Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 20:53:19 GMT -5
If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in. I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work Have you ever considered that criminals might not read and respect that sign? Probably not. Most people that are anti gun think a sign that reads "no guns allowed" has magical powers to keep ALL guns out... not just the guns from the law abiding citizens.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 21:06:10 GMT -5
If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in. I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work I was just going to "ETA" this into my previous reply to this comment... but I figured it's been a few minutes and I've made a couple of posts since then. Not too long ago (April 2014) there was a shooting at a Fed Ex sorting facility just outside of Kennesaw, Georgia. Six people were shot before the shooter killed himself. That business was POSTED as a "gun free zone" with numerous "no guns allowed" signs. In Kennesaw, Georgia it's actually the law that every home have a gun (see quote) So... odds are that SOME employees would likely have been armed had they been allowed to be. So yes... I will again state that I do believe employers should be allowed to be sued if they prevent people from protecting themselves.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 5, 2016 0:31:43 GMT -5
If you walk into a posted 'gun free zone' then you assume the risk- so don't go in. I guess you think employers should be able to be sued as well for not letting their employees carry weapons at work I was just going to "ETA" this into my previous reply to this comment... but I figured it's been a few minutes and I've made a couple of posts since then. Not too long ago (April 2014) there was a shooting at a Fed Ex sorting facility just outside of Kennesaw, Georgia. Six people were shot before the shooter killed himself. That business was POSTED as a "gun free zone" with numerous "no guns allowed" signs. In Kennesaw, Georgia it's actually the law that every home have a gun (see quote) So... odds are that SOME employees would likely have been armed had they been allowed to be. So yes... I will again state that I do believe employers should be allowed to be sued if they prevent people from protecting themselves. You forgot (b) after (a). Snopes: What Kenne-Saw
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 5, 2016 7:10:41 GMT -5
Well, if you're going to demand gun free zones and therefore make people sitting ducks for criminals, then you need to take responsibility for protecting them. I think this should include schools.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 10:56:12 GMT -5
Have you ever considered that criminals might not read and respect that sign? Probably not. Most people that are anti gun think a sign that reads "no guns allowed" has magical powers to keep ALL guns out... not just the guns from the law abiding citizens. I think this statement is BS and the belief of pro gun carry citizens. I could not find any evidence of what folks who like "no guns allowed" thought.
I know some criminals and way too many pro carry advocates won't respect that sign. I would not put up a sign like that because pro carry people seem to see it as an invitation to carry. Still it might be fun to be perverse. No guns allowed sign on the sauna door at a gym.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 10:59:31 GMT -5
Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
The gun lobby has often cited to a thoroughly debunked statistic that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times per year in the United States. That discredited estimate came from a 1995 study that suffered from several fatal methodological flaws, including its reliance on only 66 responses in a telephone survey of 5,000 people, multiplied out to purportedly represent over 200 million American adults.6 The authors of that discredited study themselves stated that in up to 64% of their reported defensive gun use cases, the guns were carried or used illegally, including cases where the victim was actually the aggressor.7
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8 The V.P.C. also found that for every one justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides.9 This ratio does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives lost in gun suicides or accidental shootings every year.
smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 11:23:19 GMT -5
I think in general we need more research to understand the tradeoffs and acknowledge that choosing guns for self protection in the home overall increases suicide, increases gun death rates of children, and increases the likelihood of gun death or injury from a significant other. I understand weighing the risks for yourself and getting the gun anyway.
For those who say they are worried about gun deaths of children in school mass shootings, how do you feel about this?
One child or teen dies from a gun every 3 hours and 28 minutes. Gun violence saturates our children’s lives and remain the second leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1-19. More children and teens die from guns every three days than died in the Newtown massacre. - See more at: www.childrensdefense.org/campaigns/protect-children-not-guns/#sthash.xl8bpVZF.dpuf
On the slideshow there is a more compelling stat- The number of children and teens killed by guns in one year would fill 126 classrooms of 20 students each.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 13:13:39 GMT -5
Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
The gun lobby has often cited to a thoroughly debunked statistic that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times per year in the United States. That discredited estimate came from a 1995 study that suffered from several fatal methodological flaws, including its reliance on only 66 responses in a telephone survey of 5,000 people, multiplied out to purportedly represent over 200 million American adults.6 The authors of that discredited study themselves stated that in up to 64% of their reported defensive gun use cases, the guns were carried or used illegally, including cases where the victim was actually the aggressor.7
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8 The V.P.C. also found that for every one justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides.9 This ratio does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives lost in gun suicides or accidental shootings every year.
smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/
I believe you've quoted this type thing before in another thread. If you really believe there's any merit to the idea that carrying a firearm for protection entails all this added risk, why on earth would law enforcement officials be allowed to carry them?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 13:27:03 GMT -5
Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
The gun lobby has often cited to a thoroughly debunked statistic that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times per year in the United States. That discredited estimate came from a 1995 study that suffered from several fatal methodological flaws, including its reliance on only 66 responses in a telephone survey of 5,000 people, multiplied out to purportedly represent over 200 million American adults.6 The authors of that discredited study themselves stated that in up to 64% of their reported defensive gun use cases, the guns were carried or used illegally, including cases where the victim was actually the aggressor.7
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8 The V.P.C. also found that for every one justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides.9 This ratio does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives lost in gun suicides or accidental shootings every year.
smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/
I believe you've quoted this type thing before in another thread. If you really believe there's any merit to the idea that carrying a firearm for protection entails all this added risk, why on earth would law enforcement officials be allowed to carry them? You are asking a question with a built in assumption so I really don't know how to answer you. 1) Studies are done on civilians. 2) We have people do dangerous jobs all the time. I believe that running into burning buildings puts you at more risk than not running into them. That does not mean I do not believe in having firemen. And if there was no added risk, why do police and firemen both die on the job more frequently than say someone working in an office?
Here's your turnabout is fair play Q.
If carrying guns made you safer always, why do cops get killed more frequently than the general population?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 13:35:19 GMT -5
I believe you've quoted this type thing before in another thread. If you really believe there's any merit to the idea that carrying a firearm for protection entails all this added risk, why on earth would law enforcement officials be allowed to carry them? You are asking a question with a built in assumption so I really don't know how to answer you. 1) Studies are done on civilians. 2) We have people do dangerous jobs all the time. I believe that running into burning buildings puts you at more risk than not running into them. That does not mean I do not believe in having firemen. And if there was no added risk, why do police and firemen both die on the job more frequently than say someone working in an office?
Here's your turnabout is fair play Q.
If carrying guns made you safer always, why do cops get killed more frequently than the general population?
because of traffic, a gun doesn't help much against traffic accidents.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 13:37:23 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 14:07:05 GMT -5
Police work is getting safer, but it appears there is still a gap. And like many things data is incomplete or missing so it is hard to know what police officers have died from whether it is being shot, run over, or beaten.
blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/08/26/by-the-numbers-how-many-cops-are-there-in-the-usa/
I prefer the line graph in this link versus hickle's as it compares 100,000 FTE police officers directly to 100,000 residents instead of against total population which may or may not correlate well to the number of police officers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 19:22:51 GMT -5
I was just going to "ETA" this into my previous reply to this comment... but I figured it's been a few minutes and I've made a couple of posts since then. Not too long ago (April 2014) there was a shooting at a Fed Ex sorting facility just outside of Kennesaw, Georgia. Six people were shot before the shooter killed himself. That business was POSTED as a "gun free zone" with numerous "no guns allowed" signs. In Kennesaw, Georgia it's actually the law that every home have a gun (see quote) So... odds are that SOME employees would likely have been armed had they been allowed to be. So yes... I will again state that I do believe employers should be allowed to be sued if they prevent people from protecting themselves. You forgot (b) after (a). Snopes: What Kenne-SawI didn't forget it. It was irrelevant to my point for the following reasons: People suffering from physical or mental disability that would deny them the right to own a firearm likely wouldn't be working at the FedEx center. Paupers wouldn't be working at the FedEx sorting center. Average Salary for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) Employees
Job National Salary Data (per Google Search)
Job Title | Salaries Used | Low Average | High Average | Account Executive | 12 | $44,470 | $75,721 | Project Engineer | 11 | $62,540 | $108,504 | Senior Programmer Analyst | 11 | $78,111 | $98,305 | Delivery Driver | 10 | $28,192 | $44,688 |
Very few felons would be working there either. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be some, but my bet would be not a significant portion of the employees: (per FedEx's website) Felony – no less than 7 years from the date of clearance. (Clearance would be the completion of probation, parole, incarceration or court-ordered diversion program relating to felony.) And while I will freely admit that there are likely some percentage of "conscientious [objectors]" the likelihood of 100% of all employees there being one is almost nil.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 19:34:07 GMT -5
Probably not. Most people that are anti gun think a sign that reads "no guns allowed" has magical powers to keep ALL guns out... not just the guns from the law abiding citizens. I think this statement is BS and the belief of pro gun carry citizens. I could not find any evidence of what folks who like "no guns allowed" thought.
I know some criminals and way too many pro carry advocates won't respect that sign. I would not put up a sign like that because pro carry people seem to see it as an invitation to carry. Still it might be fun to be perverse. No guns allowed sign on the sauna door at a gym.
I don't believe it's BS, or I wouldn't have stated it. It goes along with the (apparently magical) belief that "If we don't allow guns this will be a safer place because people that would carry them will respect our preference that there not be any guns". The problem with that is... if you don't allow guns, only the law abiding citizens will give a damn about your sign. Bad people intent on doing bad things with a gun don't care that you don't want guns on the premises... matter of fact they LIKE IT because it's less likely that there will be any resistance to their bad acts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 19:41:22 GMT -5
I believe you've quoted this type thing before in another thread. If you really believe there's any merit to the idea that carrying a firearm for protection entails all this added risk, why on earth would law enforcement officials be allowed to carry them? You are asking a question with a built in assumption so I really don't know how to answer you. 1) Studies are done on civilians. 2) We have people do dangerous jobs all the time. I believe that running into burning buildings puts you at more risk than not running into them. That does not mean I do not believe in having firemen. And if there was no added risk, why do police and firemen both die on the job more frequently than say someone working in an office?
Here's your turnabout is fair play Q.
If carrying guns made you safer always, why do cops get killed more frequently than the general population?
Speaking of "turnabout is fair play"... Here's an interesting Pie Chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Granted, it's from 2010 (the latest year they have stats processed for), but it looks to me that Retail is more dangerous than Police work (which isn't even represented... but probably falls within "Government")
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 5, 2016 20:14:32 GMT -5
I didn't forget it. It was irrelevant to my point for the following reasons: People suffering from physical or mental disability that would deny them the right to own a firearm likely wouldn't be working at the FedEx center. Paupers wouldn't be working at the FedEx sorting center. Average Salary for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) Employees
Job National Salary Data (per Google Search)
Job Title | Salaries Used | Low Average | High Average | Account Executive | 12 | $44,470 | $75,721 | Project Engineer | 11 | $62,540 | $108,504 | Senior Programmer Analyst | 11 | $78,111 | $98,305 | Delivery Driver | 10 | $28,192 | $44,688 |
Very few felons would be working there either. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be some, but my bet would be not a significant portion of the employees: (per FedEx's website) Felony – no less than 7 years from the date of clearance. (Clearance would be the completion of probation, parole, incarceration or court-ordered diversion program relating to felony.) And while I will freely admit that there are likely some percentage of "conscientious [objectors]" the likelihood of 100% of all employees there being one is almost nil. Then next time, don't post "In Kennesaw, Georgia it's actually the law that every home have a gun" because it clealy is not true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 20:21:49 GMT -5
I didn't forget it. It was irrelevant to my point for the following reasons: People suffering from physical or mental disability that would deny them the right to own a firearm likely wouldn't be working at the FedEx center. Paupers wouldn't be working at the FedEx sorting center. Average Salary for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) Employees
Job National Salary Data (per Google Search)
Job Title | Salaries Used | Low Average | High Average | Account Executive | 12 | $44,470 | $75,721 | Project Engineer | 11 | $62,540 | $108,504 | Senior Programmer Analyst | 11 | $78,111 | $98,305 | Delivery Driver | 10 | $28,192 | $44,688 |
Very few felons would be working there either. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be some, but my bet would be not a significant portion of the employees: (per FedEx's website) Felony – no less than 7 years from the date of clearance. (Clearance would be the completion of probation, parole, incarceration or court-ordered diversion program relating to felony.) And while I will freely admit that there are likely some percentage of "conscientious [objectors]" the likelihood of 100% of all employees there being one is almost nil. Then next time, don't post "In Kennesaw, Georgia it's actually the law that every home have a gun" because it clealy is not true. It actually IS true. The fact that there are exceptions allowed doesn't change the wording of the law itself. Seeing as the law contains the following It's not unreasonable to say " In Kennesaw, Georgia it's actually the law that every home have a gun" To believe otherwise would be as foolish as saying "You can't say the speed limit is 55MPH because ambulances responding to calls are allowed to go faster than that". The exceptions don't negate the rule.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 20:27:18 GMT -5
You are asking a question with a built in assumption so I really don't know how to answer you. 1) Studies are done on civilians. 2) We have people do dangerous jobs all the time. I believe that running into burning buildings puts you at more risk than not running into them. That does not mean I do not believe in having firemen. And if there was no added risk, why do police and firemen both die on the job more frequently than say someone working in an office?
Here's your turnabout is fair play Q.
If carrying guns made you safer always, why do cops get killed more frequently than the general population?
Speaking of "turnabout is fair play"... Here's an interesting Pie Chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Granted, it's from 2010 (the latest year they have stats processed for), but it looks to me that Retail is more dangerous than Police work (which isn't even represented... but probably falls within "Government") Probably falls into Government, agreed. If I did my math correctly about 109 deaths go to the retail trade which appears to employ more than 15 million people. I haven't had much luck on the law enforcement side confirming numbers but found one that puts it in the ballpark of 900,000. Finally found a link a police deaths. 60 by shooting in 2010, 48 in 2014. Sadly note far too many died in spite of wearing body armour.
www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html
www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag44-45.htm (retail employment numbers, etc.)
FWIW, certain retail occupations are probably more dangerous than jobs most cops have - gas station and convenience store clerk for late night hours come to mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 20:32:53 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 21:04:24 GMT -5
I think this statement is BS and the belief of pro gun carry citizens. I could not find any evidence of what folks who like "no guns allowed" thought.
I know some criminals and way too many pro carry advocates won't respect that sign. I would not put up a sign like that because pro carry people seem to see it as an invitation to carry. Still it might be fun to be perverse. No guns allowed sign on the sauna door at a gym.
I don't believe it's BS, or I wouldn't have stated it. It goes along with the (apparently magical) belief that "If we don't allow guns this will be a safer place because people that would carry them will respect our preference that there not be any guns". The problem with that is... if you don't allow guns, only the law abiding citizens will give a damn about your sign. Bad people intent on doing bad things with a gun don't care that you don't want guns on the premises... matter of fact they LIKE IT because it's less likely that there will be any resistance to their bad acts. I know you believe it. Funny thing is all the websites that believe it as well appear to be pro gun. I did not find any anti gun or pro gun control websites sharing the view you posted.
Unfortunately its not easy to prove one way or the other if having guns or not having guns makes all that much difference. Some places are attractive to criminals guns on the premises or not, (banks) and some really don't have much to offer - saunas for example. Nothing useful to rob in most saunas and there are probably more comfortable places to kill your cheating BF/GF so the payoff for packing heat in the sauna is probably zero.
What I've learned in my research is in spite of increase reporting, mass shootings are not increasing and have been about the same level for years. And the majority of mass shootings still remain family members not school children or theatre goers. www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/15/mass-killings-main/3821897/
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 21:05:54 GMT -5
The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years’ worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.
It’s also useful, as the Violence Policy Center does, to dig into the relationships among the attackers and those who kill in self-defense. Over the five-year span ending in 2012, more than half — 56% — of the justifiable homicides involved strangers, and in 11% of the cases, the relationship was not reported. The rest were acquaintances (18.7%) such as neighbors and coworkers, and then a mishmash of relatives and personal relationships.
Conversely, of the 2012 criminal firearm homicides in which a relationship was reported, three out of four victims knew their killers, and more than a third were family members or "intimate acquaintances" — such as spouses, ex-spouses or others involved in a romantic relationship.
www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 21:32:48 GMT -5
has Richard ever been for smaller government? I see him a lot wanting bigger government, I can't remember him ever wanting smaller govt. Not that he hasn't I just don't remember seeing it. Yup. I'm always about smaller government. The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed... by writing a law that says individuals can infringe on people's rights, the government has given tacit agreement to the infringement of the right to bear arms. Now... I won't argue against a person's right to control who is and isn't armed in their own home... but a public business is not a private residence. I missed seeing this yesterday. Found something interesting on the second amendment for those who want to read it.
constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/
The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:25:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 21:36:10 GMT -5
The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years’ worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.
It’s also useful, as the Violence Policy Center does, to dig into the relationships among the attackers and those who kill in self-defense. Over the five-year span ending in 2012, more than half — 56% — of the justifiable homicides involved strangers, and in 11% of the cases, the relationship was not reported. The rest were acquaintances (18.7%) such as neighbors and coworkers, and then a mishmash of relatives and personal relationships.
Conversely, of the 2012 criminal firearm homicides in which a relationship was reported, three out of four victims knew their killers, and more than a third were family members or "intimate acquaintances" — such as spouses, ex-spouses or others involved in a romantic relationship.
www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
What do you want to bet that each of those 67,740 people were really glad they had their gun to stop the crime. Personally I'd bet they were extremely happy. Even if it was only 100 times a year... that's still 100 less crimes that had victims. I'm o.k. with that statistic. It's a victory if even ONE crime is averted.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 22:00:51 GMT -5
The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years’ worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.
It’s also useful, as the Violence Policy Center does, to dig into the relationships among the attackers and those who kill in self-defense. Over the five-year span ending in 2012, more than half — 56% — of the justifiable homicides involved strangers, and in 11% of the cases, the relationship was not reported. The rest were acquaintances (18.7%) such as neighbors and coworkers, and then a mishmash of relatives and personal relationships.
Conversely, of the 2012 criminal firearm homicides in which a relationship was reported, three out of four victims knew their killers, and more than a third were family members or "intimate acquaintances" — such as spouses, ex-spouses or others involved in a romantic relationship.
www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
What do you want to bet that each of those 67,740 people were really glad they had their gun to stop the crime. Personally I'd bet they were extremely happy. Even if it was only 100 times a year... that's still 100 less crimes that had victims. I'm o.k. with that statistic. It's a victory if even ONE crime is averted. Yes I'm sure they are happy whatever the actual number really is. I hope its north of 100 times a year given all the unfortunate baggage that comes with gun ownership like unintended child gun deaths.
One more stat from the article as a balance to that exuberance. Remember, several of the school shootings involved stolen or "borrowed" guns.
Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 22:05:38 GMT -5
What do you want to bet that each of those 67,740 people were really glad they had their gun to stop the crime. Personally I'd bet they were extremely happy. Even if it was only 100 times a year... that's still 100 less crimes that had victims. I'm o.k. with that statistic. It's a victory if even ONE crime is averted. Yes I'm sure they are happy whatever the actual number really is. I hope its north of 100 times a year given all the unfortunate baggage that comes with gun ownership like unintended child gun deaths.
One more stat from the article as a balance to that exuberance. Remember, several of the school shootings involved stolen or "borrowed" guns.
Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.
That's nothing more than ridiculous sensationalism.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 5, 2016 22:39:43 GMT -5
Yes I'm sure they are happy whatever the actual number really is. I hope its north of 100 times a year given all the unfortunate baggage that comes with gun ownership like unintended child gun deaths.
One more stat from the article as a balance to that exuberance. Remember, several of the school shootings involved stolen or "borrowed" guns.
Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.
That's nothing more than ridiculous sensationalism. Your opinion. Given 239 shooting deaths or injuries have been documented for the 12 to 17 year old age group, perhaps my comment of being north of 100 might make more sense as a tradeoff?
Incident
Primary tabs
1-1-2016 Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1-0
Location
January 01, 2016 Billee Jeane's Place 3293 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Geolocation: 35.5029, -97.5477
Participants
•Type: Victim •Name: Rashya Long •Age: 17 •Age Group: Teen 12-17 •Gender: Female •Status: Killed
Incident Characteristics •Shot - Dead (murder, accidental, suicide)
Sources •URL: www.koco.com/news/ocpd-teenage-girl-shot-killed-at-overnight-party-near-nw-39th-penn-avenue/37223588
www.koco.com/news/ocpd-teenage-girl-shot-killed-at-overnight-party-near-nw-39th-penn-avenue/37223588 (video best choice)
Recently released Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data indicates that child deaths in preventable gun accidents are on the increase, and that gun-related deaths are now the second most common cause of child and teen deaths, with only cars killing more kids than guns in 2013. Typically, the guns involved in these incidents belong to a relative or parent, news.vice.com/article/unsafe-access-to-guns-a-leading-cause-of-death-among-children-and-teens
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 6, 2016 9:13:31 GMT -5
That's nothing more than ridiculous sensationalism. Your opinion. Given 239 shooting deaths or injuries have been documented for the 12 to 17 year old age group, perhaps my comment of being north of 100 might make more sense as a tradeoff?
Incident
Primary tabs
1-1-2016 Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1-0
Location
January 01, 2016 Billee Jeane's Place 3293 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Geolocation: 35.5029, -97.5477
Participants
•Type: Victim •Name: Rashya Long •Age: 17 •Age Group: Teen 12-17 •Gender: Female •Status: Killed
Incident Characteristics •Shot - Dead (murder, accidental, suicide)
Sources •URL: www.koco.com/news/ocpd-teenage-girl-shot-killed-at-overnight-party-near-nw-39th-penn-avenue/37223588
www.koco.com/news/ocpd-teenage-girl-shot-killed-at-overnight-party-near-nw-39th-penn-avenue/37223588 (video best choice)
Recently released Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data indicates that child deaths in preventable gun accidents are on the increase, and that gun-related deaths are now the second most common cause of child and teen deaths, with only cars killing more kids than guns in 2013. Typically, the guns involved in these incidents belong to a relative or parent, news.vice.com/article/unsafe-access-to-guns-a-leading-cause-of-death-among-children-and-teens
Wouldn't you expect that mandatory firearm safety training in public school would go a long way in preventing this?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 6, 2016 13:22:34 GMT -5
Saw something the other day that you are more likely to be shot and killed by a toddler in America than an Islamo terrorist.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 6, 2016 19:18:12 GMT -5
Not even remotely. We've been teaching kids abstinence only based sex ed. Have teens stopped having sex? Why would teaching them gun safety be any different? First, kids do things they're told not to do all the damn time. Second, a lot of those gun deaths in teens are suicides. If they're trying to kill themselves I really don't think that the thought of letting down their elementary school gun safety instructor even factors into it.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Feb 6, 2016 21:55:29 GMT -5
Today in the news- gun rights kill another child. www.postbulletin.com/news/nation/police--year-old-girl-fatally-shot-by--year/article_55750189-e89a-5238-9dde-9caf2c0478ef.htmlPolice say a 3-year-old Alabama boy has accidentally shot and killed his 9-year-old sister. Irondale police Chief Ken Atkinson tells AL.com (http://bit.ly/1nPRJ1B) that the shooting took place Saturday afternoon at their grandparents' house in a Birmingham suburb. He says the boy found a loaded pistol on a bedroom nightstand and shot his sister in the head with it. Another 'accident' At least they were prepared for a home invasion Of course this is everyday in the USA and nobody cares.
|
|