FreeflyChile 0 #76 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote >Some body messes with my family, my property, or puts my life >or property, or my neighbors life or property in emminent danger, i >would have no problem sending them straight to hell. Likewise, should you shoot a teenager who is smashing mailboxes in your neighborhood, a jury will have no problem sending you straight to jail. You love your extreems to make your points dont you While Bill gave a more pointed example than I did, what about his reply was far-fetched or extreme in reply to the poster he was replying to? I understand that there are likely a lot of gun owners that are very responsible with their firearms. There are also a lot of people who obtain their firearms illegally and are the people that many fear. Then there are the third group, which are, while probably not as dangerous as the illegal owners, still pretty scary - they are the ones that *think* they are responsible.... yet believe that their guns allow them to use lethal force defending ANY kind of property (because the poster did not qualify it) and respond to those that "mess" with him or his friends/family. Given the nature of that poster's statements and the 'tough shit' language that followed, I don't think that Bill's point was out of line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK. Want to compare homicide rates between the USA, UK, Australia and Canada then, to see if knives are substituted? Sure. Feel free to investigate murder rates in UK and Australia since they banned all guns. (was it a total ban in AU, or just a deepening?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuote "The authors are careful as to what conclusions they can draw from this work. They stress that this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide", stating that this could be a case of "reverse causation"—that there are a higher number of households with guns because of an already high homicide rate." So what was your point, exactly? (yes, silly question to ask given his history) Convenient that you omitted this bit: "However, a reverse causation hypothesis would not be capable of explaining the non-correlation between household firearm prevalence and non-firearm related homicides found in the data." Not convenient - just saving time. That blurb merely states that one possible counterexplanation to the correlation observed wasn't supported by the data. all in all, they concluded they couldn't prove anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #79 July 10, 2008 QuoteThat's exactly my thought - it's not the number of guns...it's who has them. Crime rates are a LOT lower in rural areas. It's not the availability of the guns...it's the availability of the criminals. We've had this discussion before in another thread. According to the FBI website, it is gangs. Criminals. In LA, the prevalence of gangs increased crime and gangs enforced their business with guns. When the FBI task force targeted gangs, the gang violence dropped. That is why Chicago has seen such an upsurge in gun related deaths. Chicago hasn't changed their gun policy, but the gang threat has grown tremendously. Teen deaths by gang shootings are off the chart in Chicago this year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteThat's exactly my thought - it's not the number of guns...it's who has them. Crime rates are a LOT lower in rural areas. It's not the availability of the guns...it's the availability of the criminals. We've had this discussion before in another thread. According to the FBI website, it is gangs. Criminals. In LA, the prevalence of gangs increased crime and gangs enforced their business with guns. When the FBI task force targeted gangs, the gang violence dropped. That is why Chicago has seen such an upsurge in gun related deaths. Chicago hasn't changed their gun policy, but the gang threat has grown tremendously. Teen deaths by gang shootings are off the chart in Chicago this year. EXACTLY!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #81 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote I would venture to say if you ever do need one, you are going to be SOL. If someone pulls a gun out at me will do what they say, if i were to have a gun and present it, i would think my chances of being killed would become a lot higher. having a gun for defense is more likely to get you killed than not having one. Statistically you would be wrong that a gun in your own hands would increase your odds of being killed by an assailant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #82 July 10, 2008 Sig Sauer bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang reload bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang damn, after that I would have to break into a new case of ammo, or just comply with the criminals demands Oh Wait, I own a few rifles, and a shotgun. bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bangbang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang Reload bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang reload bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang reload bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang reload bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang reload bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang reload. (repeated 18 times in just 5.56mm.) Then onto a larger caliber or two, or three. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. Yeah I would not stand a chance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #83 July 10, 2008 Considering that you have admitted to having NO expertise in statistics and finally admitted using the wrong table in the FBI's UCR for one of your recent arguments, it seems to me that trusting a bunch of peer reviewed epidemiological studies over yours is quite justified. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #84 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote If the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK. Want to compare homicide rates between the USA, UK, Australia and Canada then, to see if knives are substituted? Sure. Feel free to investigate murder rates in UK and Australia since they banned all guns. (was it a total ban in AU, or just a deepening?) Homicide rates per 100,000: USA 5.7 (Non-gun 1.98) UK 2.03 Aus 1.28 Canada 1.85 Must be a shortage of knives in Canada, UK and Oz! Yes, that must be the reason.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #85 July 10, 2008 I love my Sig .40 One day at the gun range I put just over 1400 rounds through it without a single issue. Damn fine piece there. BANG! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #86 July 10, 2008 [can of worms] Bumper sticker in my parking gargae today: "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws would accidentally shoot their kids" [/can of worms] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #87 July 10, 2008 I ask you again, can you point to any solid facts or studies. All you talk about is you "think". Well, there are many instances that I can document where individuals that were being held up by armed thugs managed to draw their own weapons and kill the thug."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #88 July 10, 2008 QuoteI ask you again, can you point to any solid facts or studies. All you talk about is you "think". Irony score 10/10 "I think you will find that the facts are quite the opposite and all you need to do is do a little reading and research.", piper17, this thread. Quote Well, there are many instances that I can document where individuals that were being held up by armed thugs managed to draw their own weapons and kill the thug. Well, gee, piper, I can point out many instances where gun owners (or their family members or friends) were shot with their own guns, so I guess that's a wash. (Who is this Dick Cheney guy, anyway?) Be interesting to compare justifiable gun homicides with accidental shootings.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #89 July 10, 2008 We seem to always go full circle in here. Statistics....hmph. Some people have an entire career dedicated to simply massaging the datum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #90 July 10, 2008 Quote If someone pulls a gun out at me will do what they say, if i were to have a gun and present it, i would think my chances of being killed would become a lot higher. having a gun for defence is more likeley to get you killed than not having one. Having a gun may be more likely to get YOU killed, but that doesn't go for everyone. That's a problem with your training, not your gun. If someone just wants my wallet, I'm going to give it to them, whether I have a gun or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #91 July 10, 2008 Quote We seem to always go full circle in here. Statistics....hmph. Some people have an entire career dedicated to simply massaging the datum. According to Outdoor Life (not exactly a rabid anti-gun source), accidental shooting deaths dropped to 700 in 2004. According to the FBI (generally reliable), justifiable shooting homicides by private citizens in the same year were 170. So apparently you are over 4 times as likely to be shot dead accidentally as to shoot a felon. No massaging needed, just the facts, ma'am.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #92 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteI ask you again, can you point to any solid facts or studies. All you talk about is you "think". Irony score 10/10 "I think you will find that the facts are quite the opposite and all you need to do is do a little reading and research.", piper17, this thread. Quote Well, there are many instances that I can document where individuals that were being held up by armed thugs managed to draw their own weapons and kill the thug. Well, gee, piper, I can point out many instances where gun owners (or their family members) were shot with their own guns, so I guess that's a wash. Be interesting to compare justifiable gun homicides with accidental shootings. And I can point out many instances where an armed individual was able to protect themselves with a gun. Most of these examples do not involve an actual shot being fired. The pissing contest gets tiring. Data can be massaged in so many ways. If I want to carry a gun and I do it legally then I should be allowed to do so. I should not be punished because some idiots misuse guns and break laws with them. This has been brought up before but it bears repeating. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by accidental shootings. Should we outlaw alcohol? I personally don't drink but if you want to drink then that is fine. All problems arise when things are not used used in a responible manner whether it be a Glock 17 or a 12 pack of Bud.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #93 July 10, 2008 >BANG! Sorry, you would lose bigtime to a criminal with access to WS's weapons. You'd be about 451 times as dead as he would be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #94 July 10, 2008 Quote>BANG! Sorry, you would lose bigtime to a criminal with access to WS's weapons. You'd be about 451 times as dead as he would be. Bill speak about something that you are actually an expert on. I like you much better when you do not speculate on matters you seem to know nothing about. You seem to think that a criminal is far superior and better trained/prepared than a person who actually has trained, or a Veteran who did that sort of thing for a living. In my own home, the chance of an intruder successfully getting in to my house, and harming someone is just about zero. If I was not home, there would be pieces of a dead intruder scattered around on the floor. If I was home, it might be even worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #95 July 10, 2008 Quote If I want to carry a gun and I do it legally then I should be allowed to do so. I should not be punished because some idiots misuse guns and break laws with them. . I don't disagree with that, as I assume you are neither a felon nor a looney. Just don't kid yourself that you or your family and friends are necessarily safer because of your choice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #96 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote If someone pulls a gun out at me will do what they say, if i were to have a gun and present it, i would think my chances of being killed would become a lot higher. having a gun for defence is more likeley to get you killed than not having one. Having a gun may be more likely to get YOU killed, but that doesn't go for everyone. That's a problem with your training, not your gun. If someone just wants my wallet, I'm going to give it to them, whether I have a gun or not. How about giving them a bogus wallet and keep your real one hidden? Then you've got time to draw your gun when they turn back realizing they've been had... No I don't advocate doing that, just run for your life, but I'd love to see the look on the perp's face. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #97 July 10, 2008 >Bill speak about something that you are actually an expert on. There's a big WHOOSH going out to our friend Warpedskydiver out there in GunGodLand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #98 July 10, 2008 How about a money clip with a bunch of one dollar bills in it? Throw that and the perps attention will be directed towards that, and then you may pull your sidearm, and wait for the cops, if the perp complies with your commands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #99 July 10, 2008 John, You just got me to thinking about something...what do you think about covicted felons regaining their rights once they have "paid their dues"? Bear in mind also that not all felons are violent felons...and it seems to be much easier than it used to be to become a felon. Even our military has come to realize this recently....and accepted that fact for that matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 July 10, 2008 Quote Considering that you have admitted to having NO expertise in statistics and finally admitted using the wrong table in the FBI's UCR for one of your recent arguments, it seems to me that trusting a bunch of peer reviewed epidemiological studies over yours is quite justified. So in other words...you can't refute the numbers so you'll try to put me in a bad light instead - your usual tactics, got it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
