georgerussia 0 #51 December 18, 2009 Quote Maybe you should google Assistant Principal Joel Myrick? Maybe you should read up on James Strand, Edinboro, Pennsylvania Maybe you should check out who stopped Peter Odighizuwa’s rampage in 2002? So let's compare the numbers then? How many were stopped, and how many weren't? Quote If you can't see the obvious error in your logic there..... I don't know what to tell you. I have a CHL... And I don't take it places that BY LAW I am not allowed to take it. That law clearly didn't stop Cho..... But it has stopped guys with CHL's. Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes. Most criminals are not total idiots, and obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range. Quote No... My point is that as long as rules are in place to prevent legal citizens from carrying, most times they will follow the law and not carry. But that does not stop a criminal. So those places are ripe targets for nutjobs. So then until every place around allows carrying, nobody is safe from those criminals. Now, do you think it's realistic to expect every place around to allow guns?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 December 18, 2009 QuoteIt also depends on a gun. It is quite easy to discriminate with a sniper rifle than with AK-47, and a knife is probably even more discriminating than a gun. You *do* know that an AK is a select-fire weapon, yes?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuote Maybe you should google Assistant Principal Joel Myrick? Maybe you should read up on James Strand, Edinboro, Pennsylvania Maybe you should check out who stopped Peter Odighizuwa’s rampage in 2002? So let's compare the numbers then? How many were stopped, and how many weren't? They were all stopped. Your claim makes no sense. QuoteQuote If you can't see the obvious error in your logic there..... I don't know what to tell you. I have a CHL... And I don't take it places that BY LAW I am not allowed to take it. That law clearly didn't stop Cho..... But it has stopped guys with CHL's. Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes. Most criminals are not total idiots, and obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range. Your statement supports our point as much as it does yours, but you still make no sense. You say that gun ownership doesn't change crime levels (incorrect), but then say that criminals avoid gun owners. QuoteQuote No... My point is that as long as rules are in place to prevent legal citizens from carrying, most times they will follow the law and not carry. But that does not stop a criminal. So those places are ripe targets for nutjobs. So then until every place around allows carrying, nobody is safe from those criminals. Now, do you think it's realistic to expect every place around to allow guns? The reverse certainly hasn't seemed to stop any crimes. What is your solution, then?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 December 18, 2009 Quote what percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about as many guns as people in the country (300M), with on order of 10,000 murders. So the ratio is pretty small. Billions of bullets are fired each year, with again, that relatively small number of deaths. Your bias is clouding your ability to look objectively. That you've never heard of citizens stopping attacks is an example of this. Your ignorance is your own problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #55 December 18, 2009 Quotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #56 December 18, 2009 QuoteSo let's compare the numbers then? How many were stopped, and how many weren't? You said, "So maybe you tell us when will it work?" And I did. In fact I didn't tell you when it might work... We have tried that before. I showed you where it DID work. Your best examples of when it didn't work were in places where citizens were not allowed to be armed. So maybe you should show some examples where citizens were allowed to be armed and it didn't work. QuoteThen the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes. Please provide the data to back up your statements. QuoteMost criminals are not total idiots, and obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range. Ding, ding, ding. "obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range".... But earlier you said, "Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes." So which is it? You are arguing against yourself, your arguments are disjointed and do not follow a logical path. QuoteSo then until every place around allows carrying, nobody is safe from those criminals. Nonsense. Those places that people are allowed to carry will be safer than they are now... By your own admission. QuoteNow, do you think it's realistic to expect every place around to allow guns? I have no issue with citizens who have gone through the process carrying anywhere they want. Now.... Do you think there is anywhere in public that citizens should be allowed to carry a gun?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zach 0 #57 December 18, 2009 Quote But WMDs are! Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them? Quote I'm certainly no expert on the subject (it doesn't appear you need to be in this thread) but another difference between an "average," law abiding conceal/carrier and some of the countries mentioned might also be that a CHL holder will be highly unlikely to supply his/her firearm to a third party, with which they might then do harm to others. I would argue that the most dangerous aspect of certain countries having nuclear/chemical/biological weapons is that they may be willing to supply others with those weapons (terrorist groups) who might enjoy the chance to use them. My scenario may be a bit Clancy-ish, but hopefully my point is reasonably clear. Zach Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #58 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuote I've seen your true nature, with the cruelness you had for my dead friend and the tragedy that we went through. Others have seen your nature too. It doesn't fool anyone. Well put, and spot on. Can anyone in SC claim they've actually learned something from kallend? I have learned his thoughts are twisted and usually are wrong. he may be learned but not smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #59 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! does that mean guns are safer than jumping? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #60 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteNoKo and Iran have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. But WMDs are! Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them? You wouldn't want to issue a gun license to someone who has a history of going around threatening to shoot other people. Likewise, it's not a good idea to allow NoKo and Iran to have nukes, because they have a history of going around threatening to annihilate other countries. So your analogy fails based upon the intentions of the weapon holder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #61 December 18, 2009 Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #62 December 18, 2009 And your warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #63 December 18, 2009 Quote There are about as many guns as people in the country (300M), with on order of 10,000 murders. So the ratio is pretty small. Billions of bullets are fired each year, with again, that relatively small number of deaths. How many cars are in this country, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Please note the quoted post I was replying to, as your statement sound little unconnected. Quote Your bias is clouding your ability to look objectively. That you've never heard of citizens stopping attacks is an example of this. This is not bias - someone said it happens, and I said I never heard about it, which was true. So I asked for examples, and I got a few (besides some irrelevant examples which made me laugh, such as when people claim that a police officer is basically the same as average Joe with a gun, so any crime stopped by an armed police officer counts as a crime stopped by average Joe with a gun), and so far I am not sure guns "do more good than bad" in preventing this kind of crime.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #64 December 18, 2009 Quote There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. You probably didn't read the original post I quoted and replied to, and just caught-up a phrase to reply. The OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? (and, by the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuote There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. You probably didn't read the original post I quoted and replied to, and just caught-up a phrase to reply. The OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Per the DOT, some 254.4 million in 2007. Vehicular deaths that year were 41,059, for a .016% involvement, or about 4 times the firearm rate. Quote(and, by the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old). Cook and Ludwig, published in 1996 (actual survey 1994) estimated 192 million firearms. ATF estimated 225 million in 1995. An estimate of 250 million for 1996 seems reasonable. Or, would you rather he and I use your tactic and just guess?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat you've never heard of citizens stopping attacks is an example of this. This is not bias - someone said it happens, and I said I never heard about it, which was true. So I asked for examples, and I got a few, and so far I am not sure guns "do more good than bad" in preventing this kind of crime. Here's some reading for you: The NRA's "Armed Citizen" files: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #67 December 18, 2009 Quoteby the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old The number of gun murders is the same, but the population has increased since then, and so has the number of guns. That trend per-capita doesn't fit well with the anti-gun folks fear-mongering. QuoteThe OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Very few. But they sure kill a lot of people by accident - 40,000 per year - four times worse than is done intentionally with guns. And I don't believe that getting killed by accident is any better than being killed intentionally. And all that carnage (pun intended) is done despite the fact that operators are licensed, and the vehicles are registered. But we've done this car/gun analogy numerous times before. So how about you stick to the subject: guns. Cars are irrelevant to gun crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #68 December 18, 2009 Quote I'm certainly no expert on the subject (it doesn't appear you need to be in this thread) but another difference between an "average," law abiding conceal/carrier and some of the countries mentioned might also be that a CHL holder will be highly unlikely to supply his/her firearm to a third party, with which they might then do harm to others. Seems to be the same with countries, they do not typically share their nuclear technologies - even though it indeed happened in past (USSR/China). But when everyone has access to the weapons, why would they ever need that? Quote I would argue that the most dangerous aspect of certain countries having nuclear/chemical/biological weapons is that they may be willing to supply others with those weapons (terrorist groups) who might enjoy the chance to use them. Then why didn't it happen already? There are terrorist groups in Pakistan and India, there are (or were?) such groups in Russia and Japan, even France had its share - and all those countries maintain nuclear arsenal.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #69 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Per year. How long does a gun last?... 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 mnealtx 0 #70 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Per year. How long does a gun last? This is relevant, how? Is a 50-60 (or greater) year old gun suddenly going to develop senile dementia and wander through the neighborhood, flying into rages and shooting up the place or something?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #71 December 18, 2009 QuotePer year. How long does a gun last? Well, lookie here. Mr. never-answers-a-question is suddenly wanting others to answer his. How quaint! You're the materials engineering expert. If you have some point to make, put it forth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #72 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotePer year. How long does a gun last? Well, lookie here. Mr. never-answers-a-question is suddenly wanting others to answer his. How quaint! You're the materials engineering expert. If you have some point to make, put it forth. Yeah, right... like he's going to do that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #73 December 18, 2009 Quote You said, "So maybe you tell us when will it work?" And I did. In fact I didn't tell you when it might work... We have tried that before. I showed you where it DID work. Maybe some clarification is needed. I'm currently pro-choice in regard to guns - which means I do not promote gun ownership, but I support the rights of those who decided they want it. It is also very unlikely that I will ever own a gun as I don't feel I need any. Recent events, however, make me to reconsider this position. We had a few gun murders locally here in Bay Area, which although didn't make it up to Va Tech victim count, still were worrying. Both, by the way, happened in places which as far as I know did not restrict carrying guns (one in corporate office, and one in private apartment). In both cases I attribute the victim count to a gun used - sure, one can murder a person with a knife, but it's very unlikely for an average Joe to slaughter three people, who are able to protect themselves. So I am trying now to get the whole picture, and statements like "guns don't kill" are the least helpful here, and in fact make pro-gun people look pretty much like Brady people (who don't look smart by any means). Quote Your best examples of when it didn't work were in places where citizens were not allowed to be armed. So maybe you should show some examples where citizens were allowed to be armed and it didn't work. So let's look closer on your examples: 1. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. He did not stop a shooting spree, he arrested Woodham when he was leaving the school. You can speculate whether he was going to shoot more people, but the facts are that shooting spree was not stopped by average Joe with a gun. And it's basically the authority which was used, not a gun itself - Joel Myrick might have had a dummy or unloaded gun as well. 2. Andrew Wurst shooting. This is more relevant, but still questionable example, as the buy was out of ammo, and reloading. Something like "Police! Freeze!" might have worked the same way. Same as above, it is authority which stopped the boy, not the gun - the gun might have been broken or unloaded, it didn't matter. 3. Peter Odighizuwa shooting was stopped by an armed police officer and county sheriff, and as I said before, a police officer is much more than average Joe with a gun. Also Peter was already out of ammo at this moment. As far as I see, only one of those examples at least remotely supports a "a regular gun owner stopped a massacre" statement. And none of them actually used a gun as a gun - a dummy would work as well in all those scenarios. Quote Please provide the data to back up your statements. This is a conclusion based on what you have said, and I assume you have data to support YOUR statement, don't you? Quote Ding, ding, ding. "obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range".... But earlier you said, "Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes." So which is it? You are arguing against yourself, your arguments are disjointed and do not follow a logical path. What I was saying is the following: - As you said, a CHL gun owner will not bring a gun into area where guns are not permitted; - A person, who want to start a shooting spree, would likely to choose an area where guns are not permitted; - Conclusion: until such areas exist, no matter how many gun owners you have around, they will not be able to stop every (or even most) shooting sprees. - Then the question is, how exactly the NRA statement like "gun ownership reduces crimes even for those who do not carry guns" work? Quote Nonsense. Those places that people are allowed to carry will be safer than they are now... By your own admission. That's my opinion based on recent facts, but I'll check Brady to see what they have to say on that matter :) *** I have no issue with citizens who have gone through the process carrying anywhere they want. Now.... Do you think there is anywhere in public that citizens should be allowed to carry a gun? Well, I'd personally feel more safe if nobody carried guns in public. But since it's not possible (some criminals will carry them anyway), I also see why such restriction wouldn't work 100%. From the other side, there are little to none such sprees in Europe where gun ownership is severely limited.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #74 December 18, 2009 Quote Per the DOT, some 254.4 million in 2007. Vehicular deaths that year were 41,059, for a .016% involvement, or about 4 times the firearm rate. Are you sure you're comparing murders where a car was used to manslaughter a person or persons in the same way as a gun was, or it is just accidental deaths?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #75 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Per year. How long does a gun last? This is relevant, how? Is a 50-60 (or greater) year old gun suddenly going to develop senile dementia and wander through the neighborhood, flying into rages and shooting up the place or something? The math is obvious to anyone with a brain. JR quoted total number of guns, but only homicides in a single year, and divided one by the other. A gun lasts more than one year.... 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 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
marks2065 0 #58 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuote I've seen your true nature, with the cruelness you had for my dead friend and the tragedy that we went through. Others have seen your nature too. It doesn't fool anyone. Well put, and spot on. Can anyone in SC claim they've actually learned something from kallend? I have learned his thoughts are twisted and usually are wrong. he may be learned but not smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #59 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! does that mean guns are safer than jumping? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #60 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteNoKo and Iran have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. But WMDs are! Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them? You wouldn't want to issue a gun license to someone who has a history of going around threatening to shoot other people. Likewise, it's not a good idea to allow NoKo and Iran to have nukes, because they have a history of going around threatening to annihilate other countries. So your analogy fails based upon the intentions of the weapon holder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #61 December 18, 2009 Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #62 December 18, 2009 And your warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #63 December 18, 2009 Quote There are about as many guns as people in the country (300M), with on order of 10,000 murders. So the ratio is pretty small. Billions of bullets are fired each year, with again, that relatively small number of deaths. How many cars are in this country, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Please note the quoted post I was replying to, as your statement sound little unconnected. Quote Your bias is clouding your ability to look objectively. That you've never heard of citizens stopping attacks is an example of this. This is not bias - someone said it happens, and I said I never heard about it, which was true. So I asked for examples, and I got a few (besides some irrelevant examples which made me laugh, such as when people claim that a police officer is basically the same as average Joe with a gun, so any crime stopped by an armed police officer counts as a crime stopped by average Joe with a gun), and so far I am not sure guns "do more good than bad" in preventing this kind of crime.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #64 December 18, 2009 Quote There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. You probably didn't read the original post I quoted and replied to, and just caught-up a phrase to reply. The OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? (and, by the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuote There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. You probably didn't read the original post I quoted and replied to, and just caught-up a phrase to reply. The OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Per the DOT, some 254.4 million in 2007. Vehicular deaths that year were 41,059, for a .016% involvement, or about 4 times the firearm rate. Quote(and, by the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old). Cook and Ludwig, published in 1996 (actual survey 1994) estimated 192 million firearms. ATF estimated 225 million in 1995. An estimate of 250 million for 1996 seems reasonable. Or, would you rather he and I use your tactic and just guess?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat you've never heard of citizens stopping attacks is an example of this. This is not bias - someone said it happens, and I said I never heard about it, which was true. So I asked for examples, and I got a few, and so far I am not sure guns "do more good than bad" in preventing this kind of crime. Here's some reading for you: The NRA's "Armed Citizen" files: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 December 18, 2009 Quoteby the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old The number of gun murders is the same, but the population has increased since then, and so has the number of guns. That trend per-capita doesn't fit well with the anti-gun folks fear-mongering. QuoteThe OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Very few. But they sure kill a lot of people by accident - 40,000 per year - four times worse than is done intentionally with guns. And I don't believe that getting killed by accident is any better than being killed intentionally. And all that carnage (pun intended) is done despite the fact that operators are licensed, and the vehicles are registered. But we've done this car/gun analogy numerous times before. So how about you stick to the subject: guns. Cars are irrelevant to gun crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #68 December 18, 2009 Quote I'm certainly no expert on the subject (it doesn't appear you need to be in this thread) but another difference between an "average," law abiding conceal/carrier and some of the countries mentioned might also be that a CHL holder will be highly unlikely to supply his/her firearm to a third party, with which they might then do harm to others. Seems to be the same with countries, they do not typically share their nuclear technologies - even though it indeed happened in past (USSR/China). But when everyone has access to the weapons, why would they ever need that? Quote I would argue that the most dangerous aspect of certain countries having nuclear/chemical/biological weapons is that they may be willing to supply others with those weapons (terrorist groups) who might enjoy the chance to use them. Then why didn't it happen already? There are terrorist groups in Pakistan and India, there are (or were?) such groups in Russia and Japan, even France had its share - and all those countries maintain nuclear arsenal.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #69 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Per year. How long does a gun last?... 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
mnealtx 0 #70 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Per year. How long does a gun last? This is relevant, how? Is a 50-60 (or greater) year old gun suddenly going to develop senile dementia and wander through the neighborhood, flying into rages and shooting up the place or something?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #71 December 18, 2009 QuotePer year. How long does a gun last? Well, lookie here. Mr. never-answers-a-question is suddenly wanting others to answer his. How quaint! You're the materials engineering expert. If you have some point to make, put it forth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotePer year. How long does a gun last? Well, lookie here. Mr. never-answers-a-question is suddenly wanting others to answer his. How quaint! You're the materials engineering expert. If you have some point to make, put it forth. Yeah, right... like he's going to do that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #73 December 18, 2009 Quote You said, "So maybe you tell us when will it work?" And I did. In fact I didn't tell you when it might work... We have tried that before. I showed you where it DID work. Maybe some clarification is needed. I'm currently pro-choice in regard to guns - which means I do not promote gun ownership, but I support the rights of those who decided they want it. It is also very unlikely that I will ever own a gun as I don't feel I need any. Recent events, however, make me to reconsider this position. We had a few gun murders locally here in Bay Area, which although didn't make it up to Va Tech victim count, still were worrying. Both, by the way, happened in places which as far as I know did not restrict carrying guns (one in corporate office, and one in private apartment). In both cases I attribute the victim count to a gun used - sure, one can murder a person with a knife, but it's very unlikely for an average Joe to slaughter three people, who are able to protect themselves. So I am trying now to get the whole picture, and statements like "guns don't kill" are the least helpful here, and in fact make pro-gun people look pretty much like Brady people (who don't look smart by any means). Quote Your best examples of when it didn't work were in places where citizens were not allowed to be armed. So maybe you should show some examples where citizens were allowed to be armed and it didn't work. So let's look closer on your examples: 1. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. He did not stop a shooting spree, he arrested Woodham when he was leaving the school. You can speculate whether he was going to shoot more people, but the facts are that shooting spree was not stopped by average Joe with a gun. And it's basically the authority which was used, not a gun itself - Joel Myrick might have had a dummy or unloaded gun as well. 2. Andrew Wurst shooting. This is more relevant, but still questionable example, as the buy was out of ammo, and reloading. Something like "Police! Freeze!" might have worked the same way. Same as above, it is authority which stopped the boy, not the gun - the gun might have been broken or unloaded, it didn't matter. 3. Peter Odighizuwa shooting was stopped by an armed police officer and county sheriff, and as I said before, a police officer is much more than average Joe with a gun. Also Peter was already out of ammo at this moment. As far as I see, only one of those examples at least remotely supports a "a regular gun owner stopped a massacre" statement. And none of them actually used a gun as a gun - a dummy would work as well in all those scenarios. Quote Please provide the data to back up your statements. This is a conclusion based on what you have said, and I assume you have data to support YOUR statement, don't you? Quote Ding, ding, ding. "obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range".... But earlier you said, "Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes." So which is it? You are arguing against yourself, your arguments are disjointed and do not follow a logical path. What I was saying is the following: - As you said, a CHL gun owner will not bring a gun into area where guns are not permitted; - A person, who want to start a shooting spree, would likely to choose an area where guns are not permitted; - Conclusion: until such areas exist, no matter how many gun owners you have around, they will not be able to stop every (or even most) shooting sprees. - Then the question is, how exactly the NRA statement like "gun ownership reduces crimes even for those who do not carry guns" work? Quote Nonsense. Those places that people are allowed to carry will be safer than they are now... By your own admission. That's my opinion based on recent facts, but I'll check Brady to see what they have to say on that matter :) *** I have no issue with citizens who have gone through the process carrying anywhere they want. Now.... Do you think there is anywhere in public that citizens should be allowed to carry a gun? Well, I'd personally feel more safe if nobody carried guns in public. But since it's not possible (some criminals will carry them anyway), I also see why such restriction wouldn't work 100%. From the other side, there are little to none such sprees in Europe where gun ownership is severely limited.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #74 December 18, 2009 Quote Per the DOT, some 254.4 million in 2007. Vehicular deaths that year were 41,059, for a .016% involvement, or about 4 times the firearm rate. Are you sure you're comparing murders where a car was used to manslaughter a person or persons in the same way as a gun was, or it is just accidental deaths?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #75 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhat percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. Thus, only one out of every 24,000 guns is used to commit murder. That is .004% of all guns. 99.996% of all guns are never used to murder anyone! Per year. How long does a gun last? This is relevant, how? Is a 50-60 (or greater) year old gun suddenly going to develop senile dementia and wander through the neighborhood, flying into rages and shooting up the place or something? The math is obvious to anyone with a brain. JR quoted total number of guns, but only homicides in a single year, and divided one by the other. A gun lasts more than one year.... 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
