turn in your gun and start nudging cars you tker !
maybe my data is old, I read that in 1992 about prison murders
Even if its 4 per 10000 inside prison and 5.5 outside Why is their any murder at all if their are no guns ?
Besides I have never heard that prisons ae safer places to be, dosn't ring true.
So I don't think his statement nullifies what I said at all.
Have you raped yet?
You have a penis don't you ? its just a matter of time till you are "Raged" into rape, correct ?
Even if its 4 per 10000 inside prison and 5.5 outside Why is their any murder at all if their are no guns ?
Besides I have never heard that prisons ae safer places to be, dosn't ring true.
So I don't think his statement nullifies what I said at all.
Have you raped yet?
You have a penis don't you ? its just a matter of time till you are "Raged" into rape, correct ?
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-07 17:54:54)
Okay, let's draw a connection between fleshy weapons and metally ones: You are much more likely to be a rapist if you are raped or abused yourself..... (here comes the Horseman style logic jump) ....so therefore if there are less people with guns to threaten/shoot you then you are less likely to threaten/shoot people.Horseman 77 wrote:
maybe my data is old, I read that in 1992 about prison murders
Even if its 4 per 10000 inside prison and 5.5 outside Why is their any murder at all if their are no guns ?
Besides I have never heard that prisons ae safer places to be, dosn't ring true.
So I don't think his statement nullifies what I said at all.
Have you raped yet?
You have a penis don't you ? its just a matter of time till you are "Raged" into rape correct ?
Anyway, I just less likely to be murdered... didn't say safer... you are more likely to be raped repeatedly until you commit suicide.... probably by the guards too
The total bans would be as effective as the drug bans. Besides you can make a gun easy, Before mass production techniques came into play Your local blacksmith made and repaired you guns.
Guns are not complex The best and most popular 1911 colt was made in ...you guessed it 1911.
Not cutting edge stuff really but you forgot to address that too.
Ok, you show a complete lack of understanding if you think it takes a forge to build a gun, if I wanted too, I could build a funcitoning firearm using nothing but hand files and a dremel. It wouldn't be accurate, at it would only be a single shot weapon, but it would still function. And if you have any machinist skills, like knowing how to run a mill or a lathe you can build much more complext firearms. All it really takes is someone with the ambition and a knack for mechanical things.Right, all my friends have their own forges at home. It's the hot (geddit?) new thing.
And I know this why? Cause I'm a gunsmith.
You've completely lost the plot. Arguing over whether or not a blacksmith can make a gun (probably, but they didn't- gunsmiths did, all the way back to the 14th Century), doesn't address any of the issues over gun control.
None of the pro-gun arguments in this topic have been backed up with any kind of evidence that I can see, it's just rhetoric. Until some actual studies or something akin to evidence is put forward, the argument's dead.
None of the pro-gun arguments in this topic have been backed up with any kind of evidence that I can see, it's just rhetoric. Until some actual studies or something akin to evidence is put forward, the argument's dead.
except that I lived in those places and witnessed it all 1st hand. When you have experince you dont need a statistic to make your decision.
will you be turning in your penis too?? you rapist you !
will you be turning in your penis too?? you rapist you !
penis ≠ gunHorseman 77 wrote:
except that I lived in those places and witnessed it all 1st hand. When you have experince you dont need a statistic to make your decision.
will you be turning in your penis too?? you rapist you !
you can't accidentally rape someone.
In an earlier post, I asked how many times you pro-gun guys had actually prevented a crime by pulling out your weapon and facing down an armed criminal.
Until you've done that, you've not at all experienced what it is you claim to be doing every time you step out of the house with a firearm on your hip.
Until you've done that, you've not at all experienced what it is you claim to be doing every time you step out of the house with a firearm on your hip.
Ok please respond to the following.Masaq wrote:
4) If you remove guns from the civilian population, you do not:
a) Set up the civilian population for mass geoncide, as stated by the original article's author at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat … asp?ID=690
b) Make gun-related crime rates soar
c) Leave people completely helpless.
5) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it's every American's right to own a gun. It says that it's every American's right to own a gun, if that American is part of "a well-organized militia". NRA membership doesn't count.
6) Let's look at this sensibly and logically. Of you gun owners out there, how many of you have pulled your gun out, either at home or in public, pointed it at a criminal who intends to harm you and your family?
Going to go way out on a limb here... Probably not very many of you. Which then begs the question, if so few gun-owning members of the public ever have to pull their weapons out, why do civilians need guns to protect themselves against criminals?
4) Really? I'll get to this in a second. There have been numerous studies showing the exact opposite of your contention.
5) Thats not what the amendment reads or what is generally interpreted by most people Let's review:
A well regulated militia is neccessary for the security of a free state, can't argue with that one, but wait after that it states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, this implies that if a militia needed to be organized people would already have firearms. It doesn't say that they have to be in that militia at all. Unless you can prove otherwise.The Second Amendment wrote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
6) Almost once in the woods, but that isn't the point, please respond:
Now tell me howGuns.
The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.
Gun Owners.
The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.
Right-to-Carry.
The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9
"Less Gun Control."
Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10
Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11
Crime.
The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15
Notes
1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Rese … _final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/ … 101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).
Well there isn't, there are a LOT of crimes prevented every year by justifiable uses of firearms. Survey research demonstrates that guns are used as often as 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. for protection. This is three to five times as often as they are misused by criminals. If you think that people don't use firearms a lot for justifiable protection, you are blind. Thousands of crimes are prevented every year. 2000-3000 criminals are killed every year in justifiable homicides (Self defense shootings). Another couple thousand are injured....I feel like a broken record (I have the same info and more on another thread).if so few gun-owning members of the public ever have to pull their weapons out, why do civilians need guns to protect themselves against criminals?
One question for you about 4). If you take away guns from civilians, do you not also leave the guns with the criminals (because they won't get rid of them, they're criminals) Your example is flawed you see because criminals would than be the only ones left with guns. Firearms prevent more crimes than those that are committed with them. End of list.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-08 12:13:12)
Bad misconception, facing down an ARMED criminal is not the only justifiable use....Masaq wrote:
In an earlier post, I asked how many times you pro-gun guys had actually prevented a crime by pulling out your weapon and facing down an armed criminal.
In the UK, pulling a firearm on an unarmed perp would be considered unjustifiable force. For example:
Over here, a farmer named Tony Martin shot two teenagers who'd broken into his house with his shotgun... Fair enough, right? They were in his house at 2am, trying to steal stuff. They'd been there before, and he was a scared man, so shooting at them was legitimate, right?
No. He shot them whilst they escaping, in the back, and killed one of them.
In statistics, he killed one criminal and injured another, fine... in reality, it was an unlawful death and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. These weren't two guys he faced down, they were kids running away from him. They were no longer a threat to him or to his house, so how can shooting them be justified as self-defence?
And *that's* the kind of scenario that makes me twitchy around gun nuts. I don't care if you shoot someone who's holding a knife to your daughter's throat, or running at you with a seven-inch knife. I give a shit when people are shot in the back trying to escape. Sure they shouldn't've been there, but that doesn't mean they gave up the right to life when they stepped onto Martin's farm.
Over here, a farmer named Tony Martin shot two teenagers who'd broken into his house with his shotgun... Fair enough, right? They were in his house at 2am, trying to steal stuff. They'd been there before, and he was a scared man, so shooting at them was legitimate, right?
No. He shot them whilst they escaping, in the back, and killed one of them.
In statistics, he killed one criminal and injured another, fine... in reality, it was an unlawful death and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. These weren't two guys he faced down, they were kids running away from him. They were no longer a threat to him or to his house, so how can shooting them be justified as self-defence?
And *that's* the kind of scenario that makes me twitchy around gun nuts. I don't care if you shoot someone who's holding a knife to your daughter's throat, or running at you with a seven-inch knife. I give a shit when people are shot in the back trying to escape. Sure they shouldn't've been there, but that doesn't mean they gave up the right to life when they stepped onto Martin's farm.
Sure it is. No reason to pull a gun on your wife for sleeping around, or on a business partner for cheating you out of your half. The ONLY justifiable use of a firearm is as a form of self defense against an armed agressor.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Bad misconception, facing down an ARMED criminal is not the only justifiable use....Masaq wrote:
In an earlier post, I asked how many times you pro-gun guys had actually prevented a crime by pulling out your weapon and facing down an armed criminal.
Read below and check the link for yourselfMasaq wrote:
You've completely lost the plot. Arguing over whether or not a blacksmith can make a gun (probably, but they didn't- gunsmiths did, all the way back to the 14th Century), doesn't address any of the issues over gun control.
None of the pro-gun arguments in this topic have been backed up with any kind of evidence that I can see, it's just rhetoric. Until some actual studies or something akin to evidence is put forward, the argument's dead.
Introduction First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.
In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997,
only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)
If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
Vermont had nine murders in 2006
I am panelized because I have this information at hand as first hand knowledge where as you come to the debate completely uneducated on the particular topic and chide me.
Yes an argument is dead and it is yours. your condescending attitude seems misplaced at the very best
PS baby in the trash for spearhead and jonsimon although I doubt spearhead acknowledge it. It takes a man.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/ … TE=DEFAULT
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-08 14:37:11)
Those guns that have been in my family's possession since the Spanish American war are just waiting to do something...I can hear them in that closet...any day now, any day...
If you have this proof. Show it, don't claim magical surveys told you so, or "I already showed proof elsewhere!" That's bullshit. Grow some balls and show your proof, copy it into a txt and whip it out whenever anyone questions you, but grow up and stop making unbacked claims.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well there isn't, there are a LOT of crimes prevented every year by justifiable uses of firearms. Survey research demonstrates that guns are used as often as 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. for protection. This is three to five times as often as they are misused by criminals. If you think that people don't use firearms a lot for justifiable protection, you are blind. Thousands of crimes are prevented every year. 2000-3000 criminals are killed every year in justifiable homicides (Self defense shootings). Another couple thousand are injured....I feel like a broken record (I have the same info and more on another thread).
One question for you about 4). If you take away guns from civilians, do you not also leave the guns with the criminals (because they won't get rid of them, they're criminals) Your example is flawed you see because criminals would than be the only ones left with guns. Firearms prevent more crimes than those that are committed with them. End of list.
And if your numbers are accurate, 3000 is only 10% of 30,000. Which happens to be the number of gun deaths a year. Looks like your guns do more harm than good. Sorry, check and mate.
Oh, and
So much for 3000 a year.Recoil555 wrote:
During 2004, law enforcement agencies provided supplemental data for 666 justifiable homicides. A breakdown of those figures revealed that law enforcement officers justifiably killed 437 felons and private citizens justifiably killed 229 felons. Tables 2.15 and 2.16 provide additional information about justifiable homicides.
Those figures off your government at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses … urder.html
5 crimes prevented.Masaq wrote:
In an earlier post, I asked how many times you pro-gun guys had actually prevented a crime by pulling out your weapon and facing down an armed criminal.
Until you've done that, you've not at all experienced what it is you claim to be doing every time you step out of the house with a firearm on your hip.
3 break ins at my Families place of business ( word got around and after years of burglaries we were never hassled again ) and twice I stumbled upon an Armed robbery in progress. All with good results.
My wife once. Our very last night in NYC while fueling the Rental truck she had an attempted Car jacking. I was inside paying for gas and it was over by the time I came out. The next day the Very same perp was killed by an Armed IRS agent when he was trying the same stunt " attempting car jacking at a gas station ".
IRS lol. The government doesn't mind protecting its own.
we live so far out in the sticks now we arent even on google Earth !
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-08 14:50:49)
the writer would rather be raped?? ok to each their own
but you gotta admit people have been killed over dumb things like parking spots and hockey games but the police won't protect you if someone was going to kill you they ain't going to let ya call a cop and wait to be stopped......
but you gotta admit people have been killed over dumb things like parking spots and hockey games but the police won't protect you if someone was going to kill you they ain't going to let ya call a cop and wait to be stopped......
Thats different my friend, most people aren't like that, especially gun owners, who know and respect the law. I think you need to take a law class to understand what I'm talking about. Self defense with a firearm is justifiable whether or not the suspect is armed or not but rather places someone in a situation where they feel in danger of their life or person depending on the state in the U.S. People who are shot in the back whilst escaping, I agree is not justifiable, so I don't know what your problem is. Of course it didn't give them the right to take life. It all depends on the time and place where someone is in fear of their life. Do you feel bad that some criminals that were stealing shit are off the streets now. Since in the UK from a recent studdy showed more than 70% of crime is committed by re-offenders in the UK.Masaq wrote:
In the UK, pulling a firearm on an unarmed perp would be considered unjustifiable force. For example:
Over here, a farmer named Tony Martin shot two teenagers who'd broken into his house with his shotgun... Fair enough, right? They were in his house at 2am, trying to steal stuff. They'd been there before, and he was a scared man, so shooting at them was legitimate, right?
No. He shot them whilst they escaping, in the back, and killed one of them.
In statistics, he killed one criminal and injured another, fine... in reality, it was an unlawful death and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. These weren't two guys he faced down, they were kids running away from him. They were no longer a threat to him or to his house, so how can shooting them be justified as self-defence?
And *that's* the kind of scenario that makes me twitchy around gun nuts. I don't care if you shoot someone who's holding a knife to your daughter's throat, or running at you with a seven-inch knife. I give a shit when people are shot in the back trying to escape. Sure they shouldn't've been there, but that doesn't mean they gave up the right to life when they stepped onto Martin's farm.
Wrong jon, you need to read up on most state law in the U.S. I don't know if your talking about some other jurisiction but an ARMED criminal is not the only justified use, haven't I taught you anything about this yet. In any situation you are placed where you feel a articulatable fear for your life or that of another person, lethal force is authorized. For example, you are jumped by 3 guys in the parking lot of a store, and they have no weapons of any sort but are definitely intent on hurting you or possibly worse, there is no way you could tell, they say things like "We are gonna kill you bitch," Self defense with a firearm is justified there, you are in fear of your life, even though they are not armed.jonsimon wrote:
Sure it is. No reason to pull a gun on your wife for sleeping around, or on a business partner for cheating you out of your half. The ONLY justifiable use of a firearm is as a form of self defense against an armed agressor.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Bad misconception, facing down an ARMED criminal is not the only justifiable use....Masaq wrote:
In an earlier post, I asked how many times you pro-gun guys had actually prevented a crime by pulling out your weapon and facing down an armed criminal.
Not Foundjonsimon wrote:
If you have this proof. Show it, don't claim magical surveys told you so, or "I already showed proof elsewhere!" That's bullshit. Grow some balls and show your proof, copy it into a txt and whip it out whenever anyone questions you, but grow up and stop making unbacked claims.
And if your numbers are accurate, 3000 is only 10% of 30,000. Which happens to be the number of gun deaths a year. Looks like your guns do more harm than good. Sorry, check and mate.
Those figures off your government at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses … urder.html
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.
Since that link doesn't even work, whats the point, nice try.
30,000 deaths a majority of them suicides, I'm not just talking about the benefits and negative of JUST deaths, omfg. Seriously why the fuck can you not read what I have posted before, you think its bullshit that I expect you to read what I have posted before??? ok jon, ok, try going back and read, oh nevermind I'll give it to you AGAIN, like I have in TWO other threads.
Jon, you don't have to believe the above to know that firearms prevent crimes, and prevent deaths. Criminals will always find a way to kill people. The bottom line is not guns, it is criminals and their behavior. Agree or disagree?NCPA wrote:
How many violent crimes involving guns are committed each year? FBI data for 1990 show that criminals used firearms in about 258,000 violent offenses, or about 16 percent of the 1.6 million crimes reported to the police. Fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported to the police, however. The National Crime Survey (NCS) estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in some 650,000 or 12 percent.10 In other words, 88 percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms.
While it is true that firearms are associated with approximately 30,000 deaths—the majority of them suicides—in the U.S. annually, firearms are used far more often to save lives and protect property. Award-winning survey research demonstrates that guns are used as often as 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. for protection. This is three to five times as often as they are misused by criminals.
Also no need to be immature and go off the handle being insultive and rude. Just ask for clarification, that will make you look a lot smarter than saying "grow some balls" or thinking that ""I already showed proof elsewhere!" That's bullshit." I did already show proof, the problem is you can't read. But thats ok, I just showed to you again, or are you not satisfied?
Sorry the link doesn't work, quoted from another post in this thread. Doesn't retract from the statistic.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Not Foundjonsimon wrote:
If you have this proof. Show it, don't claim magical surveys told you so, or "I already showed proof elsewhere!" That's bullshit. Grow some balls and show your proof, copy it into a txt and whip it out whenever anyone questions you, but grow up and stop making unbacked claims.
And if your numbers are accurate, 3000 is only 10% of 30,000. Which happens to be the number of gun deaths a year. Looks like your guns do more harm than good. Sorry, check and mate.
Those figures off your government at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses … urder.html
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.
Since that link doesn't even work, whats the point, nice try.
30,000 deaths a majority of them suicides, I'm not just talking about the benefits and negative of JUST deaths, omfg. Seriously why the fuck can you not read what I have posted before, you think its bullshit that I expect you to read what I have posted before??? ok jon, ok, try going back and read, oh nevermind I'll give it to you AGAIN, like I have in TWO other threads.Jon, you don't have to believe the above to know that firearms prevent crimes, and prevent deaths. Criminals will always find a way to kill people. The bottom line is not guns, it is criminals and their behavior. Agree or disagree?NCPA wrote:
How many violent crimes involving guns are committed each year? FBI data for 1990 show that criminals used firearms in about 258,000 violent offenses, or about 16 percent of the 1.6 million crimes reported to the police. Fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported to the police, however. The National Crime Survey (NCS) estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in some 650,000 or 12 percent.10 In other words, 88 percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms.
While it is true that firearms are associated with approximately 30,000 deaths—the majority of them suicides—in the U.S. annually, firearms are used far more often to save lives and protect property. Award-winning survey research demonstrates that guns are used as often as 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. for protection. This is three to five times as often as they are misused by criminals.
Also no need to be immature and go off the handle being insultive and rude. Just ask for clarification, that will make you look a lot smarter than saying "grow some balls" or thinking that ""I already showed proof elsewhere!" That's bullshit." I did already show proof, the problem is you can't read. But thats ok, I just showed to you again, or are you not satisfied?
Actually, about half of them suicides. 15,000 gun related homicides a year. And only 300 are in self defense. So there's a whole lotta people dying so that 300 people don't.
Your source still just states "survey says". Criminals are not a different breed. Many criminals lead normal lives and are driven to crime for one reason or another. Arming citizens is arming criminals. Can't you understand that?
I can read fine, but I'll be damned if I'm going to search through 4 long threads to prove your stats.
Umm yeah it does kind of detract from it, because you can't prove it, and I have sources saying otherwise.........................sojonsimon wrote:
Sorry the link doesn't work, quoted from another post in this thread. Doesn't retract from the statistic.
Actually, about half of them suicides. 15,000 gun related homicides a year. And only 300 are in self defense. So there's a whole lotta people dying so that 300 people don't.
Your source still just states "survey says". Criminals are not a different breed. Many criminals lead normal lives and are driven to crime for one reason or another. Arming citizens is arming criminals. Can't you understand that?
I can read fine, but I'll be damned if I'm going to search through 4 long threads to prove your stats.
What's your source with this 300 number, I'm still waiting, on two threads. LOL Arming citizens is also preventing crimes and damages, can't you understand that. Your problem is that you see anyone that owns a gun as a possible criminal, sure I agree, but that is a little extreme. You think that just because I have a gun I'm MORE incline to commit crime, your dead wrong. An armed populace is also neccessary to the security of a free state by providing the potential to create a militia if neccessary. Jon, I think it is ok that we disagree on the crime stats, but you cannot tell me to get rid of my guns, because I have many sources saying that they prevent more crime than they cause and I have yet to see you produce anything to the contrary.
Please read all or at least most of this Jon:
Criminals mainly don't have guns to commit crimes, but they obviously help. I suggest that unless you have taken some class or done some serious research/work like I have done on this subject extensively, you just admit that you don't know all that much of what you are talking about, I was man enough to do that about another subject we were talking about, it's about time you did the same. I'm not trying to be mean, just fair friend, I have a lot of experience in this field, and spend a great deal of time on statistics and criminal behavior/profiling.NCPA wrote:
Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes.
The number one reason criminals acquire handguns is not to commit crimes but, like noncriminals, to protect themselves.52 Criminals keenly feel the need for self-protection because they associate with other criminals and are likely to be victims as well as victimizers. As Figure II shows:
• In a survey of imprisoned felons, 58 percent said protection was a very important reason for getting a handgun and 26 percent said it was a somewhat important reason.
• Only 28 percent cited use in crime as very important and 20 percent said it was somewhat important.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-08 21:43:27)
Than don't expect any respect in return, if you think you can ignore facts that I have posted and say I haven't proved anything, than you have no point to make in that regard. I understand if you don't want to search that far, it is quite a lot of crap to sift through, so than why not be mature and ask clarification instead of going off the handle...you still haven't answered that, why so hasty to be hateful?jonsimon wrote:
I can read fine, but I'll be damned if I'm going to search through 4 long threads to prove your stats.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-08 21:45:54)
Albert- my arguement isn't that if you're carrying a gun you're *more likely to commit a crime*.
My argument is that if you carry a gun and "something happens" - (whether it's you're placed in a dangerous situation by others such as trying to mug you, or you put yourself in a dangerous situation such as by checking out why there's alarms ringing at the bank, or if you just plain ol' freak out when your brand new 911 Carrera 4 is rear-ended by some driver too busy yaking on his cell phone to pay attention to his speed) if you have a gun on you, someone is more likely- whether it's a criminal, a completely innocent bystander, yourself, your family- whoeever! - someone is more likely to get hurt, and more likely to get hurt seriously, because there are guns in the hands of far more people than if gun control is limited to law enforcement officials and other professionals.
I'm not even against people like our UK Special Constables, regular police or the Community Support police all carrying firearms. I'm just against "whoever wants one, within reason, can have one.".
My argument is that if you carry a gun and "something happens" - (whether it's you're placed in a dangerous situation by others such as trying to mug you, or you put yourself in a dangerous situation such as by checking out why there's alarms ringing at the bank, or if you just plain ol' freak out when your brand new 911 Carrera 4 is rear-ended by some driver too busy yaking on his cell phone to pay attention to his speed) if you have a gun on you, someone is more likely- whether it's a criminal, a completely innocent bystander, yourself, your family- whoeever! - someone is more likely to get hurt, and more likely to get hurt seriously, because there are guns in the hands of far more people than if gun control is limited to law enforcement officials and other professionals.
I'm not even against people like our UK Special Constables, regular police or the Community Support police all carrying firearms. I'm just against "whoever wants one, within reason, can have one.".
Well here is the END of your argument. Read onMasaq wrote:
Albert- my arguement isn't that if you're carrying a gun you're *more likely to commit a crime*.
My argument is that if you carry a gun and "something happens" - (whether it's you're placed in a dangerous situation by others such as trying to mug you, or you put yourself in a dangerous situation such as by checking out why there's alarms ringing at the bank, or if you just plain ol' freak out when your brand new 911 Carrera 4 is rear-ended by some driver too busy yaking on his cell phone to pay attention to his speed) if you have a gun on you, someone is more likely- whether it's a criminal, a completely innocent bystander, yourself, your family- whoeever! - someone is more likely to get hurt, and more likely to get hurt seriously, because there are guns in the hands of far more people than if gun control is limited to law enforcement officials and other professionals.
I'm not even against people like our UK Special Constables, regular police or the Community Support police all carrying firearms. I'm just against "whoever wants one, within reason, can have one.".
Introduction First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws. In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) No will you stop your dribble... please ?