FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


2 to 7 crimes stopped by guns for every crime using guns.





ocalhoun
Here's some hard evidence that privately owned guns stop more crimes than they help commit. Please read the entire post before you reply with highly emotional, highly illogical retorts.

Orange County (CA) Register wrote:
Previous surveys were a little hazy on the details of exactly what was being reported as a defensive gun use. It wasn't, for example, clear that the respondents weren't reporting investigating a suspicious noise in their back yard with a gun where there was, in fact, nobody there. Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year.

Source
(The figure for the amount of crimes prevented by guns is difficult to determine because many people who stop a crime with their gun do not report the incedent for fear of being prosecuted.)

Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote:
368,178 gun related crimes in 2005 (Including murder, robbery, and aggrivated assult) (other years have similar numbers)

Source
So, do the math: 368,178 crimes using guns, while 800,000 to 2,500,000 crimes are prevented by guns.
Therefore, for every crime facilitated by a gun, 2.17 to 6.79 crimes are stopped by a gun.

BBC wrote:
There are an estimated 200 million privately held guns in the US, where the number of gun-related deaths each year runs into the tens of thousands.

Source
So, only around 1% of privately owned guns are ever used to kill anyone. (That's assuming there is never a case of one gun killing more than one person) Who said guns are only for killing? If so, they aren't very good at it.

But the UK's gun ban is doing well, right?
Reason Magazine wrote:

In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Source
Apparently not. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Ten things you can't say in America (book) wrote:

Results of survey of 2000 felons in state prisons:

One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is they fear being shot during the crime. 74% of felons said 'yes'.

Have you abandoned at least one crime because the victim might be armed? 39% said yes, one time. 8% said yes, many times.

Have you been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by a victim with a gun? 34% said yes.

Anybody want to try and tell me guns in the hands of civilians don't stop crimes?

Supposing you want to contest the conclusion that guns save more lives than they take, I ask only one thing:
You must argue using reason and logic alone. Emotionally based arguments and references to specific anicdotal events are obscuring the truth. If you want me to take you seriously, avoid using them. Give me some real data.
Bondings
The number you quote of defensive uses, is based on a survey from less than 5000 households and around 50 households who used it defensively. I don't think it is a good idea to base conclusions on this number, especially as it is a sensitive case and done by a telephone survey. The actual number could be way lower or higher.

However, a defensive usage doesn't mean that the crime is prevented, it just means that a gun was used or (at least in the study you mentioned) a gun was mentioned (over 50%).

A ban on guns only has a real advantage when it is widespread (the whole country) and it gets the number of guns in the country very low. It's pretty hard when you have a lot of guns in the country. And it's definitely long term (decades), not short term. Increasing/decreasing gun crime after a ban is usually caused by something else. Besides, those statistics tend to fluctuate heavily.

What about:
-Gun related accidents causing injuries and death. (aka Dick Cheney)
-Impulsive crimes, like in marriages.
-Impulsive suicide.
-Gun defense causing death/injuries due to a gun fight instead of no injuries.
-More aggressive crimes due to high gun penetration. (taking a gun with you for a robbery for protection because the owner might have a gun)
Carlosus
Interesting information. I think civilans should wear weapons. I that way we can protect our families. Also, we will have more acres in the earth. Less people more space
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
The number you quote of defensive uses, is based on a survey from less than 5000 households and around 50 households who used it defensively. I don't think it is a good idea to base conclusions on this number, especially as it is a sensitive case and done by a telephone survey. The actual number could be way lower or higher.

However, a defensive usage doesn't mean that the crime is prevented, it just means that a gun was used or (at least in the study you mentioned) a gun was mentioned (over 50%).


A ban on guns only has a real advantage when it is widespread (the whole country) and it gets the number of guns in the country very low. It's pretty hard when you have a lot of guns in the country. And it's definitely long term (decades), not short term. Increasing/decreasing gun crime after a ban is usually caused by something else. Besides, those statistics tend to fluctuate heavily.

What about:
-Gun related accidents causing injuries and death. (aka Dick Cheney)
[such incedents are very rare, though they are often highly publicized by the liberal-biased media.]
-Impulsive crimes, like in marriages.
-Impulsive suicide.
[both of which will happen gun or no gun]
-Gun defense causing death/injuries due to a gun fight instead of no injuries.
-More aggressive crimes due to high gun penetration. (taking a gun with you for a robbery for protection because the owner might have a gun)
[how else will you rob a store? If guns are banned, criminals will bring a gun in case the shop owner has a knife.]

Some responses made from within the quote
I challenge you to find a more accurate study on the subject. I'm using the best data I can find.
Just like in the UK, right?
Here's something to consider:
Why do gun crime rates fall in states that have legal concealed weapons permits? The primary use of a gun is as a deterrant. The absence of that deterrant increases crime. Another challenge, find some real data to prove that banning guns reduces crime in the long term. (As in statistics over time from a country that has done so)


I refute this claim with this study by the national crime survey:
Cato Institute wrote:
When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88% of the time, and the victim is injured 25% of the time.
When the victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30% and the victim injury rate falls to 17%.
No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success.

True, these statistics focus on injury to the victim, but I consider that the robber deserves whatever he gets from a victim defending him(her)self
Bondings
Quote:
On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Just to show that there are way different numbers available. I'm not saying that there are better studies/data available or that the one I quoted is better, just that it's statistically irrelevant to use it for conclusions.

I couldn't find more information about the Cato Institute survey, but if done correctly and over a big enough group, it is pretty convincing indeed.

I guess you also have to take into account the country, population density and crime rate. There is a big difference between living in the middle of nowhere in the dessert and in a big city with low crime rate.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
Quote:
On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Just to show that there are way different numbers available. I'm not saying that there are better studies/data available or that the one I quoted is better, just that it's statistically irrelevant to use it for conclusions.

I couldn't find more information about the Cato Institute survey, but if done correctly and over a big enough group, it is pretty convincing indeed.

Granted, there are other numbers out there, but since the report you listed is a government report, I doubt it accounts for the people who defend themselves and do not report the incedent, which I would think to be the majority of them. (If I had just scared away somebody who was breaking into my house with a gun, I wouldn't report the incedent to the cops.)
The very same source you gave confirms that study!
Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote:

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
catscratches
I don't believe in this. There might be sources saying that way but there are also hundreds of sources saying it the other way. Same with global warming etc...
reddishblue
To tell you the truth, I would rather have the low chance of being shot, then constantly live in fear of being shot.

Not to mention you Americans are paraniod, if you are not armed then your government will take over!?!
This is backed up by your obsession with having a gun and not allowing it to be taken away.
But in a land with so many outlaws and maniacs, you can't help but feel afraid, I pity you.

And I do not believe armed robbers are willing to go into any occupied house, anywere, since you rarely here of robberies to houses with people inside them at the time. Even if they can't be shot they prefer to be silent and rob without trouble.
The majority of gun owners may be responsible citizens, but I wouldn't believe that they couldn't shoot someone out of cold blood.

But as they say, each man to his own.
Vrythramax
@reddishblue

Isn't your catorgorizing all Americans as being paranoid gun owners a bit unfair? It's rather like saying everyone from a middle-eastern country, or perhaps all muslims, are terrorists.

Your post is at the very least degrading, and insulting. Not all Americans are gun-toting maniacs as you would like to believe.

Frihost Forum Rules wrote:
1. General Rules...

Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not degrade, insult or disrespect other users or groups of people.

...

Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not contain flame bait or anything encouraging another user to break the rules.

...

Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not imply, in a derogatory or discriminatory manner, that your culture, religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality, country and/or language is superior to any other culture, religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality, country and/or language. (Note that opinions can be expressed in a positive manner for the sake of discussion)

Any of the rules broken in this category may result in a warning or a ban
EanofAthenasPrime
I don't know man. I'm paranoid of America's self defense policy. Even if some one is about to kill you and you shoot them for self-defense, you would get in trouble. So either way you lose. (Unless you are Bruce Lee and you just dodge their bullets like Samus or James Bond.) I say everyone wear bullet proof, body armor, and bullet proof visors!
Nameless
Even assuming the number are accurate, here's a fairly obvious counter argument against gun ownership ...

The crimes that result from widespread gun ownership and America's gun culture are WORSE than the crimes than this gun ownership might prevent.

Would you rather be robbed three times or shot dead once?

Also,
Quote:
So, only around 1% of privately owned guns are ever used to kill anyone. (That's assuming there is never a case of one gun killing more than one person) Who said guns are only for killing? If so, they aren't very good at it.


That's true. There are only TWO uses for guns: Killing people, and threatening to kill people. Rolling Eyes
Futile
@Vrythramax

Thank you for your response concerning reddishblue's comments concerning all of us sadistic, gun toting vigilante Americans who are out to shoot anything and everything that gets in our way or pisses us off. It keeps me from getting banned from the forums. Thank you again.

My 2 cents:

I am a former Marine. I was in Kuwait and Desert Strom the first time, Somalia and in Burundi/Rwanda during the Hutus and Tutus genocide civil war. I own four models of firearms and yes I have no problem shooting someone if they threaten me or my family, but this does not make me a trigger happy paranoid psychotic sociopath aimed at waging an open season shooting spree as formerly depicted.

Contrary to popular belief we Americans do not wear six shooters on our hips and challenge each other to quick draws at noon. A gun is a tool and the sooner people realize that the better off we all will be. Even though it is a cliché it is very true “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Someone has to make a decision to pull the trigger. Triggers don’t pull themselves. I have never heard of a gun robbing or killing someone by itself. So if any of you have seen or heard of this happening please let me know so that I may be enlightened in my apparent ignorance. Whether you use a hammer to drive a nail or to pull a nail it, it is still an inanimate object that needs to be wielded and manipulated in order to work.

Bottom line is there are people in every country around the world that own or use guns. I know that there are countries that ban guns altogether, but there are still guns in those countries whether they are illegal or not. Yes there is more crime overall in the US because of the right to bear arms and everyone is upset and calling for us, Americans, to give up our rights to bear arms. There are also third world countries where 8 and 10 year children are carrying AK-47s and killing people in the street. There are countries where civil wars, and rebel and terrorist forces, military uprising kill more people in a week then die all year in the US from gun shooting.

Why should we be punished because someone else is having a bad day or feels that everyone in the world hates them and they are alone? Every time some idiot or idiots go on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of people here in the US everyone in the world jumps on this “They should ban guns” band wagon. As I stated once before in a post:

Quote:
I don’t see the same out cries of rage and inhumanity when there are suicide bombers killing 30 or 40 innocent people a day in Iraqi. What about that senseless violence? Why don’t you get on your soap box about that?
Vrythramax
@futile

I was 101st Airborne (Screaming eagles) attached to the 5th Special Forces Group. Yes I own guns, but the are strctly for target, and god fobid, home defence. I am liscensed to carry, but I never have...there simply is no need.

Just out of curiousity, what was your MOS in the service? You certainly don't have to answer....I can't myself...legally anyway.
Futile
I was in the Army before I joined the Marines and my MOS there was 31M, but that was way back in the day. I was with the 32nd Sig Bn outside of Frankfurt, Germany. Then I joined the Marines and was a 3057 with 2nd Bn 5th Marines and then changed MOS which I can't say but I was with 3rd MAG HMLA-267 til I got out.

@Vrythramax
Out of my own curiousity how many guns do you own, and what are they if you don't mind me asking
Vrythramax
Futile wrote:
I was in the Army before I joined the Marines and my MOS there was 31M, but that was way back in the day. I was with the 32nd Sig Bn outside of Frankfurt, Germany. Then I joined the Marines and was a 3057 with 2nd Bn 5th Marines and then changed MOS which I can't say but I was with 3rd MAG HMLA-267 til I got out.

@Vrythramax
Out of my own curiousity how many guns do you own, and what are they if you don't mind me asking


Very impressive...you have my respect. as for my fireams I have a .454 Casul, a Ruger Redhawk in .44 remington, an American Arms Derriger chambered for .45 long colt and .410 shotgun, a H&K in.9mm, and my personal favorite...a Barnet Arms chambered for .50 BMG.

my MOS as much as I can legally say was small an exotic weapons and hand to hand....I'm sure as as a military man you understand I can not speak further.
justnewbie
I don't think it is statistically correct as your numbers are based on several different researches. It will be much more convincing if all statistics are from one research, and repeat the research to make sure if it's correct.

Basically, in my humble opinion, legalizing gun use would actually promote crime and aggression. Take this logic of strong over weak; robberies are done because robbers have guns while the victims not, if guns are legalized, victims in turn have guns while robbers need to have bigger/heavier weapons to do their bad deeds; resulting in much worser consequences.
coolclay
Very good data, and well put Ocalhoun!
Hunterseaker
Why do you want the right to bear a DEADLY weapon, or why do you need it?
To defend yourself? against who? against murderers? when you use that argument you're creating the illusions that there are a lot of murderers in the U.S. You only need a gun to protect yourself against murderers or rapers. any other criminals are not intended to harm you physically. just use pepper spray for any other criminals.
Does a burglar threaten your family?
When you find a burglar in your house, and point a gun at him, will you shoot when he makes a suspicious move?
if so, you killed a criminal who's intentions weren't to take lives, he might have taken some money, tho you have taken the highest price: his life! and he never had threaten your family.

when you legalize guns, there will be a lot of guns, and people will easily get their guns when they are mad....

Here in the Netherlands we ban guns, with good result. there aren't dying people every day cause of gun violence or because they were defenceless.
theem
hmmm.. nice info you've got there people ... '


but i don't think that these figures are accurate enough to believe ... Arrow
Vrythramax
Just because I own gun doesn't mean I am going to shoot someone.

If confronted, I would use my hands first. If that didn't work....then I'd shoot you. Actually I much prefer a knife.

I am not afraid of wet work.
Futile
@Vrythramax

Wet work...ROFLMAO!!
A knife...ahhh...you Special Forces types

@Hunterseaker

As I stated before I am not a gun toting, sadistic, psychotic sociopath vigilante out to shoot anyone who upsets me or pisses me off. Using your example of someone breaking into my resident, what course of action should I take? Should I give them the benefit of a doubt and assume they are not armed and yell "Boo!" and hope I scare them away. Or politely ask them to leave after they have broken in? Or maybe I should just let them act first and then hope that I can react quick enough to counter whatever action they have put into motion. Or should I just let them take or do whatever they choose and hope that they do not harm my family or me? Law enforcement officers all over the world shoot people everyday because of “suspicious” movements and are justified. Why should I have to give an intruder in my home the benefit of a doubt? But to answer your question yes I would shoot him, but I would only shoot to kill if not given another option, and yes I am a good enough shot to do that. But that is a matter of circumstance. You may not own a gun but you would defend yourself and your family with whatever means is available whether it is your hands, a knife, baseball bat, golf club or whatever. If it can be used as a weapon there is potential to take a human life. The only difference between these means is the direct lethalness each involves, different means still the same end. So the point is not the means that is used but the the degree to which it is used.

And no, the US is not full of rapists and murderers, that is a very vivid and exaggerated interpretation of an example to further an already stated mute point. I may as well say and assume that from your statement that there are no violent crimes committed at all in the Netherlands because there are no guns and everyone can defend themselves in any life threatening situation because of that fact. I know that is extreme and ridiculous view but ever hear the old cliché “The pot calling the kettle black”
dz9c
A knife is way more dangerous upclose than a gun is. A knife is a way better weapon. However if the gun man is not near u then yea the gun is the better weapon.
ocalhoun
Hunterseaker wrote:

Here in the Netherlands we ban guns, with good result. there aren't dying people every day cause of gun violence or because they were defenceless.


Well, that's the Netherlands. Guns or no guns, the USA is a higher crime-rate nation than most.

What do you tell the 85 year old man who lives in a bad neighborhood in DC?
That the police will protect him? There are drug dealers on the corner of his street every night.
That nobody will have guns, so he won't be in danger? He can barely get out of his chair, much less put up any kind of self-defense. Criminals don't need guns to take advantage of him.
That he can move to a better place? He's living on a scanty fixed income, and can't afford to move out of the house he's owned for 30 years.

What's your solution for the man in that situation?

More reasons:
1: The USA is inept at banning things. Examples: Alcohol, Drugs
2: However paranoid it may sound, armed civilians are a last line of defense against a government gone bad. (And surely you can't argue that the US government hasn't been going downhill recently.)
coolclay
Lol, I think you stopped them in there tracks.
odinstag
ocalhoun wrote:
Here's some hard evidence that privately owned guns stop more crimes than they help commit. Please read the entire post before you reply with highly emotional, highly illogical retorts.

Orange County (CA) Register wrote:
Previous surveys were a little hazy on the details of exactly what was being reported as a defensive gun use. It wasn't, for example, clear that the respondents weren't reporting investigating a suspicious noise in their back yard with a gun where there was, in fact, nobody there. Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year.

Source
(The figure for the amount of crimes prevented by guns is difficult to determine because many people who stop a crime with their gun do not report the incedent for fear of being prosecuted.)

Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote:
368,178 gun related crimes in 2005 (Including murder, robbery, and aggrivated assult) (other years have similar numbers)

Source
So, do the math: 368,178 crimes using guns, while 800,000 to 2,500,000 crimes are prevented by guns.
Therefore, for every crime facilitated by a gun, 2.17 to 6.79 crimes are stopped by a gun.

BBC wrote:
There are an estimated 200 million privately held guns in the US, where the number of gun-related deaths each year runs into the tens of thousands.

Source
So, only around 1% of privately owned guns are ever used to kill anyone. (That's assuming there is never a case of one gun killing more than one person) Who said guns are only for killing? If so, they aren't very good at it.

But the UK's gun ban is doing well, right?
Reason Magazine wrote:

In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Source
Apparently not. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Ten things you can't say in America (book) wrote:

Results of survey of 2000 felons in state prisons:

One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is they fear being shot during the crime. 74% of felons said 'yes'.

Have you abandoned at least one crime because the victim might be armed? 39% said yes, one time. 8% said yes, many times.

Have you been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by a victim with a gun? 34% said yes.

Anybody want to try and tell me guns in the hands of civilians don't stop crimes?

Supposing you want to contest the conclusion that guns save more lives than they take, I ask only one thing:
You must argue using reason and logic alone. Emotionally based arguments and references to specific anicdotal events are obscuring the truth. If you want me to take you seriously, avoid using them. Give me some real data.


The statistics do not matter.

In the USA, we have a right to use weapons for self defense. Criminals or otherwise, we have a right to self defense.

That is all that matters. All arguements against that right are moot. It cannot be taken away and needs no statistics to justify it.

We have rights. All people have rights. One of those is the right to arm yourself for self defense and community defense.

It matters not what the so-called government or some silly anti gunners say or do. They have no authority to take away rights. Never have and never will.
Bockman
To own a gun or not to own....

I live in a country where buying guns isn't all that easy (although not impossible) and I believe it's the best approach for this matter.

There are obviously pros and cons for both views, and obviously owning a gun has advantages (specially in the US nowadays). Still, I believe that limiting access to guns is a better policy.

Those (now more frequent) news (I'd say almost exclusively) about kids with guns (and even sniper rifles Shocked ) attacking their own schools and killing lot's of people (even friends) are something you need to think about when considering this. I know there are crazy people all over the world and that tragedies like these can happen everywhere, but the fact is: It almost only happens in the USA.

The fact is that giving access to weapons to almost anyone opens the door for unbalanced people to have them too, or to have access to them (parents, sons or whatever that just leave the gun in the drawer...). And access to a gun should (needs to) be restricted to people who are capable of discern when and when not to use it.

And even in those cases, it's sometimes a problem to have a gun at hand. I'll give you two examples (one is a real case and it happened here in Portugal not so long ago):

1 - You're involved in an car accident (m,ild bumper to bumper hit). You get out of the car to solve this situation with the other driver. You start arguing about who's fault it was ( let's imagine, for sake of argument that the front driver unknowingly had all tail lights out of service and the rear driver had no way to see him brake).
At this point you start swearing at each other and in the heat of the discussion you pull from your handgun (i'd say you'd be hitting each others, but... you have a handgun nearby and he's a lot bigger than you, so...)
The problem... The other driver also pulls from his handgun... And NOW WHAT? you're both facing each other with your guns pointed.. it's a kill or get killed situation.. what do you do? (no need to develop anymore in to this simulation is there?)
Result: One dead or dying and one on his way to jail (and depending on the applicable law, soon to be dead or incarcerated for life)

2 - (this is the real case) Imagine you are a security professional and you are eligible to own a gun (although we provide no free access to guns, they are allowed in some professions).
You are on your off night and you go out for a drink. Unfortunately, you missed your stopping point and ended up drinking far more than you could handle. Once that bar/pub closes, you decide you don't want to go home just yet (it was a really bad week and you intend to enjoy your night off to the fullest). You then pick up your car and drive to another bar/pub. When stopping to park your car (and I can assure you parking spaces were not abundant in that area), the driver that was behind you takes the parking space you were about to take.
You get out of the car to argue with the other driver that you were signaling for that parking space (and he was) and he should move his car. The other driver (also drunk) tells you to (you know...). You move towards the car and both start fighting. You would easilly have taken care of this situation, were you not so drunk.. but since you were, you end up getting bashed by the other driver... Not thinking clearly and completely humiliated/infuriated by this situation (which occurred at the bar door with other people you knew watching), you remember.. I have my gun in the glove compartment.
...
...
This situation ended up with one dead driver and another one doing 25 years (max. penalty in Portugal) for murder.

Would any of these 2 situations have escalated that far IF there were no guns allowed?

I know the benefits of having a gun for protection, but my main point is:

- Most people are not prepared to own a gun. They may end up doing something crazy or stupid.

Be Well Cool
HalfBloodPrince
They shouldn't sell guns to retards. In the US, they check your mental record. Cho Seung Hui (Virginia Tech killer) had a record of suicidal councelling, threatening to kill himself, and being a depressing person, yet since he lived in America, they still sold 2 guns to his fat ass.
odinstag
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
They shouldn't sell guns to retards. In the US, they check your mental record. Cho Seung Hui (Virginia Tech killer) had a record of suicidal councelling, threatening to kill himself, and being a depressing person, yet since he lived in America, they still sold 2 guns to his fat ass.


Then should Wal-Mart do a check when you go to by a knife or a razor blade? Perhaps they cshould do background checks for rope or ladders?

A crazy might get a hold of these things and use them to suicidal ends.

Where do you draw the line?

Freedom or fascism?

The VT killer was not even a US citizen. He had no right to own a gun here by law.

If the VT campus had not banned guns for the legitimate use of self defense, the students could have stopped this killer.
Bockman
Although I didn't agree with the way HalfBloodPrince stated his point, there's no way I could agree with your point of view... so here goes:

odinstag wrote:


Then should Wal-Mart do a check when you go to by a knife or a razor blade? Perhaps they cshould do background checks for rope or ladders?


Haven't seem many (if any) mass murders by razorblade or knife.. and the all amazing "Serial killer kills 50 with ladder" hasn't popped up in my news quest yet

odinstag wrote:
A crazy might get a hold of these things and use them to suicidal ends.


Or he could just use the wiring on his own home.. yes, it's tragic and stupid and whatever you want to call it.. but what does it have to do with guns and moreover, what does it have to do with murder?

odinstag wrote:
Where do you draw the line?

On permission to use firearms...

odinstag wrote:
Freedom or fascism?

As stated in some countries (don't honestly know how you have it there) "Your freedom ends when it interferes with other people's freedom".
I'd say having the ability to put a cap in someone's head is "interfering with his freedom", wouldn't you?
As for fascism, is denying access to firearms fascism? more than denying foreigners to have the same rights as national citizens (when legaly living in your country)?

odinstag wrote:
The VT killer was not even a US citizen. He had no right to own a gun here by law.


Right.. of course he main problem here is the fact that he was a foreigner.. NOT the fact that he was crazy AND had access to a gun....
HAD he been a US citizen, he Would be allowed to shoot 50 people.. why do these foreigners insist on being crazy...

odinstag wrote:
If the VT campus had not banned guns for the legitimate use of self defense, the students could have stopped this killer.

Obviously.. They could even have had a firing squad to kill the guy... or maybe do a kill-by-ladder. That would've been a justified act.. Celan sweep and no courts needed.. Kind of a do-your-own-justice thing, right?

As i have said, I know there are benefits to allowing guns.. You just stated all the wrong reasons...

Be Well Cool
Futile
@ bockman
Even though one of the events you mentioned was an actual event, they are still in a “What if…” category. You are assuming that everyone with a firearm who gets drunk or mad will revert to pulling a weapon because they one. That is not a realistic assumption. First off, everyone who owns a gun unfortunately does not deserve to have one. A gun is not a big foam sports team finger that can be taken out and waved whenever one likes in order to make a point or to intimidate someone into submission. I own several firearms and I get mad and pissed off all the time, not to mention that I also drink. But I have never pulled or revert to running to get my gun. Rule number one do not point or aim a gun at someone or something that you do not plan to shoot or kill. Translated if you take out your gun be prepared to use it.

I do however agree with you that there need to be stricter restriction s on purchasing a gun, but unfortunately here in the US every state regulates it own firearm policy and some states do not require the same as others do in order to purchase a gun.

@ HalfBloodPrince
Correction --- The only time your mental health comes into play when purchasing a firearm is if there is a public record of it, i.e., arrested, or a documented offense because of it ( your mental condition). A background check for a purchase of a firearm only looks at criminal background and history of violence i.e., a restraining order against you or a domestic violence charge. There is a federal mandate that restricts the selling of firearms to the mentally unsound but medical records are closed to the public due to privacy laws. They can be accessed if need be but they are not looked into in order to purchase a firearm, go figure. Cho Seung Hui, like it or not, purchased those weapons legally through the system. He also purchased them a whole month before the shooting, so do not blame the system. If he had purchased them and then drove immediately to the school and started shooting, then you would have a valid point. What he did was planned, cold and calculated. True he had suicidal tendencies, but most people with suicidal tendencies tend to just kill themselves. Bottom line is Cho was a cold blooded killer, and making him any less taints the memories of the innocent lives he took.

@ odinstag
Cho being foreign had nothing to do with him killing people or purchasing a gun. Even though all guns laws vary in every state. One thing that is common is a valid State ID or license is required. Since Cho had been in the US since he was 8. I believe it is safe to assume that had a valid ID.
Bockman
Futile wrote:
@ bockman
Even though one of the events you mentioned was an actual event, they are still in a “What if…” category. You are assuming that everyone with a firearm who gets drunk or mad will revert to pulling a weapon because they one. That is not a realistic assumption. First off, everyone who owns a gun unfortunately does not deserve to have one. A gun is not a big foam sports team finger that can be taken out and waved whenever one likes in order to make a point or to intimidate someone into submission. I own several firearms and I get mad and pissed off all the time, not to mention that I also drink. But I have never pulled or revert to running to get my gun. Rule number one do not point or aim a gun at someone or something that you do not plan to shoot or kill. Translated if you take out your gun be prepared to use it.

I do however agree with you that there need to be stricter restriction s on purchasing a gun, but unfortunately here in the US every state regulates it own firearm policy and some states do not require the same as others do in order to purchase a gun.


That is EXACTLY my point.

I know there are people who DO know how to use a gun (or in this case how NOT to). What I wanted to point out is that with the possibility of almost everyone being able to own a gun, this not so common situations could become a lot more common.
How many people have you seen misusing a gun? or showing it out in public?
The problem is there are too many people who get scared for minor reasons and forget your rule number one. And even though they were not willing to shoot that gun when they pulled it (they mainly wanted to scare the other guy off) they end up in a position where they may have to (wrongfully) use it or simply use it out of rage.

The case you posted (your own) is about someone who DOES know how and when to use it. Unfortunately that is not always the case.

And I didn't mention to this point the fact that some of the (now illegal) guns now wondering about harmful hands were legal guns bought by regular persons that got stolen (or borrowed by their sons) because they didn't have the proper care on safeguarding them. Owning a gun takes A LOT of responsibility and not everyone is responsible enough to own them. But that is not taken into account when the guns are purchased.

I'll give you my own case as an example. I'm a very calm and responsible person 95% of the time. I never got caught into a brawl even when drunk (and i drank a lot), because i always had the brains to talk myself out of every situation.
Yet, when driving I loose my sense of responsibility and sometimes act like a lunatic. Although i know this and I try to avoid doing this (luckily with some success) I still get "overheated" sometimes with other driver's actions. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I saw myself in the middle of a fight and had a gun at hand. And THAT's why i would never own a gun.
I have managed a gun before (my brother's a policeman) and i know it's power and in normal situations I would certainly do a good judgment on whether it's use would be needed or not. But in abnormal situations I could end up doing more damage than anything else.

Be Well Cool
odinstag
Bockman wrote:
Although I didn't agree with the way HalfBloodPrince stated his point, there's no way I could agree with your point of view... so here goes:

odinstag wrote:


Then should Wal-Mart do a check when you go to by a knife or a razor blade? Perhaps they cshould do background checks for rope or ladders?


Haven't seem many (if any) mass murders by razorblade or knife.. and the all amazing "Serial killer kills 50 with ladder" hasn't popped up in my news quest yet


I was addressing the suicidal crazy part of anothers post. Keep trying and you might get me on something.

Quote:

odinstag wrote:
A crazy might get a hold of these things and use them to suicidal ends.


Or he could just use the wiring on his own home.. yes, it's tragic and stupid and whatever you want to call it.. but what does it have to do with guns and moreover, what does it have to do with murder?


Who was it that limited this to murder?

Most murders are not done by a gun. They are done with an improvised weapon suxch as a phone cord or heavy object found in the victims home.

Keep trying.

Quote:

odinstag wrote:
Where do you draw the line?

On permission to use firearms...

odinstag wrote:
Freedom or fascism?

As stated in some countries (don't honestly know how you have it there) "Your freedom ends when it interferes with other people's freedom".
I'd say having the ability to put a cap in someone's head is "interfering with his freedom", wouldn't you?


Having the ability doesn't. Actually shooting them does. If it is not in self defense.

Quote:

As for fascism, is denying access to firearms fascism? more than denying foreigners to have the same rights as national citizens (when legaly living in your country)?


To bad it is not within our law to allow non citizens, citizens' rights.

Yes, denying the rightful citizen the right to bear arms is fascism.

Quote:

odinstag wrote:
The VT killer was not even a US citizen. He had no right to own a gun here by law.


Right.. of course he main problem here is the fact that he was a foreigner.. NOT the fact that he was crazy AND had access to a gun....
HAD he been a US citizen, he Would be allowed to shoot 50 people.. why do these foreigners insist on being crazy...

odinstag wrote:
If the VT campus had not banned guns for the legitimate use of self defense, the students could have stopped this killer.

Obviously.. They could even have had a firing squad to kill the guy... or maybe do a kill-by-ladder. That would've been a justified act.. Celan sweep and no courts needed.. Kind of a do-your-own-justice thing, right?

As i have said, I know there are benefits to allowing guns.. You just stated all the wrong reasons...

Be Well Cool


I did not say the problem was that he was a non citizen. It was that someone ignored the law and sold him guns. But he could have gotten the gun from criminals instead and you wouldn't have had that arguement at all.

I stated the only reason.

For self defense against sickos like the VT killer.
Bockman
odinstag i don't need to get you on anything. You have your point of view, i have mine. I stated my reasons. But for the sake of debate, here goes:

odinstag wrote:
I was addressing the suicidal crazy part of anothers post.


So, you were "addressing the suicidal crazy part of anothers post" right after quoting HalfBloodPrince's post. And you expected us all to understand that your post had nothing to do with your quote?

odinstag wrote:
Who was it that limited this to murder?


...erm... you?... by quoting and replying to his post?

odinstag wrote:
Most murders are not done by a gun. They are done with an improvised weapon suxch as a phone cord or heavy object found in the victims home.


Although having someone bash you in the head is a weird way to commit suicide (on that quote we WERE talking about suicide, were'nt we?), I must agree with you that most burglars (when not packing) use improvised weapons yes.

odinstag wrote:
Having the ability doesn't. Actually shooting them does. If it is not in self defense.

Right. So, I'll just complain that he interfered with my liberty AFTER he puts a slug in my brain. that'll be the day...

odinstag wrote:
To bad it is not within our law to allow non citizens, citizens' rights.

For the record, not being a national citizen doesn't make you a non-citizen (and that's why it had a clear statement of "when legally living in your country").
As far as i knew the killer was a legal citizen in the US, although foreigner.

odinstag wrote:
Yes, denying the rightful citizen the right to bear arms is fascism.

And who decides who's rightful and who's not? Or you're a rightful citizen if you were born in the US?

odinstag wrote:
I stated the only reason.

For self defense against sickos like the VT killer.


Riiight. so we should all be packing inside the schools. By the time a psycho came in to shoot everyone, most of the "job" would be done already. that would surely solve the problem.

Be Well Cool

[Edit] Edited to correct quote tags[/edit]
ocalhoun
Bockman wrote:

How many people have you seen misusing a gun? or showing it out in public?

None.
Be Well Cool
Futile
I have stated several times that I am a licensed concealed weapon holder. I have also stated that I am not a gun toting vigilante out to “bust a cap” in anyone who pisses me off or makes me mad. There have been many questions about when and if I would pull or use my weapon whether in private or public. Here is a real case incident that occurred in my town just yesterday.

While at a half price book store, one which my daughters and I shop at, a father and his four year daughter were shopping. The father turned to get another book. While he was looking at or for a book some pervert lifted his daughter’s dress and grabbed her. The father turned around to witness this, yelled at the guy and started to chase him. He caught him outside, struggled with him but the guy got the best of him and was able to get away on foot. All of this was caught on security camera.

Needless to say, had it been me in that situation and someone had touched my four year old, he never would have made it out of the building. Yes, I would have shot him, would not have thought twice about it, felt no remorse at all. Does that make me an evil person? Does that make me a statistic of why we, the USA, should not bear arms? Do you think under the circumstances that I would care? I know that this pervert has rights just like anyone else and that I am infringing on his rights by exercising mine. True, I am not judge, jury and executioner but did he not just infringe on a little innocent girl’s rights. I am only acting on one of nature’s oldest innate instinct, a parent protecting its young. If this is brutal, barbaric or sadistic in your eyes, you are entitled to your opinion. Bottom line is if it had been my daughter this individual would have been in the last few minutes of his life whether I had a firearm or not. Had I would have to have chased him down I would have beaten him to death. Shooting him would be a quicker means to the same end and less of a dry cleaning bill for my clothes. Blood is hard if not impossible to get out sometimes. But seriously, I would not have had a problem, not thought twice, not even blinked he would be talking to Devil right about now. I don’t think that St. Peter lets a lot of pedophiles though the Pearly Gates
Bockman
Futile, were I in the same situation and had I access to the weapon, I would most probably have the exact same reaction as you would. Doesn't mean that I had that right. I most surely would have capped him on spot, had I the chance. (I'm new at this father business (7 months), but my kid is my life)
Now, does that make it right? Absolutely not!

The possibility of having a firearm would get you in a far greater chance of seeing yourself in that situation. Had you not the gun, you would have chased him and while beating the crap out of him you could possibly have stopped at some point (or be stopped by someone else). He would get a well deserved beating and would end up serving time in jail, the right way.
There's also other probabilities to this i know (like a lynch mob forming) but the probability of someone calling you to your senses BEFORE you kill the pervert is high without a gun, as opposed to with it (I'd bet you no one would have tried to talk you out of it before you had blasted him off)

Be Well Cool
Siaba
Interesting...
j_f_k
You're neglecting a very significant factor that there are a lot of accidental gun-related deaths, particularly with households in the US with children that have brought a gun, usually after a burlary or some incident for self-protection.

I read somewhere (and no I can't quantify with hard numbers and yes, statistics have a knack being rather rubbery at the best of times) that you're more likely to die in a household that owns a gun (due to an accident) than you are from a burgler killing you if you don't own a gun.

I read somehwre in the mid-eighties, however that there's this place in the US called Kenesaw where its not only legal but mandatory to own a gun and they were boasting about the low crime rate.

I guess the fact that you know there's a gun in a place is a deterrent for any would be theives, but I still have a problem with a gun in the house (particularly with children).

i guess the best strategy is to not own a gun but live an area where everybody thinks you own (or most people own) a gun, however I'm not sure such an area would be a particularly pleasant one.
Bockman
j_f_k wrote:
You're neglecting a very significant factor that there are a lot of accidental gun-related deaths, particularly with households in the US with children that have brought a gun, usually after a burlary or some incident for self-protection.


I had also seen that but i didn't mention it because i know how numbers can be "molded" to one's opinion.

But I can give you a source for some of those numbers and each of you can reach your own conclusions.

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

Be Well Cool
Futile
Bockman, I believe that you totally misunderstood the true point of my last post. That individual would be dead either by gunshot or some other means. Have you ever seen the movie A Time To Kill with Samuel L Jackson and Matthew McConaughey it is based off a John Grisham novel. The one sure way to get a stable, grounded, truly laid back person like myself in the "Do not pass GO. Do not collect a $200.00" frame of mind is intentionally hurt or abuse their family. His life is forfeit in my eyes and whether it is minutes, days, weeks, months or years later. Whomever they are may as well just lay down on the ground everytime that they see me because they are on borrowed time. And that is not an idle threat. That is a heart felt promise, my friend. As far as my own fate, I will be judged accordingly.
ocalhoun
j_f_k wrote:
You're neglecting a very significant factor that there are a lot of accidental gun-related deaths, particularly with households in the US with children that have brought a gun, usually after a burlary or some incident for self-protection.

I read somewhere (and no I can't quantify with hard numbers and yes, statistics have a knack being rather rubbery at the best of times) that you're more likely to die in a household that owns a gun (due to an accident) than you are from a burgler killing you if you don't own a gun.


I read somehwre in the mid-eighties, however that there's this place in the US called Kenesaw where its not only legal but mandatory to own a gun and they were boasting about the low crime rate.

I guess the fact that you know there's a gun in a place is a deterrent for any would be theives,

There are a lot of accidental deaths due to other things as well, though. Anything from bicycles to hair-dryers. All this statistic really exemplifies is the importance of keeping firearms securely out of reach from children, and/or locked up.
That's the kind of thing I started this thread about. I wish I had the exact numbers, but when Florida enabled people to have concealed carry permits, the rate of violent crime went down. The entire nation's crime rate had been slowly falling at that time, but Florida's crime rate went down much faster than the rest of the country and much faster than it had been going down previously.
LostOverThere
Put it this way:

Guns were made to kill.



Enough said.
Futile
Texas also has a concealed weapons law. Even if you do not own a gun, the thought that you might have one is deterent enough to make someone think twice before attempting anything.
Futile
LostOverThere wrote:
Put it this way:

Guns were made to kill.



Enough said.


That is a ridiculous statement. Last time I checked weapons are made to incapacitate or kill. Throughout the ages, man has made weapons to defend himself. First it was a club, then a spear, a bow or sword and so on as the ages go. The FOM, (Flavor Of the Month), so to speak for now is a gun. If this was the Middle Ages I guess you would be saying:

“Swords are made for killing!”

Enough said
darrenpaul
I am dead against civilisation ownership of guns - put it simply, if their were no guns, their would be no need to stop crimes with the use of guns, now would it
Andrew426
Futile wrote:
Law enforcement officers all over the world shoot people everyday because of “suspicious” movements and are justified.
Actually most cases of law enforcement officers shooting and wounding/killing people are closely scrutinized and it is never just assumed that the police officer is in the right. One case, for example happened in a town just ten minutes north of where I live. Late one night a drunk guy was walking through town with a golf club and baseball bat smashing shop windows and parked cars. When the police showed up he didnt stop, and eventually ran at one cop and swung the golf club at him. The police officer (an old friend of my mother) shot him and killed him in self defence. There was an investigation into the incident, and it was decided that he had killed the man in self defence. The mans family then tried to take him to court also, where he was found to be not at fault. The trial lasted the better part of 4 years, cost him hundreds of thousands in legal bills and he has since moved away and started a new life with his family elsewhere.
That one night he pulled the trigger, and not only did it end the life of the man he shot but it destroyed his own. Im not saying he shouldnt have shot him, but Im sure if you asked him now he would have restrained him by other means - even if it had meant a few days in hospital for himself it would have been better than the absolute mess his life is in now.

http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=28532
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/waitara21.htm
Futile
Andrew426 wrote:
Futile wrote:
Law enforcement officers all over the world shoot people everyday because of “suspicious” movements and are justified.
Actually most cases of law enforcement officers shooting and wounding/killing people are closely scrutinized and it is never just assumed that the police officer is in the right. One case, for example happened in a town just ten minutes north of where I live. Late one night a drunk guy was walking through town with a golf club and baseball bat smashing shop windows and parked cars. When the police showed up he didnt stop, and eventually ran at one cop and swung the golf club at him. The police officer (an old friend of my mother) shot him and killed him in self defence. There was an investigation into the incident, and it was decided that he had killed the man in self defence. The mans family then tried to take him to court also, where he was found to be not at fault. The trial lasted the better part of 4 years, cost him hundreds of thousands in legal bills and he has since moved away and started a new life with his family elsewhere.
That one night he pulled the trigger, and not only did it end the life of the man he shot but it destroyed his own. Im not saying he shouldnt have shot him, but Im sure if you asked him now he would have restrained him by other means - even if it had meant a few days in hospital for himself it would have been better than the absolute mess his life is in now.

http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=28532
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/waitara21.htm


I apologize for making a generalized state and not stating such. I am not an idiot and think that police officers just shoot people because they have a badge and a gun and that will make shooting people whenever they want justified. I am also fully aware of the constant and strict regulations that law enforcement has to follow even if they just discharge their weapon. I have seen combat in Desert Strom the first time, Somalia, Rwanda and Burundi and I am fully aware of when and where the use of deadly force is authorized and justified.

To answer your question about whether your mom’s friend made the right choice? Yes, he did. You are assuming that the individual who had already shown signs of confirmed violence and vandalism would have been rational enough to stop beating your mom’s friend him once he was incapacitated. I am sure that your mom’s friend also warned that individual several times to stop and put down the bat and club.

You also stated that the shooting caused him to have to change his life. The key word here is life. He is alive because of that decision. His mom and dad still have their son, if he has a family they still have their husband and father. A life was lost true, but a life also continues because of it.

I do not know if I had any confirmed kills from when I was in combat nor do I care. The only thing that mattered is that I just enjoyed another Father’s Day with my kids yesterday. Anyone who joins the military or law enforcement takes an oath to protect and serve the country and the public. Sometimes that calls for making decisions that could cost you or someone else their life
Related topics
cron jobs
My list of musics
Mexifornia - The Destruction of America
legalize (soft)drugs
Machinegun Ownership
[Official] Security: Anti-Spyware/Virus, & Firewall
Müzik listesi
Rockman ZX Walkthrough
Is DirectX better or Opengl
Help getting GIF transparency right
Is it time the USA gave up its right to bear arms.
PHP has stopped displaying my nav
The "right" to bear arms
Yet another school massacre
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.