Why Guns Won't Save Lives

[Dog]

A lot of people comment that if more people were carrying concealed guns, there'd be fewer victims of crime. While I suppose that would be the ideal, they're overlooking the more probable outcome where frightened, poorly trained people use their guns recklessly, killing bystanders, an innocent person who is wrongly identified as a potential assailant, or killing people for something other than self-defense (see: the case last year of some hick shooting two people he saw robbing his neighbor's house).

Those outcomes seem MUCH more likely than people heroically pulling out their weapon and taking down a group of violent thugs. No. Before that happens, I guarantee you'll see headlines like these:

"2 Bystanders Shot As Person Tries To Stop A Robbery."
"Black Businessman Shot Because Woman Was Afraid Of Him."
"4 Hispanics Shot During BBQ; Shooter Claims Self-Defense"
"Man Shoots Mailman, Thinking He Was Burgular."

[Butcher]

I suppose deterrence doesn't count for anything.

[freeRadical]

Oh my god. Not other one of these threads. It had been proven numerous times that areas of the country that have concealed carry have a lower crime rate than areas that don't. It has also been proven that areas that didn't allow concealed carry but now do have seen a significant decrease in their crime rate. Also, that hick you're referring to was justified in what he did under the Castle Law. Those spics were illegal aliens who were part of a crime ring that had been operating in the area. They got what they deserved.

[Dog]

I'm glad that "hick" killed those two stupid spic theives. Fuck you.

If they were attacking someone, I could sympathize with the hick, but last I checked, people aren't supposed to get the death penalty for stealing.

[freeRadical]

Again, under the Castle Law he was justified in what he did. He told them to stop and the entered his yard and moved toward him. Only an idiot would threaten a guy with a shotgun pointed at them.

If they were attacking someone, I could sympathize with the hick, but last I checked, people aren't supposed to get the death penalty for stealing.

[Dog]

I suppose deterrence doesn't count for anything.

I think escalation is more likely than deterrence. Criminals learn that people have guns, so they get more violent and they start always carrying guns. Or maybe even disabling their victim instead of trying to hold them up.

Deterrence isn't the only outcome, so I find it alarming that anti-gun-restriction people like to ignore the other possible outcomes.

[freeRadical]

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9

* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15

C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17

* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18

Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

Sources:
1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.
Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
8Id. at 164, 185.
9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
22Id.
23Id.

[Dog]

Oh my god. Not other one of these threads. It had been proven numerous times that areas of the country that have concealed carry have a lower crime rate than areas that don't. It has also been proven that areas that didn't allow concealed carry but now do have seen a significant decrease in their crime rate. Also, that hick you're referring to was justified in what he did under the Castle Law. Those spics were illegal aliens who were part of a crime ring that had been operating in the area. They got what they deserved.

As I said to Phinehas, people aren't supposed to get the death penalty for stealing. The very fact that you suggest that it was okay pretty much proves my point. Citizens are too damned reckless and stupid to be get such freedom in taking the law into their hands.

That said, I'd be interested in a link confirming the stats you mentioned.

[freeRadical]

I didn't say it was right, I merely said he was justified under the law.

As I said to Phinehas, people aren't supposed to get the death penalty for stealing. The very fact that you suggest that it was okay pretty much proves my point. Citizens are too damned reckless and stupid to be get such freedom in taking the law into their hands.

I posted all my sources.

That said, I'd be interested in a link confirming the stats you mentioned.

[Syphilis]

Oh my god. Not other one of these threads. It had been proven numerous times that areas of the country that have concealed carry have a lower crime rate than areas that don't. It has also been proven that areas that didn't allow concealed carry but now do have seen a significant decrease in their crime rate. Also, that hick you're referring to was justified in what he did under the Castle Law. Those spics were illegal aliens who were part of a crime ring that had been operating in the area. They got what they deserved.

You mean like how the US has less gun crime than Australia?

:rolleyes:

Of course, Americans will never give up their guns, so it's probably at a point where it's safer to have one than not.

[deus]

The problem as usual isn't guns. It's stupid and/or untrained people with guns.

[freeRadical]

Reserved for later use.

[Combat Womabt]

You are overlooking the bigger picture here. Most instances in which a gun is used as self defense, not a single shot is fired. Also, it is the greatest equalizer. That 100 pound woman would not stand a chance against a 200 pound man. But noting stops rape faster than a bullet to the brain, or the treat of such a bullet.

Imagine if 50% of people were licensed concealed carriers. That is a 50% chance that person you are trying to mug has a gun, that is a 50% chance that woman you are stalking has a gun. Being shot is a much larger deterrent than probation ever will be.

[Dog]

I didn't say it was right, I merely said he was justified under the law.

Cops can't shoot people they see robbing a house. Citizens shouldn't be able to either. If there is some clause in the law about protecting property with deadly force, then by all means, that law needs to change too.



I posted all my sources.

I noticed that after I posted; thanks. But pure numbers and percentages can easily be used to manipulate the actual facts. I'll have to look into it myself. If you're right then you're right though...

[freeRadical]

Stories like this is the reason people should be allowed to carry guns.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband. Hupp's mother and father were killed along with twenty-one other persons. Hennard also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.

Source: http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2009/05/guns_save_lives.html

[freeRadical]

Under the Castle Law, people can defend their property and their neighbor's property with deadly force. And furthermore, if the suspect approached the cop in a violent manner after being warned to not move, then said cop can use deadly force.
Cops can't shoot people they see robbing a house. Citizens shouldn't be able to either. If there is some clause in the law about protecting property with deadly force, then by all means, that law needs to change too.

[Dog]

The problem as usual isn't guns. It's stupid and/or untrained people with guns.

True, and I suppose that was my prime complaint. I'm just skeptical as to whether that bad judgment and poor training can actually be eliminated.

Honestly, guns aren't even the issue. There are many other countries with lax gun laws, yet not even a fraction of the crime...we need to focus on the real issues more than the guns.

[Butcher]

True, and I suppose that was my prime complaint. I'm just skeptical as to whether that bad judgment and poor training can actually be eliminated.

Mandatory military service?

[Dog]

Stories like this is the reason people should be allowed to carry guns.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband. Hupp's mother and father were killed along with twenty-one other persons. Hennard also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.

Source: http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2009/05/guns_save_lives.html

Good point. When I hear similar stories, I think about how it would be great if I had a gun. But, at the same time, I also think about how it could be avoided if people couldn't get guns so easily. (Despite all of this gun-law talk, guns are very easy to get in the US)

I don't really think its just an issue of "Yes to guns" or "No to guns", because it's clear that guns themselves aren't the actual problem. But I think people who want to just say "Yes, people should be able to carry and conceal guns easily" have the wrong idea. At best, I'd want to see something like "People should be able to carry and conceal weapons after sufficient psych evaluations and training."

[freeRadical]

All that aside. The federal government oversteps its bounds when it tries to limit possession of firearms. People always forget that criminals don't obey laws; they're criminals. Strict gun laws just make it hard for law-abiding citizens to get guns. It does nothing to make it harder for criminals to get guns since they get them illegally anyway.
Good point. When I hear similar stories, I think about how it would be great if I had a gun. But, at the same time, I also think about how it could be avoided if people couldn't get guns so easily. (Despite all of this gun-law talk, guns are very easy to get in the US)

I don't really think its just an issue of "Yes to guns" or "No to guns", because it's clear that guns themselves aren't the actual problem. But I think people who want to just say "Yes, people should be able to carry and conceal guns easily" have the wrong idea. At best, I'd want to see something like "People should be able to carry and conceal weapons after sufficient psych evaluations and training."

[Combat Womabt]

But, at the same time, I also think about how it could be avoided if people couldn't get guns so easily. (Despite all of this gun-law talk, guns are very easy to get in the US)


You realize anyone can make a simple gun right? I remember reading a story about a guy in the UK making a bunch of home made guns and selling them to local gangs.

[freeRadical]

The zip gun is notoriously easy to make. Those chinks are fucking smart.

You realize anyone can make a simple gun right? I remember reading a story about a guy in the UK making a bunch of home made guns and selling them to local gangs.

[Eskorbuto]

A lot of people comment that if more people were carrying concealed guns, there'd be fewer victims of crime. While I suppose that would be the ideal, they're overlooking the more probable outcome where frightened, poorly trained people use their guns recklessly, killing bystanders, an innocent person who is wrongly identified as a potential assailant, or killing people for something other than self-defense (see: the case last year of some hick shooting two people he saw robbing his neighbor's house).

Those outcomes seem MUCH more likely than people heroically pulling out their weapon and taking down a group of violent thugs. No. Before that happens, I guarantee you'll see headlines like these:

"2 Bystanders Shot As Person Tries To Stop A Robbery."
"Black Businessman Shot Because Woman Was Afraid Of Him."
"4 Hispanics Shot During BBQ; Shooter Claims Self-Defense"
"Man Shoots Mailman, Thinking He Was Burgular."

What about the criminals killing people for something other than self-defense? Do you think criminals are well trained in using their guns?

The only fucking reason you see headlines like those before you see the real ones about the everyday heroes who defend themselves and others, is because the media has a fucking bias against weapons. It's quite obvious.

You fucking dolt, if you want me and every other person to be defenseless, you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass. I don't fucking care what other people tell me to do, be it the police or the feds or anyone else - I shoot to kill when someone threatens my life.

End of fucking story.

[Nitronick]

If they were attacking someone, I could sympathize with the hick, but last I checked, people aren't supposed to get the death penalty for stealing.

They should.

[puzld]

I'll take an armed citizenry over a police state.

Self defense is ultimately the responsibility of the individual. If you weren't raised around firearms and are uncomfortable having one, then don't. If your home is invaded, then grab your phone and cower under your bed while you call 911 and wait for the police to save you.

But above all else, free people are armed and slaves are disarmed.

[Yggdrasil]

Cops can't shoot people they see robbing a house. Citizens shouldn't be able to either. If there is some clause in the law about protecting property with deadly force, then by all means, that law needs to change too.

No. None of that "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind" horseshit, either. A petty crime like pickpocketing or shoplifting certainly isn't justifiable with a gunshot, but I don't see your reasoning when you don't support the right to shoot a bastard who's in the process of stealing your car, or breaking into your home.

Case in point: 20 years ago my grandfather's car (a BMW) broke down in the middle of a poor Colombian black ghetto (something about overheating). He was worried about theft, so he pocketed his handgun. Just then, these two black men approached him. Very menacingly, they walked up to him and asked him if he needed any "help". They had a bit of a vicious stare down, and as soon as he saw them reaching into their clothes (for a weapon) he brandished his gun, pointed it at them, and said I sure do. He got them to work, all the while he kept the gun pointed at them, and once he was done, he simply left. Also, in Colombia (especially in the rural areas) there's a strong tradition of vigilante justice, with none of the official red tape.

[Dog]

Case in point: 20 years ago my grandfather's car (a BMW) broke down in the middle of a poor Colombian black ghetto (something about overheating). He was worried about theft, so he pocketed his handgun. Just then, these two black men approached him. Very menacingly, they walked up to him and asked him if he needed any "help". They had a bit of a vicious stare down, and as soon as he saw them reaching into their clothes (for a weapon) he brandished his gun, pointed it at them, and said I sure do. He got them to work, all the while he kept the gun pointed at them, and once he was done, he simply left. Also, in Colombia (especially in the rural areas) there's a strong tradition of vigilante justice, with none of the official red tape.

Rofl. Pointing your gun at two people who offer to help. BRILLIANT! :thumbsdown:

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

Oh my god. Not other one of these threads. It had been proven numerous times that areas of the country that have concealed carry have a lower crime rate than areas that don't. It has also been proven that areas that didn't allow concealed carry but now do have seen a significant decrease in their crime rate. Also, that hick you're referring to was justified in what he did under the Castle Law. Those spics were illegal aliens who were part of a crime ring that had been operating in the area. They got what they deserved.

Correlation does not prove causation.

[Trix Are For Kids]

The more that I think about it, concealed carry laws don't really help prevent crime, they just make it easier for people to get shot trying to be heroic. Honestly, how many low-life cokehead/crackhead criminals actually take the time to check the concealed carry laws for their state? I don't think very many do. They don't care whether there is a slight chance that somebody just might have a gun. Probably the only ones who actually have their gun laws straight are people who are serious criminals. And if they ARE serious criminals, then I pity the fool who brandishes a 9mm.

[Yggdrasil]

Rofl. Pointing your gun at two people who offer to help. BRILLIANT! :thumbsdown:

They were going to mug him and rob him. An old rich white man in the middle of a notoriously dangerous black neighbourhood with a stalled BMW doesn't suddenly get offered a friendly hand by two poor local black men, who, as I said, approached him menacingly and reached for some sort of knife, not expecting said old man to be packing.

Besides, Colombia 20 years ago doesn't compare to the society you and I are accustomed to today. People were killed, robbed, and kidnapped often, no one took chances, and the authorities were too afraid or corrupt to do anything. That's changed drastically, but it was a dog-eat-dog world back then.

[LavaRed]

Rofl. Pointing your gun at two people who offer to help. BRILLIANT! :thumbsdown:

My friend, you're too innocent. They certainly didn't mean to help, and they certainly didn't want to get shot while running away.

When there is doubt, there is no doubt. So said Count Tolstoy, my friend.

[LavaRed]

They were going to mug him and rob him. An old rich white man in the middle of a notoriously dangerous black neighbourhood with a stalled BMW doesn't suddenly get offered a friendly hand by two poor local black men, who, as I said, approached him menacingly and reached for some sort of knife, not expecting said old man to be packing.

Besides, Colombia 20 years ago doesn't compare to the society you and I are accustomed to today. People were killed, robbed, and kidnapped often, no one took chances, and the authorities were too afraid or corrupt to do anything. That's changed drastically, but it was a dog-eat-dog world back then.

Actually, no, it has only gotten worse.

[LavaRed]

The more that I think about it, concealed carry laws don't really help prevent crime, they just make it easier for people to get shot trying to be heroic. Honestly, how many low-life cokehead/crackhead criminals actually take the time to check the concealed carry laws for their state? I don't think very many do. They don't care whether there is a slight chance that somebody just might have a gun. Probably the only ones who actually have their gun laws straight are people who are serious criminals. And if they ARE serious criminals, then I pity the fool who brandishes a 9mm.

Try me ;). But I'll brandish a .45 ACP. SMG. Suppressed too, because I am environmentally conscious.

[Yggdrasil]

Actually, no, it has only gotten worse.

Actually, no. Do you happen to be Colombian? Since the Uribe administration has been in power the country has experienced a markedly improved standard of living. Everything is booming in the country. If you are Colombian, don't tell me you lap up the bullshit doled out by that filthy guerilla cunt Piedad Córdoba. She can rot in hell for all she's contributed to Colombia's development in the past decade. Actually, my aunt served for a couple of years as one of Uribe's business connections, assistants, and friends. They're both hardworking and honest, and are transporting Colombia to its full potential.

[Rust]

Is there a reason this is in Politics and not in Right to Bear Arms? It seems you're not discussing the policies of political parties, but arguments in favor/against the right to bear arms...

[Famous Monster]

Take all guns away and replace it with spears.:D

[Dog]

Is there a reason this is in Politics and not in Right to Bear Arms? It seems you're not discussing the policies of political parties, but arguments in favor/against the right to bear arms...

:shrug:

It's a topic that overlaps both themes. But..that said, I suspect the responses will be more biased if it's moved to Right to Bear Arms.

[Trix Are For Kids]

Try me ;). But I'll brandish a .45 ACP. SMG. Suppressed too, because I am environmentally conscious.

Regardless of how much of a good shot you are, I doubt that gansters in a bulletproof Range Rover will be afraid of you when they whip out the Uzis.

[Rust]

:shrug:
It's a topic that overlaps both themes. But..that said, I suspect the responses will be more biased if it's moved to Right to Bear Arms.

Well then, in the interest of sport...

Moving to Right to Bear Arms.

[freeRadical]

You shouldn't have moved it, you should've deleted it. How many of these threads have we seen? Too many. It turns into a fucking emotional twat-fest where nobody looks at the facts. There should be one thread in RTBA and one thread only where people can talk pro-gun and anti-gun.

Well then, in the interest of sport...

Moving to Right to Bear Arms.

[The Savage]

"2 Bystanders Shot As Person Tries To Stop A Robbery."
"Two criminal masterminds shot as innocent bystanded fires to save his life."

"Black Businessman Shot Because Woman Was Afraid Of Him."

"High level Black crack dealer get shot trying to rape a 47y.o mothers daughter."

"4 Hispanics Shot During BBQ; Shooter Claims Self-Defense"

"4 hispanics, believed to be involved in satanic cults, shot dead while BBQing a live 24 month old baby."

"Man Shoots Mailman, Thinking He Was Burgular."
[/quote]
"A man wearing a ski mask and brandishing a machete who later turned out to be a mailman was shot dead attempting to rob a retirement village."

[5.56 SS109]

PizzaNazi is gayer than AIDS.


That is all.

[LavaRed]

Actually, no. Do you happen to be Colombian? Since the Uribe administration has been in power the country has experienced a markedly improved standard of living. Everything is booming in the country. If you are Colombian, don't tell me you lap up the bullshit doled out by that filthy guerilla cunt Piedad Córdoba. She can rot in hell for all she's contributed to Colombia's development in the past decade. Actually, my aunt served for a couple of years as one of Uribe's business connections, assistants, and friends. They're both hardworking and honest, and are transporting Colombia to its full potential.

No, I'm Guatemalan, and we get a large number of Colombian immigrants here who consider their own country even more unsafe than ours.
However, I do have to agree with you that President Uribe has done a lot for his country. Definitely a one of a kind guy.

[LavaRed]

Regardless of how much of a good shot you are, I doubt that gansters in a bulletproof Range Rover will be afraid of you when they whip out the Uzis.

Well, if you consider I have a heavily bulletproof Wagoneer + bodyguards + AK47's and M16's + Uzis, I don't quite suspect that I'm the one who should be afraid either.

[LavaRed]

Guns don't save lives. Nor do they take them. A human behind the trigger does that. A gun is but a simple tool. Did the screwdriver remove the screw? Does the automobile go places? No. Someone took the screw out with a screwdriver. Someone drove the car somewhere.

As for gun control, when someone actually finds a workable way to remove black market guns, then I'll happilly climb on the bandwagon. Currently, the way I see it, crooks will probably be armed, because surprise is on their side, and civilians will be disarmed. The criminal will have the advantage.

The people deserve at least the choice to be armed. Seriously, where is the logic in thinking that limiting the legal availability of weaponry will likewise limit the illegal availability of weaponry?
I seriously expect a well thought out response on this. Thank you.

[freeRadical]

Fucking this. LavaRed as always you summed it up more eloquently then I ever could.
Guns don't save lives. Nor do they take them. A human behind the trigger does that. A gun is but a simple tool. Did the screwdriver remove the screw? Does the automobile go places? No. Someone took the screw out with a screwdriver. Someone drove the car somewhere.

As for gun control, when someone actually finds a workable way to remove black market guns, then I'll happilly climb on the bandwagon. Currently, the way I see it, crooks will probably be armed, because surprise is on their side, and civilians will be disarmed. The criminal will have the advantage.

The people deserve at least the choice to be armed. Seriously, where is the logic in thinking that limiting the legal availability of weaponry will likewise limit the illegal availability of weaponry?
I seriously expect a well thought out response on this. Thank you.

[000]

The problem as usual isn't guns. It's stupid and/or untrained people with guns.

Arghghhhhhh...it's not that simple! I agree that ideally, everyone would be trained in gun safety, etc, and everyone would be smart. But that's ideal, and NOT going to happen. So you look at what you can change, and that's the gun side of it. An idiot can do much less damage with a semi-automatic pistol than he can with an AR, and that's why I think we need some level of gun control.

And please...don't bring this anecdotal evidence bullshit here. Heart wrenching stories of "IF ONLY SHE HAD A GUN SHE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RAPED/KILLED" are generally fear-mongering anomalies. For every bs story like that you bring up, I can bring up one where some idiot gets fired from his job and decides to spray bullets through his office.

[000]

You shouldn't have moved it, you should've deleted it. How many of these threads have we seen? Too many. It turns into a fucking emotional twat-fest where nobody looks at the facts. There should be one thread in RTBA and one thread only where people can talk pro-gun and anti-gun.

Go fuck yourself. "Where nobody looks at the facts" is the exact spot where I realized you're a quivering vagina. You really are an idiot if you believe statistics can't be twisted to say whatever the hell you want them to. I once interviewed a statistics professor, asked her why she liked statistics. Her response? Half jokingly and half completely serious, "Because you can make the answers say whatever you'd like." I can pull up some statistics from the Brady Gun Control website that are "facts", just like yours. And I'm going to guess that you're not going to "[look] at the facts" and change your views forever. Patronizing ass.

[slm33d]

Did one of your bros get shot in a driveby so you decided to whinge?. Fucking honestly PN your race uses guns a lot more than most. So how about instead of whinging you just shut the fuck up you hormonal bitch.

[000]

Guns don't save lives. Nor do they take them. A human behind the trigger does that. A gun is but a simple tool. Did the screwdriver remove the screw? Does the automobile go places? No. Someone took the screw out with a screwdriver. Someone drove the car somewhere.


Sweet dickbag christ, I'm so sick of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!". It's only half true. You're right in that a gun isn't going to kill anybody, sitting there on the desk. And a guy can still kill someone without a gun. But you have to look at the potential of a crazy person, an angry person, a good hearted but ignorant person, or just a horrible accident with a gun vs basically ANY other weapon we know (aside from explosives, I guess). It's not one sided here, guns are clearly a special case.


As for gun control, when someone actually finds a workable way to remove black market guns, then I'll happilly climb on the bandwagon. Currently, the way I see it, crooks will probably be armed, because surprise is on their side, and civilians will be disarmed. The criminal will have the advantage.

The people deserve at least the choice to be armed. Seriously, where is the logic in thinking that limiting the legal availability of weaponry will likewise limit the illegal availability of weaponry?
I seriously expect a well thought out response on this. Thank you.

I'd be stupid not to agree that you can reasonably expect criminals to have the same arms that civilians can get their hands on. But I think there's some reasonable limit. Personally, I think I believe in limited gun control--I think a home should be able to have a handgun, a rifle, and a shotgun. In my mind, those are weapons that serve a purpose while not being outweighed by the risk of citizens owning them. Seriously, is it going to make a difference if someone breaks into your home if you have a deadly AR as opposed to any of those weapons?

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

PizzaNazi, you better hope someone never puts a gun to your head because you'll be fucked.

[Thought Riot]

I've always thought that allowing concealed weapons would just be a really bad idea because of the shit that would happen when people bring a pistol into a bar. Drunks+weapons=all bad. Of course, there would probably be laws prohibitting firearms in bars.

And most people are too fucking stupid to be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

Guns don't save lives. Nor do they take them. A human behind the trigger does that. A gun is but a simple tool. Did the screwdriver remove the screw? Does the automobile go places? No. Someone took the screw out with a screwdriver. Someone drove the car somewhere.

As for gun control, when someone actually finds a workable way to remove black market guns, then I'll happilly climb on the bandwagon. Currently, the way I see it, crooks will probably be armed, because surprise is on their side, and civilians will be disarmed. The criminal will have the advantage.

The people deserve at least the choice to be armed. Seriously, where is the logic in thinking that limiting the legal availability of weaponry will likewise limit the illegal availability of weaponry?
I seriously expect a well thought out response on this. Thank you.

There is no logic to that line of reasoning, because its a decision made by a bunch of addle brained politicians who all need to be taken out to the curb and capped in the back of the head.

[000]

I've always thought that allowing concealed weapons would just be a really bad idea because of the shit that would happen when people bring a pistol into a bar. Drunks+weapons=all bad. Of course, there would probably be laws prohibitting firearms in bars.

And most people are too fucking stupid to be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

Exactly my reasoning. I was talking to a kid who was complaining that our university doesn't allow concealed carry. I was like...are you kidding me? College kids are the types who would love to carry guns to feel big about themselves, they're the most reckless people in the world, and they obviously drink pretty often. Allowing them all to secretly have guns sounds like...pretty much the worst idea in the world. Despite being in a pretty crappy neighborhood, we haven't had a shooting by one of our own or someone from the neighborhood in the 125 or so years it's been around. I have the feeling that would change if we allowed CC.

[5.56 SS109]

I've always thought that allowing concealed weapons would just be a really bad idea because of the shit that would happen when people bring a pistol into a bar. Drunks+weapons=all bad. Of course, there would probably be laws prohibitting firearms in bars.

And most people are too fucking stupid to be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

Ok, well, maybe you should look at facts before you spew your bullshit.

In most states it isn't even legal to enter a bar with a firearm and doing so would get you concealed carry license revoked.

When you have a license to do whatever, there are certain rules you have to abide by or your license gets taken away.

Think of it like this, just because someone has a drivers license doesn't mean they can park their car where ever they want, so why on earth would you think it's any different when someone has a carry permit?

[freeRadical]

Last I check there was this university in Utah (can't remember the name) that does allow it's students to carry concealed. And guess what? You know how many shooting there have been there? None. You know how many times a drunk college kid has gotten mad and whipped out his gun and started shooting people? None. You know how many times there has been accidental discharge of firearms there? None.
Exactly my reasoning. I was talking to a kid who was complaining that our university doesn't allow concealed carry. I was like...are you kidding me? College kids are the types who would love to carry guns to feel big about themselves, they're the most reckless people in the world, and they obviously drink pretty often. Allowing them all to secretly have guns sounds like...pretty much the worst idea in the world. Despite being in a pretty crappy neighborhood, we haven't had a shooting by one of our own or someone from the neighborhood in the 125 or so years it's been around. I have the feeling that would change if we allowed CC.

[Struwwelpeter]

LMFAO @ THIS NIGGER

Notice how those examples he gave involve minorities (including a black "businessman") being shot by people who were "afraid" of them.

This trolling nigger has got some nerve on him.

The headlines would still be majorly nonwhites comitting crime, with a greater instance of people defending themselves from them.

Furthermore the presence of black businessmen on the planet, contrary to what your nigger ass wants to believe, is effectively null. It's funny how he's always posting pictures of negro MODELS dressed as businessmen, as if it means anything, and pretends that he's going to be that someday, LOL WHAT a fucking joke.

[Haiti's Space Agency]

You clearly don't understand the importance of having weaponry at least on par with the military. You see, in America, we haven't lost all of our liberties yet, and we would still like to have a chance to protect them if/when us citizens need to revolt again.

[Slapshot]

I think escalation is more likely than deterrence. Criminals learn that people have guns, so they get more violent and they start always carrying guns. Or maybe even disabling their victim instead of trying to hold them up.

Deterrence isn't the only outcome, so I find it alarming that anti-gun-restriction people like to ignore the other possible outcomes.

Would you change your position if I showed you that criminals more often than not prey on victims that are WEAKER than them?

[TruthWielder]

The biggest problem with the anti-gun people is that they simply don't understand humanity and have a loose grasp on real life. They have either been raised in an enviroment where in their happy little homes guns are just evil tools of destruction and killing is never justified.

Sorry to say but in the real world weapons are sought by the lawless in order to take advantage of the lawful. Both using and being under threat of a gun contains life or death gravity. This is why few people would ever be willing or able to use it unjustifiably. When you say "crazy person with gun" what you don't ask is how he got that gun. More than likely the black market. Why? Because guns aren't sold like condoms. There is a background check and waiting period for handguns.

The plain truth is cowering does not allow you to keep your rights. Taking the lawful use of guns away from the people is essentially giving the full use of illegal guns to criminals. The facts are there.


"Only the power of lawful force can answer the power of lawless criminal force."

and this story perfectly demonstrates why:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533205/

[Thought Riot]

Last I check there was this university in Utah (can't remember the name) that does allow it's students to carry concealed. And guess what? You know how many shooting there have been there? None. You know how many times a drunk college kid has gotten mad and whipped out his gun and started shooting people? None. You know how many times there has been accidental discharge of firearms there? None.

I looked into it, and Utah, as a state, has allowed students at their state schools to conceal carry. However, they must have already applied for the state concealed permit which states that they must be 21. So, I have no real idea on the numbers of students that are carrying. The only thing I could find is that VTech had like a dozen members in a rifle and pistol club, but that isn't really relevent. If there are actually a significant amount of students with the permits, I'll have to eat my words though (even if I never presented them as fact).

EDIT: can anyone find the number? I couldn't.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

I think your missing the point. Guns are cool.

[Snoopy]

Real gangsters roll with mortars, not uzis.

[AnalHerpes]

I'm surprised that nobody brought the overwhelming majority of gun owners are not criminals. The US is (in theory) a free country and such, we must deal with the consequences. Do we ban alcohol or cars because of the minority of people who endanger others with them? No. Punishing everyone for the crimes committed by a very small minority is the anti-thesis of liberty.

[Xlite]

Give free guns for everyone :D

[ZX9R]

A lot of people comment that if more people were carrying concealed guns, there'd be fewer victims of crime. While I suppose that would be the ideal, they're overlooking the more probable outcome where frightened, poorly trained people use their guns recklessly, killing bystanders, an innocent person who is wrongly identified as a potential assailant, or killing people for something other than self-defense (see: the case last year of some hick shooting two people he saw robbing his neighbor's house).

Sigh.

Shift the blame from the criminal (who perpetrated the crime in the first place) to the individual defending themselves. :(

Good idea.



If you don't want to live in an armed society then move to california or wisconsin (two of many states) where it is next to impossible to get a concealed weapons permit.

Therefore the only individuals carrying around you are law enforcement officials and they never have accidents right? :rolleyes:

[Optionryder420]

The hick you were talking about was in Texas...

Pretty sure jaywalking there gets the death penalty.

It is Texas after all.

[TruthWielder]

A story of utter badassery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkWgp2abM2w

[crazzyass]

A lot of people comment that if more people were carrying concealed guns, there'd be fewer victims of crime. While I suppose that would be the ideal, they're overlooking the more probable outcome where frightened, poorly trained people use their guns recklessly, killing bystanders, an innocent person who is wrongly identified as a potential assailant, or killing people for something other than self-defense (see: the case last year of some hick shooting two people he saw robbing his neighbor's house).

Those outcomes seem MUCH more likely than people heroically pulling out their weapon and taking down a group of violent thugs. No. Before that happens, I guarantee you'll see headlines like these:

"2 Bystanders Shot As Person Tries To Stop A Robbery."
"Black Businessman Shot Because Woman Was Afraid Of Him."
"4 Hispanics Shot During BBQ; Shooter Claims Self-Defense"
"Man Shoots Mailman, Thinking He Was Burgular."


You do fucking realize that there are 80 million gun owners in America already?

[Uriah Heep]

The earth is overpopulating anyway, the more dead, the longer I live, its how nature intended it, we are not better than nature, she will always win...no mater how hard you try.

[KeYLoW]

Cops can't shoot people they see robbing a house. Citizens shouldn't be able to either. If there is some clause in the law about protecting property with deadly force, then by all means, that law needs to change too.
You don't know the intentions of someone breaking into your house. They might want to steal something, when they get there they might decide they want to rape your wife, sister, or mother. Maybe they'll decide to kill you. Maybe the guy breaking into your house is a nice widower who's had some bad luck and needs some money to help all 12 of his terminally ill children. I'm not about to ask the guy that just broke in what his intentions are unless he's staring down the barrel of my gun.

You're a naive idiot. If someone is breaking into your house then there is a good chance they can and will harm you and your family. Police don't get there until after the fact when it comes to crimes like this.

Not even the burglars breaking into peoples houses are as naive as you are. They know that when they do a burglary or home robbery they could get shot.

[ZX9R]

The hick you were talking about was in Texas...

Pretty sure jaywalking there gets the death penalty.

It is Texas after all.

Indeed.

If you are not comfortable with regular people (non law enforcement or military) carrying firearms then move to:

Wisconsin.
Chicago.
NYC.
Maryland.

etc.


There only the criminals and law enforcement can carry firearms.

[Nagasaki911]

op is an idiot

im sure if you typed something along the lines of "concealed carry florida" you would be MUCH more likely to find something that debunks your "theory" if we adopted right to carry country-wide i guarantee you would see headlines like these

"Woman defends herself against rapist with gun"
"Senior citizen defends home against intruder"
"Man shoots OP for being an idiot, saves us all"

[ilovechronic]

You are giving your subjective opinnion based off your experience. not everybody who finds them self having to defend their life is un trained. Just because YOU are scared,untrained, and inexperienced does not mean everyone is.

[5.56 SS109]

OP is a racist.

[mrdotkom]

http://ep.yimg.com/ip/I/infowars-shop_2055_5763621.gif
Haven't seen this posted anywhere yet.

When the only people who have guns are the ones who tried to take your guns away, you know you've got a MAJOR problem!

Also this is my first post! been lurking for a little while.