stu Miller, Kootenai County Sheriff's Office spokesman.
Video surveillance in the store and witness testimony helped deputies determine that this was an accident, officials said. The woman, who was in town for the holidays, had a concealed weapons permit.
Hayden, with about 9,000 residents, is 6 miles north of Coeur d'Alene in Idaho's northern panhandle and about 35 miles northeast of Spokane, Wash.
 
goldfly said:
Toddler accidentally shoots, kills Idaho Walmart shopper

HAYDEN, Idaho— A 29-year-old woman died Tuesday after a toddler reached into her purse and accidentally discharged her handgun, authorities said.

The woman, whose name has not been released, was shopping at a Wal-Mart in this Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, suburb with four children in tow. One of the children, a boy about 2 years old, reached into the woman's purse at about 11:15 a.m. MT, and the weapon accidentally discharged, said Lt. Stu Miller, Kootenai County Sheriff's Office spokesman.
Video surveillance in the store and witness testimony helped deputies determine that this was an accident, officials said. The woman, who was in town for the holidays, had a concealed weapons permit.
Hayden, with about 9,000 residents, is 6 miles north of Coeur d'Alene in Idaho's northern panhandle and about 35 miles northeast of Spokane, Wash.
Click to expand...

Clearly we need more regulation on purses. And parents.
 
hey runnin, let's not get crazy here

guns don't kill people. toddlers kill people
 
The Idaho Mom sounds like a wonderful person, but clearly she was not thinking when she walked away from her purse/gun. You cannot under estimate how smart children are.

Obviously, there are going to be mistakes. People are stupid or they make mistakes. People get in fatal car accidents, etc. that costs lives. But, there are far more cases of armed everyday citizens that save lives because they have chosen to responsibly carry a gun.
 
gilesfan said:
But, there are far more cases of armed everyday citizens that save lives because they have chosen to responsibly carry a gun.
Click to expand...
I do not believe this.

The solution for having too many guns in a society cannot be to just have more guns.
 
Runnin said:
I do not believe this.

The solution for having too many guns in a society cannot be to just have more guns.
Click to expand...

For every instance like this, how many times do responsible owners protect themselves, their family, and/or others? It happens all the time. Gun accidents like these do not.
 
Eh, I dunno. It's really hard to keep accurate statistics on gun accidents. There was a really interesting article in the NYT a few years ago about how many handgun deaths which appear accidental are actually classified as homicides or suicides. It's a determination made by local medical examiners/coroners, and standards vary considerably. Also, the NRA has fairly successfully lobbied the federal government to avoid keeping nationwide statistics.

For every instance like this, how many times do responsible owners protect themselves, their family, and/or others?

I think you'd be surprised. In fact, I think that in-home accidents significantly outnumber in-home defensive uses. Actually, it's not even close, and that's without considering DV homicides and suicides.
 
Julio3000 said:
Eh, I dunno. It's really hard to keep accurate statistics on gun accidents. There was a really interesting article in the NYT a few years ago about how many handgun deaths which appear accidental are actually classified as homicides or suicides. It's a determination made by local medical examiners/coroners, and standards vary considerably. Also, the NRA has fairly successfully lobbied the federal government to avoid keeping nationwide statistics.

For every instance like this, how many times do responsible owners protect themselves, their family, and/or others?

I think you'd be surprised. In fact, I think that in-home accidents significantly outnumber in-home defensive uses. Actually, it's not even close, and that's without considering DV homicides and suicides.
Click to expand...

I would doubt it, but you might be right. Im not talking about some dumb **** firing a bullet in his foot.....there are instances all the time about weapon holders saving lives. Its not reported widely on the news or it's just a quick blurb, unfortunately. I can't even go through all the links on reddit that show examples.

p.s. I was not using only in home defense uses.
 
gilesfan said:
I would doubt it, but you might be right. Im not talking about some dumb **** firing a bullet in his foot.....there are instances all the time about weapon holders saving lives. Its not reported widely on the news or it's just a quick blurb, unfortunately. I can't even go through all the links on reddit that show examples.

p.s. I was not using only in home defense uses.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a jerk, but I'm pretty sure I am right.

The commonly-quoted numbers for "defensive" gun uses have a million holes in them, no pun intended. I used in-home incidents to compare apples to apples, since I was talking about in-home accidents. You can cut it up differently if you like, but you can't make a convincing data-driven case that more guns make us safer. I understand that there may be an underreporting problem with "deterrent" cases, but the flipside of that is that a self-reported "deterrent" case might actually be an unlawful or dangerous use of a gun. At any rate, that's a pretty flimsy thing to hang your hat on. "I know these cases exist, but I can't prove it." It's your intuition against goldy's, or runnin's, or mine.

This is a very emotional issue. One side waves the bloody shirt after tragedy. The other side (pretty cynically, IMO) appeals to peoples' fear and their desire to protect their loved ones. Neither of the extremes is going to move much. The constitutional issue has been more or less decided. I'm not an advocate of banning guns—mostly because I don't think it's a realistic goal in America. I respect the sporting use of firearms and I understand—though I do not agree with, personally—the inclination towards using a gun for self-defense.

A question: why do you think the NRA is so dead-set against having the federal government collect data on gun deaths, injuries, and accidents?

I certainly have an visceral opinion about guns, but I don't consider myself an anti-gun crusader. I do think, based on data, that guns should be more stringently regulated across a variety of fronts. I think that gun manufacturers should no longer have special immunity from tort liability. If we're gonna have guns—and we are—we should do what we can to mitigate the risk they pose. Whenever this debate pops up, the thing that I'm most bothered by is the assertion that we're a safer society the more guns we have. I don't believe it and the data doesn't support it.
 
Julio3000 said:
Not trying to be a jerk, but I'm pretty sure I am right.

The commonly-quoted numbers for "defensive" gun uses have a million holes in them, no pun intended. I used in-home incidents to compare apples to apples, since I was talking about in-home accidents. You can cut it up differently if you like, but you can't make a convincing data-driven case that more guns make us safer. I understand that there may be an underreporting problem with "deterrent" cases, but the flipside of that is that a self-reported "deterrent" case might actually be an unlawful or dangerous use of a gun. At any rate, that's a pretty flimsy thing to hang your hat on. "I know these cases exist, but I can't prove it." It's your intuition against goldy's, or runnin's, or mine.

This is a very emotional issue. One side waves the bloody shirt after tragedy. The other side (pretty cynically, IMO) appeals to peoples' fear and their desire to protect their loved ones. Neither of the extremes is going to move much. The constitutional issue has been more or less decided. I'm not an advocate of banning guns—mostly because I don't think it's a realistic goal in America. I respect the sporting use of firearms and I understand—though I do not agree with, personally—the inclination towards using a gun for self-defense.

A question: why do you think the NRA is so dead-set against having the federal government collect data on gun deaths, injuries, and accidents?

I certainly have an visceral opinion about guns, but I don't consider myself an anti-gun crusader. I do think, based on data, that guns should be more stringently regulated across a variety of fronts. I think that gun manufacturers should no longer have special immunity from tort liability. If we're gonna have guns—and we are—we should do what we can to mitigate the risk they pose. Whenever this debate pops up, the thing that I'm most bothered by is the assertion that we're a safer society the more guns we have. I don't believe it and the data doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

I would venture to guess that guns are used as protection a lot more outside of the home than inside the home. There just aren't that many home invasions unless the home is occupied by a drug dealer. Sure they happen, but not very often. Johnny Smith going to the convenience store and getting robbed is far more likely than him getting robbed while at home. Personally, I don't know anyone that was the victim of a home invasion. I do know a few people, including myself, that have been victims of armed robbery.

There are so many examples of everyday citizens using guns to protect others. You can go into the CCW subreddit and see numerous examples everyday. These are reported widely on the national level. Very rarely do you ever hear about a licensed gun holder shooting anyone outside of self defense; either intentional or un intentional.

I really don't care too much about what regulation is out there. I have a concealed carry license and I'm going to exercise my right to carry a weapon and defend myself. I wish more responsible people would do so. People that take the time to take classes and get their license are not the problem with guns in America. I don't remember the exact number, but the percentage of license gun holders that commit a crime (which unlawful discharge is a crime) is insanely low. And since America will never get rid of guns; just like they will never get rid of drugs; I choose to defend myself and if politicians try to take that right from me, I'm going to fight it with whatever I have. If they want to get rid of machine guns, true assault weapons, etc.; I really couldn't care less. While I enjoy the sport aspect of guns and also hunting; the true value of guns to me is self defense.

If no one had guns, we would be a relatively safe country. Can you promise me no one would have guns? Legislation doesn't take guns from the bad guys. Its not like there is a real danger in everyday non criminal joe blow accidently shooting someone in public; that's not the problem with guns.
 
gilesfan said:
I would venture to guess that guns are used as protection a lot more outside of the home than inside the home. There just aren't that many home invasions unless the home is occupied by a drug dealer. Sure they happen, but not very often. Johnny Smith going to the convenience store and getting robbed is far more likely than him getting robbed while at home. Personally, I don't know anyone that was the victim of a home invasion. I do know a few people, including myself, that have been victims of armed robbery.

There are so many examples of everyday citizens using guns to protect others. You can go into the CCW subreddit and see numerous examples everyday. These are reported widely on the national level. Very rarely do you ever hear about a licensed gun holder shooting anyone outside of self defense; either intentional or un intentional.

I really don't care too much about what regulation is out there. I have a concealed carry license and I'm going to exercise my right to carry a weapon and defend myself. I wish more responsible people would do so. People that take the time to take classes and get their license are not the problem with guns in America. I don't remember the exact number, but the percentage of license gun holders that commit a crime (which unlawful discharge is a crime) is insanely low. And since America will never get rid of guns; just like they will never get rid of drugs; I choose to defend myself and if politicians try to take that right from me, I'm going to fight it with whatever I have. If they want to get rid of machine guns, true assault weapons, etc.; I really couldn't care less. While I enjoy the sport aspect of guns and also hunting; the true value of guns to me is self defense.

If no one had guns, we would be a relatively safe country. Can you promise me no one would have guns? Legislation doesn't take guns from the bad guys. Its not like there is a real danger in everyday non criminal joe blow accidently shooting someone in public; that's not the problem with guns.
Click to expand...

That's great, and totally irrelevant to my point.

FWIW, there's no proof that guns deter crime OUTSIDE the home, either. The main proponent of that theory is John Lott, and some elementary google work will show you what has happened to his conclusions over the years. When the National Research Council examined his data, this was part of their conclusion:

“the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC (Right to Carry) laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.”

I'm not trying to talk you out of owning a gun or carrying it. I'm just challenging your assertion that you and like-minded people are making the world a safer place when you do. A CCW subreddit isn't really going to do much for the case to the contrary.
 
Then why does Chicago have some of the highest gun related offenses?

Is there proof that guns don't deter crime outside of the home because I've seen and been involved in specific instances where it does?

I would be shocked if aggravated assault cases increase due to RTC laws bc people exercising their RTC are not the ones that are committing crimes.

How do you quantify how many lives are saved when a CCW holder stops a bad guy?
 
gilesfan said:
Then why does Chicago have some of the highest gun related offenses?

Is there proof that guns don't deter crime outside of the home because I've seen and been involved in specific instances where it does?

I would be shocked if aggravated assault cases increase due to RTC laws bc people exercising their RTC are not the ones that are committing crimes.
Click to expand...

Um, because anecdote =/= data.

And because the fact that acknowledging that the defensive use of guns EXISTS is not the same thing as saying, in the birds-eye view, that more guns make us safer. Which is something that you've done absolutely nothing to address. It doesn't mean that you haven't successfully defended yourself with your firearm. It means that, all things considered, more people will die than be saved by the increased proliferation of tools designed to perforate human beings' mushy internal bits.

As for the aggravated assault thing, I don't know. That kind of data can be sliced up to say almost anything. That's what the NRC said when it crunched John Lott's numbers. There is an observed phenomenon where drivers who carry have been found to be more aggressive and more likely to involved in a road rage incident. Since anecdote is apparently ok here, do you think that George Zimmerman would have pursued Trayvon Martin if he hadn't had the courage instilled by Mssr. Glock?

Then why does Chicago have some of the highest gun related offenses?

I'm not sure who you're arguing with. I'm not arguing about the efficacy of gun control laws. I'm arguing about the fallacy that guns prevent crime.
 
Julio3000 said:
Um, because anecdote =/= data.

And because the fact that acknowledging that the defensive use of guns EXISTS is not the same thing as saying, in the birds-eye view, that more guns make us safer. Which is something that you've done absolutely nothing to address. It doesn't mean that you haven't successfully defended yourself with your firearm. It means that, all things considered, more people will die than be saved by the increased proliferation of tools designed to perforate human beings' mushy internal bits.

As for the aggravated assault thing, I don't know. That kind of data can be sliced up to say almost anything. That's what the NRC said when it crunched John Lott's numbers. There is an observed phenomenon where drivers who carry have been found to be more aggressive and more likely to involved in a road rage incident. Since anecdote is apparently ok here, do you think that George Zimmerman would have pursued Trayvon Martin if he hadn't had the courage instilled by Mssr. Glock?

Then why does Chicago have some of the highest gun related offenses?

I'm not sure who you're arguing with. I'm not arguing about the efficacy of gun control laws. I'm arguing about the fallacy that guns prevent crime.
Click to expand...

Guns in the hands of the right people prevent crimes.

Would Zimmerman have had the courage, I have no idea....probably not. But, he did and was attacked.

I don't know that I've said more guns = good. Guns in the hands of responsible people that have had background checks = good thing.
 
gilesfan said:
Guns in the hands of the right people prevent crimes.

Would Zimmerman have had the courage, I have no idea....probably not. But, he did and was attacked.

I don't know that I've said more guns = good. Guns in the hands of responsible people that have had background checks = good thing.
Click to expand...

I'm pro-gun, along with the responsibilities that should go with such an important thing, but to me Zimmerman is a totally different case. That ahole shouldn't have been allowed to carry a cheese grater, let along a firearm. I live in a country in OK I like to call "the wild wild west". Pretty much everybody around here is packing, or at least has one or two guns in the home. I've been in discussions all the way to arguments with anti-gun folks and while they do go in different directions at times, if you're in one with a staunch anti-gun fanatic (Julio certainly doesn't seem to be one, I'm just saying) there is absolutely no way in heck that you can ever convince one of them that you cannot get all the guns off the streets, it simply can't be done. Even Bill Maher, who doesn't really like guns very much, said on his show that until they do get all the guns out of the hands of bad guys (ie never) he's gonna have a gun in his home. To me that's the only way that makes sense. I'm even for carry laws as long as you have to earn the right through training, etc., which I'm sure you have done.

I also wonder about the logic in the arguments anti-gun people use sometimes as far as what effect guns have on lessening crime, etc., but does anyone ever look at the opposite effect? What effect does NOT having them have on crime, etc.,?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top