quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening.

Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape.

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening.

Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape.

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

Most studies say that the former exceeds the latter by a margin of between 2 and 4 to 1
In the case of a firearm stopping a crime as long as nobody gets shot it tends to go unreported, I know of about half a dozen such cases none of which were reported, I mean what do you say "I almost was assaulted but they ran screaming into the night when they realized I was armed" ?

link?

Since showing a weapon is technically assault legally you do need to report and justify it or you're in violation of the concealed carry law in most states, committing a felony, like assault with a deadly weapon, is cause to lose a CCP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening.

Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape.

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

That may be true, but it definitely helps to counters Lucy's claim that "guns have only one use".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
guns only have ONE use

Guns have only one MAIN purpose, and that is to emit a projectile at high velocity. Where and for what reason that projectile is emitted is dependent upon the person controlling the gun. I used to hunt, but don't any longer. And since quitting hunting I have fired guns thousands of times and never killed a thing.

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. That won't happen if you show someone your car or doctor, or threaten someone with what pharmaceutical company your aspirin comes from.

If you waggle a car at someone, its not gonna kill em, if you waggle a knife at someone its not gonna kill em, if you waggle a baseball bat at someone it isnt gonna killem...
yes and in the wrong hands USED against a person, they will kill a person.....
its the person behind a gun, not just the weapon
Ive fired a gun not thousands of times, but certainly more than 100...ive not intimidated anyone with one, Ive USED It to shoot holes in things,,but not anything with a pulse

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening.

Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape.

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

Most studies say that the former exceeds the latter by a margin of between 2 and 4 to 1
In the case of a firearm stopping a crime as long as nobody gets shot it tends to go unreported, I know of about half a dozen such cases none of which were reported, I mean what do you say "I almost was assaulted but they ran screaming into the night when they realized I was armed" ?

link?

Since showing a weapon is technically assault legally you do need to report and justify it or you're in violation of the concealed carry law in most states, committing a felony, like assault with a deadly weapon, is cause to lose a CCP.

Of course the would be assailant is going to run right down to the cops and tell them about it.
In my state they would consider it a waste of time
They come on to my property and threaten me and I'm the criminal God do you have things turned around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening.

Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape.

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

That may be true, but it definitely helps to counters Lucy's claim that "guns have only one use".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4363388/mpage_1/tm.htm

LOL

You really posted that nonsense again?

Well no, I only linked to it. But let's not quibble. If a post is what you want, I'll post this again just for you.

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz... have provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

Reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+tribute+to+a+view+I+have+opposed.-a017819461

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening.

Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape.

I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful.

My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

Most studies say that the former exceeds the latter by a margin of between 2 and 4 to 1
In the case of a firearm stopping a crime as long as nobody gets shot it tends to go unreported, I know of about half a dozen such cases none of which were reported, I mean what do you say "I almost was assaulted but they ran screaming into the night when they realized I was armed" ?

link?

Since showing a weapon is technically assault legally you do need to report and justify it or you're in violation of the concealed carry law in most states, committing a felony, like assault with a deadly weapon, is cause to lose a CCP.

They have always run away when they became aware that I was armed and willing I have not had to actually pull. In my state open carry is legal even off your property so showing a gun is not even a misdemeanor. Once again you are way off the mark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Kleck's crap has been debunked for a long time
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

You're just making shit up, and posting a link to a report that doesn't support it.

The study by Kleck and Gertz surveyed more than a dozen estimates of defensive gun use rates, precisely to show that results vary wildly and that the problem is a difficult one to get a handle on, for reasons they discuss. Some people immediately glommed onto the highest estimate, 2.5 million, about which the NSPOF fairly expresses some quibbles. But there are qiubbles to be raised about the NSPOF's analysis, too, and not even Kleck and Gertz claim that their own results are carved in stone.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

sorry if they had meant MILITIAS ONLY they would have clearly said that! but they chose the word PEOPLE, people being EVERYONE, not ONLY people IN A MILITIA!

Does that 'EVERYONE' include children, BitYakin? I ask because whenever I've brought up this matter of schoolkids toting guns and what the Constitution says about it, there's always been a strange silence from the gun-fans on your side of the Pond.

Are children not people, then? Is there some reason, clearly stated in, or at least implied by, the wording of the Constitution, that kids shouldn't go to school armed, for instance? Or does the Constitution define some age at which children become 'people'? Just asking, you know.

quote:

I guess it was your wording that made me think you meant ALL gun fatalities, you said dumbarses, which lead me to beleive you mean they made DUMBARSE MISTAKES.
Of course, it would

what you really meant was not dumbarses but murders, who from what I understand aren't dumb, becayse they did not make a DUMB MISTAKE and kill someone they did it intentionally. that may make them alot of things, but I see no connection to intelligence or the lack of it.
Murders, accidents, negligence, they are still dumbarses because they took a human life, if you want me to say murdering dumbarse scum..... go for it, ask nice and I will consider it. Best not to assume, eh???

as for the regulations, I asked you a question, and I suppose since you know of no regulations that would prevent these things from happening that are being proposed you pretend there are and that I am just INCAPABLE of finding them
I didnt say anything about your capability, yet here you are...empty handed

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

sorry if they had meant MILITIAS ONLY they would have clearly said that! but they chose the word PEOPLE, people being EVERYONE, not ONLY people IN A MILITIA!

Does that 'EVERYONE' include children, BitYakin? I ask because whenever I've brought up this matter of schoolkids toting guns and what the Constitution says about it, there's always been a strange silence from the gun-fans on your side of the Pond.

Are children not people, then? Is there some reason, clearly stated in, or at least implied by, the wording of the Constitution, that kids shouldn't go to school armed, for instance? Or does the Constitution define some age at which children become 'people'? Just asking, you know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

The only thing unsafe I've seen hunters do is drink beer though I know second hand of a few dumb ass things they've done over the years among disrespecting property (dont freakin be seen littering in Canada, even a gum wrapper) and I've seen a whole lot of signs shot up including "No Trespassing".

Then why do you think the blaze orange laws were passed? Do you really think it wasn't a problem? Do you not see the news stories every hunting season about a person, who was wearing orange, getting shot?
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Western-Washington-hunter-killed-by-gunfire-in-Okanogan-County-222194261.html

And since when is handling a firearm while intoxicated not a safety issue?

I didn't say drinking wasn't a safety issue. I was just honestly relating my experiences. However I've hunted from the time I was 12 up until about age 35. I don't hunt much these days but I've never seen near the numbers of safety violations that you seem to think there are. I'm not sayin that shit never happens at all.

Again, if gun hunters are so safe and careful why did the blaze orange laws come about? In reality they were passed because dumbass hunters kept shooting at movement without clearly identifying what they were shooting at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

you obviously didnt read my post
Your original question was about terrorist vs gun deaths, now you change it to cars.....
I think the term I would for your change in goalposts is against TOS...

quote:

That is because "....the right to keep and bear arms...." is in the THIRD part of the 2nd Amendment. The 1st is explaining the nature of a militia. The second part explains the duty of a militia. The third part explains that people of the militia in good standing may keep their militia weapon(s) in their homes, ready to handle problems. The fourth part of the amendment explains that the government can not ORDER the militia to surrender its arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

you obviously didnt read my post
Your original question was about terrorist vs gun deaths, now you change it to cars.....
I think the term I would for your change in goalposts is against TOS...

I just backtracked threw you and his exchange, TWICE, and I didn't see ANY QUESTION by him let alone one about TERORISTS!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Why is it that when there is a terrorist attack by a Muslim group, the liberals scream that we should not judge a group by a small number of fanatics.

I do it, and there are a lot of liberal users on this board that also do it.

Now, when some angry or mentally unstable individual uses a gun, all gun owners are judged as irrational, immoral and they should not be allowed to own guns.

There are over 8 million gun owners in this country. And everyone one of us are judged on the actions of an individual. We are told that our right to own firearms should be eliminated. That we are barbaric and dangerous.

A stance that I consider hypocritical at best.

If we are not to judge all Muslims on the actions of a few, then by god give gun owners the same respect, or shut the fuck up.