Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership

F

Freedom for All

#21
My issue is the number of gun deaths. I'm not advocating for stricter gun laws, in fact I'm in favor of as liberal intrepretation of the 2nd admendment as possible. I just think there needs to be more aggressive strategies to deal with the number of deaths. And those strategies need to come from the pro gun lobby. We all know what the anti gun lobby wants. If there were 30,000 deaths from mad cow infected beef we'd be screaming for some type of action and we sure as hell would be avoiding the 2 all beef patties at McD's.

It all depends on who's doin' the dyin'.

If it's the good guys, we need to improve both their marksmanship and their willingness to use their gun.

If it's the bad guys, it wouldn't appear that anything needs doing, except maybe to improve the marksmanship of the good guys and their willingness to use guns.

Remember, folks...shoot for the head and shoot for the dead center of the chest. Don't be Annie Oakley and try to shoot to wound them, just kill the mother fucker if you have to use a gun.
 
B

Bourne

#22
Let's pretend that your 30k figure is correct.

How many are legitimate self-defense issues?

How many are cops gone bonkers?

How many are suicides?

How many are gangsters shot by other gangsters?

Good. Subtract those figures from your original 30k.

Now compare those with the death-by-car statistic. Then you'll have the beginnings of a basis for an argument.
A gun death is a gun death. Qualifying the cause may be statistically interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the death occured as a result of a firearm being discharged.
 
2
#23
It all depends on who's doin' the dyin'.

If it's the good guys, we need to improve both their marksmanship and their willingness to use their gun.

If it's the bad guys, it wouldn't appear that anything needs doing, except maybe to improve the marksmanship of the good guys and their willingness to use guns.

Remember, folks...shoot for the head and shoot for the dead center of the chest. Don't be Annie Oakley and try to shoot to wound them, just kill the mother fucker if you have to use a gun.
And then along come the argument for strict gun control and 72 hour holds.
 
M

michaelr

#24
It all depends on who's doin' the dyin'.

If it's the good guys, we need to improve both their marksmanship and their willingness to use their gun.

If it's the bad guys, it wouldn't appear that anything needs doing, except maybe to improve the marksmanship of the good guys and their willingness to use guns.

Remember, folks...shoot for the head and shoot for the dead center of the chest. Don't be Annie Oakley and try to shoot to wound them, just kill the mother fucker if you have to use a gun.
I have had to show force a couple of times and disarmed one, luckily I never shot someone, I had to pull a pistol once but was able to detain the guy until the cops showed up, the second time I just let the guy know that I had a gun. I put my hand in my pocket and he could clearly see that I had a gun. Sometimes it is just as good to let the dick know that you are armed and they back down.
 
F

Freedom for All

#26
A gun death is a gun death. Qualifying the cause may be statistically interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that the death occured as a result of a firearm being discharged.
Nope. A suicide is a suicide, and that's the important part. It doesn't matter if he's shoots himself or holds his nose.

A murder is a murder. Again, the intent is the key. Knives are just as deadly, slightly less convenient, better than using an axe, but hammers are neater. But certainly is should count in the statistic as improper tool use.

Shooting a bad guy in self-defense is an act of civic virtue. Shouldn't be counted against gun ownership.

Once proper accounting is done so we can actually tally the accidental deaths due to guns and the murders and compare them to the vehicular slaughter, and then subract also the number of lives saved by the use of guns that do not result in fatality (good luck finding that one, but it's a valid number) you find that gun ownership is such a good thing that a society can't be considered civilized unless it trusts it's citizens to own their own weapons without restriction.
 
F

Freedom for All

#27
I have had to show force a couple of times and disarmed one, luckily I never shot someone, I had to pull a pistol once but was able to detain the guy until the cops showed up, the second time I just let the guy know that I had a gun. I put my hand in my pocket and he could clearly see that I had a gun. Sometimes it is just as good to let the dick know that you are armed and they back down.
Right. The sight of a gun in the hands of an irate home owner is a valid use of the gun not documented by the gun grabbers.
 
B

Bourne

#29
Nope. A suicide is a suicide, and that's the important part. It doesn't matter if he's shoots himself or holds his nose.

A murder is a murder. Again, the intent is the key. Knives are just as deadly, slightly less convenient, better than using an axe, but hammers are neater. But certainly is should count in the statistic as improper tool use.

Shooting a bad guy in self-defense is an act of civic virtue. Shouldn't be counted against gun ownership.

Once proper accounting is done so we can actually tally the accidental deaths due to guns and the murders and compare them to the vehicular slaughter, and then subract also the number of lives saved by the use of guns that do not result in fatality (good luck finding that one, but it's a valid number) you find that gun ownership is such a good thing that a society can't be considered civilized unless it trusts it's citizens to own their own weapons without restriction.
If you are comparing qualified gun deaths to traffic fatalities then you must as well qualify the traffic deaths, correct? Of course, otherwise your comparison would be flawed. Then please do so and present a qualified statistical comparison.
 

Similar Discussions