Gun opinions

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Your actually quoting the Daily Mail to support your argument?  That in itself is a fail on an epic proportion!

Take a look here:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-3---weapons.html

 

You're actually quoting the UK government to support your argument? That in itself is a fail an [sic] epic proportion!

Take a look here: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prCivRevJun07.php

 

Besides, you're forgetting that a ban on guns has consequences. How many people were murdered (with a weapon other than a firearm), raped, assaulted, burglarized, etc. because they had no access to a gun and their assailant KNEW they would be defenseless?

UK crime skyrocketed in the decade after the gun ban (do a search and see if you can find anyone with any credibility who claims the crime rate went down after the ban).

Is a person murdered with a gun worth so much more than a person who is murdered because they didn't have a gun?? 

 

Here are a few for instances:

 

***An Oklahoma City girl who learned only a week ago how to shoot a gun may have saved her mother's life – and put her own molester behind bars — when she shot the woman's ex-boyfriend in the middle of a knife attack.

According to NEWSOK.com, 11-year-old Jayda Milsap fired twice at Leo Henry as Henry attacked Milsap's mother early Tuesday morning in her mobile home.

Both shots hit, and Henry, 25, staggered outside of the home where police arrested him. Henry had lived with Moreno and her three children in the mobile home until last week, when Moreno got a protective order against him accusing him of molesting the children.

But Moreno didn't just rely on the paperwork for protection, a neighbor said. She taught Milsap how to use a handgun too.

"(Moreno) just showed the girl how to use the gun last week so she could protect herself," Shiree Marsee told the news station.

Tuesday's attack occurred about 4 a.m., when Henry shattered a sliding glass door and broke into the mobile home, attacking Moreno with a knife.

"He stabbed her in the eye, neck and the chest," said neighbor Carolyn Marsee.

Neighbors are calling her a hero. Even the sister of the man she shot had kind words to say.

"I salute her because I’m 21-years-old and I don't know how to use a gun."

 

***ABC news reports: A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer. 

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day. 

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home. 

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun. 

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911. 

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?" 

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door. 

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes. (Yeah, she should have just waited for those “protectors of the public” to arrive, right)

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified. 

 

***WSB-TV9) GWINNETT COUNTY, GA 

The 53-year-old woman, who is also a veteran private school counselor, was alone at the time of the Wednesday morning attack. She lives on East Mount Tabor Circle in Duluth. 

The woman was getting out of the shower when she was met by a strange man with a kitchen knife, police said. They said there was a struggle in the bathroom, and she fell in the tub. Police later identified the man as Israel Perez Puentes, a Cuban national who lived in Alpharetta. 

"The male was armed with a kitchen knife, a struggle ensued between the two of them. She fell in the bathtub injuring herself," Gwinnett police spokesman Edwin Ritter said. 

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower rod, and he forced her into her bedroom, police said. They said she told her attacker she had money in the room. But she grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times, police said. 

Police said the man ran out of a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at the Gwinnett Medical Center. The victim, who was injured in the scuffle, was also taken to the hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries. Police have not released her name.

 

I could list literally thousands of other incidents similar to those above. 

At least a dozen different surveys have been conducted in the U.S. regarding the defensive use of guns. The surveys yield numbers anywhere from a high of 2.5 million (Kleck) to a low of 82,000 (NCVS). The majority of the surveys find defensive gun use at a minimum of over 700,000 incidents per year. 

According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (accidents, suicide and homicide) is less than 35,000 per year. Since approximately 56% (according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics) of that 35,000 are suicides we can leave the vast majority of them out.

That leaves us with about 18,000 deaths. Now since this number also includes deaths from police shootings (about 1000 per year) we come up with a number around 17,000. 

So, hypothetically, if no civilian had access to a firearm we would have 17,000 fewer deaths per year. 

But since all of those 700,000 potential victims we mentioned earlier would not have had a gun to defend themselves, it's safe to assume that a fair number of them would have been killed. 

How many is the question? 

If even only 5% of them were killed that still yields a death toll of 35,000. So without guns we have 17,000 fewer dead bodies. With guns we have 35,000 fewer dead bodies.

 

Gun control fanatics like you have 20/20 vision when it comes to looking for the dead body of someone who was murdered with a gun, but when it comes to seeing those who are NOT dead because they had a gun to defend themselves you're totally (perhaps willfully) blind.

 

You wrote: As a teacher and an educationalist I've found that as the standards in learning and education rise the more the revulsion of and the the need/want to own a weapon diminishes. 

 

If I was in a peevish mood right now I'd (a contraction of "I" and "would") point out that you're (a contraction of  "you" and "are") the "teacher and educationalist" who wrote, "Your actually quoting the Daily Mail to support your argument".

I'll (a contraction of  "I" and "will") remind you that the word "your" is a form of the possessive case of "you" used as an attributive adjective.

But of course you being a "teacher and educationalist", you knew that all along, right?

 

You wrote: "Why would  a law abiding and well educated person want to own something that has one sole intended purpose, to kill."

 

I'll apologize right up front to everyone here (except you) for what I'm about to say, but you're a pompous ______. 

I own a large number of firearms, the vast majority of which have never killed ANYTHING. They've punched holes in paper, broken clay pigeons, pinged steel plates, and perforated aluminum cans. And despite being a law abiding and well educated person my need/want to own them hasn't diminished. 

 

You wrote: "You wrote: Guns were designed for one purpose and that purpose is to take life."

 

This particular claim is frequently made by all gun-ignorant dolts, but unfortunately for them it's factually wrong. 

Was an Anschutz 2013 Super Match designed to "take life"?

Does a Krieghoff K-80 have a "sole intended purpose to kill"?

How about a Hammerli 208 S?

 

Face it, Latter Days Guy, you don’t know what you're talking about.

 

You wrote: "...you can defend yourself with reasonable force and that could mean the taking of life.  But the onus is on you to prove that it was reasonable force you used.  If you used deadly force it would be a straight murder conviction and life imprisonment."

 

So anyone who defends themselves against an attacker in the UK has a split second to determine what "reasonable force" is, and if they guess wrong they face either death or life in prison! 

Unbelievable! How anyone can champion such a morally corrupt legal system is beyond me??

 

You wrote: "Nope, because I would disarm him and restrain him until the police arrive." "And I do have 35 years martial art training in armed and unarmed combat, fought full contact for much of that time too."

 

Wow, you must be a real tough Latter Days Guy!

And what effect do you suppose another 30 or 40 years will have on your ability to "disarm and restrain him"? Someone kicks down your door, marches in and begins to club you with your own cane when age has robbed you of strength, agility and reflex---What then, Mr. martial arts expert?

And what about the 11 year old girl whose mom is being stabbed, or a man in a wheelchair facing a young gang-banger, or an 85 year old grandmother up against a 6'5" 250 lb. assailant who has just knocked down her bedroom door? What of them??

 

You wrote: There will probably always be gun crime, but when its…."

 

Definition of "its"---the possessive form of it, used as an attributive adjective.

But of course you being a "teacher and an educationalist", there is no reason for me to point that out, is there?

 

You wrote: "as plain as the nose on my face that where there are fewer weapons there are lower deaths."

 

If the nose on your face is as plain as "fewer weapons equaling fewer deaths" you might want to consult with a plastic surgeon. 

 

Once again you have made a statement that is factually wrong. 

The USA has the highest per capita rate of civilian gun ownership in the world---approximately 90 per 100 people.

So if you're right we should also enjoy the highest per capita murder rate in the world.

 

Unfortunately for the nose on your face we don't.

Not even close.

We come in 111th place out of 218 countries. 

 

So which countries are the murder capitals of the world?

Honduras comes in first with a per capita murder rate of 90.4 per 100,000 people.

So it must be awash in guns, right.

Well, not quite. Honduras has a gun ownership rate of only 6.2 guns per 100 people. 

The USA has 14 times more guns per 100 people but only 1/20th the murder rate. 

 

How about 2nd place Venezuela, which has a murder rate of 53.7 per 100,000. According to the nose on your face they must be swimming in guns!

Nope. 10.7 per 100 people. 

The USA has 8 times more guns per 100 people but less than 1/10th the murder rate

 

What about El Salvador?

With a murder rate of 41.2 there should be guns everywhere, right?

Wrong. 5.8 guns per 100 people.

The USA has 15 times more guns per 100 people while having a murder rate almost 10 times lower.

 

Once again, Latter Days Guy, you don't know what you’re talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vort]

Though I disagree with Latter Days Guy's line of reasoning and think he's sticking his head in the sand on this issue, showing the typical, myopic, smug, condescending European attitude toward guns and gun ownership, I must agree that the purpose of a firearm is to kill something. There may be firearms designed primarily or solely for target practice, but I think it will be generally agreed that these are the exception. Obviously, the main purpose of a gun is to kill things, human or animal.

[Guest]

Though I disagree with Latter Days Guy's line of reasoning and think he's sticking his head in the sand on this issue, showing the typical, myopic, smug, condescending European attitude toward guns and gun ownership, I must agree that the purpose of a firearm is to kill something. There may be firearms designed primarily or solely for target practice, but I think it will be generally agreed that these are the exception. Obviously, the main purpose of a gun is to kill things, human or animal.

 

I can agree with this.  There are a whole slew of firearms designed for sport and show (fastest draw, carnival, skeet shooting and all that) - these are derivatives of the gun - primary purpose to kill someone/something.  And even with a carnival gun, you can still kill a lizard with it (don't ask me how I know)...

 

But, like rat poison, just because it kills someone/something doesn't mean the killing was a bad thing.

Edited February 17, 2015 by anatess

[pam]

Thread closed.