RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun...

RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 8:29:31 PM)
44% are under the age of 18.. that is a huge percentage of the total that are raped, yet they are ignored by the pro-gun group.. when a female gets to the age that they can legally own a gun, the majority of the danger is gone simply cuz by then they are more knowledgeable about how to avoid becoming a victim.. and usually cuz by then they have already been one.. so at that point, owning a gun isn't that much of a protection, assuming you can even get to the gun before your attacker can.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are discussing gun control. That does not mean we ignore those too young to own guns, it means they are outside the scope of this discussion. Their inability to own a gun has zero bearing on adults being able to protect themselves. As far as I am concerned child molesters should get long sentences in general population. If you wish to discuss that you should start a thread on how to prevent it.

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 8:33:25 PM)
Could someone tell me how they can believe that the same firearm that makes the criminal invincible is useless in the hands of a citizen, criminals must all be from Krypton. Or if they are as useless as the left says it wouldn't hurt to pass them out like candy.

ResidentSadist -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 8:59:29 PM)
I thought it was smart justice? They are letting Hubbart out in the same community he committed his crimes. 50% of Americans own guns. He was convicted of 38 violent rapes. He admitted to 41 rapes claiming 70 more were unreported. Of the 111 people he raped, 55 of them are armed. Of the 55 armed victims and their families, there has to be at least a dozen people gunning for him when he gets out. I thought this was the ultimate justice. He will be facing up to what he had done, pay for it with his life and make his previous victims that eventually get to kill him feel much better. Just saying.

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:01:20 PM)
FR This come from Bloomberg press about as anti gun as there is The validity of the NRA's stand depends on how often Americans actually use guns in self-defense “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” If you had to sum up the National Rifle Association’s response to the Newtown (Conn.) school massacre, and to any proposal for tougher gun-control laws, that one sentence from the NRA’s Dec. 21 press conference pretty much does the trick. The gun owners’ lobby opposes restrictions on civilian acquisition and possession of firearms because, it contends, law-abiding people need guns to defend themselves. Millions of people also use guns for hunting and target-shooting. But at the core of the NRA’s argument is self-defense: the ultimate right to protect one’s ability to remain upright and breathing. STORY: After Newtown, the NRA Sticks to Its Guns So how often do Americans use guns to defend themselves? If it almost never happens, then the NRA argument is based on a fallacy and deserves little respect in the fashioning of public policy. If, on the other hand, defensive gun use (DGU) is relatively common, then even a diehard gun-control advocate with any principles and common sense would admit that this fact must be given some weight. Criminologists concur that the unusual prevalence of guns in America—some 300 million in private hands—makes our violent crime more lethal than that of other countries. (See, for example, the excellent When Brute Force Fails, by UCLA’s Mark Kleiman.) That’s the cost of allowing widespread civilian gun ownership: In this country, when someone is inclined to commit a mugging, shoot up a movie theater, or kill their spouse (or themselves), firearms are readily available. One reason the gun debate seems so radioactive is that gun-control proponents refer almost exclusively to the cost of widespread gun ownership, while the NRA and its allies focus on guns as instruments and symbols of self-reliance. Very few, if any, participants in the conflict acknowledge that guns are both bad and good, depending on how they’re used. Robbers use them to stick up convenience stores, and convenience store owners use them to stop armed robbers. STORY: Taking on Guns and the NRA, One Tweet at a Time If guns have a countervailing benefit—that lawful firearm owners frequently or even occasionally use guns to defend themselves and their loved ones—then determining how aggressively to curb private possession becomes a more complicated proposition. As with everything else concerning guns in this country, the DGU question prompts divergent answers. At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor. At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU. STORY: Newtown Fallout: Cerberus Retreats From Guns The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate. What’s the upshot? 1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs. STORY: After Connecticut: Guns, Gun Control, and Gun Culture 2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy. 3. Many gun owners (I am not one, but I know plenty) focus not on statistical probabilities, but on a worst-case scenario: They’re in trouble, and they want a fighting chance. 4. DGU does not answer any questions in this debate, but it’s a factor that deserves attention.

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:04:52 PM)
Then there is this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use And in case you can't get it to work. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Defensive gun use (DGU) is the use of a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. The frequency of defensive firearms incidents, and their effectiveness in providing safety and reducing crime is a controversial issue in gun politics and criminology.[1]:64 Different authors and studies employ different criteria for what constitutes a defensive gun use which leads to controversy in comparing statistical results. Perceptions of the number of DGUs dominate discussions over gun rights, gun control, and concealed carry laws. Contents [hide] 1 Estimates of frequency 1.1 Analysis of John Lott research 2 External links 3 References Estimates of frequency[edit] Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.[9] Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[8] Discussion of over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[10][11] Analysis of John Lott research[edit] Researcher John Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police". Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[12] and the Los Angeles Times.[13] In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent brandishment-only.[14] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[15] Lott explained the lower brandishment-only rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[16] Most surveys used a recall period of "Ever" while some (Hart, Mauser, and Tarrance) used the previous five years. The Field Institute survey used periods of previous year, previous two years and ever.[3] The NSPOF survey used a one year recall period.[8] Lott also used a one year recall period and asked respondents about personal experiences only, due to questionable respondent recall of events past one year and respondent knowledge of DGU experiences of other household members.[16] External links[edit]

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:09:03 PM)
And no more biased than Bloomberg Watch Lady Magdalene's for Free Gun in handbagThe World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal. Defensive Gun Use Statistics According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.) In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to. In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love. In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:10:13 PM)
Kleck answering critics Introduction There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others? Dr. Kleck's Answer Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted." "It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident." "...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee." Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection." (Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.) On the Other Hand: Studying the Studies Excerpted from ABCNEWS.com: The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on." For Further Reading •The DGU War: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun - "By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders." ◦ David Hemenway, Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates - "Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States." ◾ Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, The Illegitimacy of One-Sided Speculation: Getting the Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down - "Hemenway has failed to cast even mild doubt on the accuracy of our estimates. The claim that there are huge numbers of defensive uses of guns each year in the United States has been repeatedly confirmed, and remains one of the most consistently supported assertions in the guns-violence research area." ◦ Tom W. Smith, A Call for a Truce in the DGU War - "Neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponents' point of view. This is unfortunate since there is good reason to believe that both sides are off-the-mark. . . the main shortcomings of the two approaches and some of the keys issues of contention are discussed." ◦Video interview with Kleck expressing his observations and opinions concerning various gun control issues and measures (2009). Magazine interview with Gary Kleck (1993). ◦ This paper, the National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", contains criticisms of Kleck's survey. [Text]~[PDF] ◦ Kleck responds to some criticism of his study. ◦ Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense - concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians." •Newspaper accounts of self-defense with a firearm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \|GunCite Home\|

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:12:47 PM)
And finally Dave Workman Dave Workman\|Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Subscribe Advertisement June 25, 2013 Gun rights advocates from Miami to Mountlake Terrace are probably wondering this morning how soon news about a new study – reported yesterday by Slate – will disappear from view because it says that firearms are effectively used in self-defense a lot, a contention that is always disputed by gun prohibitionists. Slate writer William Saletan’s piece was good enough to be picked up by the Miami Herald, but it did not seem to make much news anywhere else. The report was actually available earlier this month, and while it is not all good news for gun owners, there is enough information to make this document balanced, rather than a lengthy anti-gun diatribe. The report comes from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on order from President Barack Obama. According to the report on Page 15, “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed.” Estimates range from 500,000 to 3 million such uses annually. On the following page, the report also notes, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used“ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” The report also notes something that has been evident in FBI Uniform Crime Reports for several years. The rate of violent crime has declined over the past five years, and gun-related death rates for teens aged 15-19 declined from 1994 to 2009, the report says. Handguns are used in a majority of gun-related crimes, according to the report, which will reinforce contentions among gun owners that proposed bans on so-called “assault rifles” is at best misguided and more likely symbolic. On the subject of symbolism, the “No More Names” bus tour, sponsored by anti-gun New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns was in Atlanta yesterday, and will be in Nashville tomorrow, in Little Rock on Thursday and New Orleans on Saturday. This column has discussed the problem with Bloomberg’s bus tour here and here. Yesterday, Larry Keane, vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, had this to say about the tour’s embarrassing inclusion of criminals and suspected terrorists on a list of “gun violence victims” read aloud at the tour’s stops: “Now Bloomberg’s people say they are going to ‘scrub’ the list but the damage to his credibility can’t be reversed. And that has consequences in politics. In New Hampshire, there is mounting pressure on the mayor of Dover, the only MAIG member in the state, to resign from the group. Other politicians all across the country are having to reevaluate whether they can believe any of the claims made by MAIG, since this episode makes it clear that the group doesn’t even bother to check its facts before parading them before the media. And the bus tour faces an uncertain future, now having put itself in the box of having to decide which ‘victims of gun violence’ are good or bad. “The bell cannot be un-rung. And this bell tolls for the credibility of any claims made by Bloomberg and MAIG. Mayors and other politicians across the country have now been warned.”

Kirata -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:23:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic im reading it now, try it....it actually has a LOT more to say on the subject, than you cherry picked So you've discovered that a 120 page report contains more than two sentences. Fucking congratulations. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic the only person to make that claim was Kleck I responded to your bullshit claim by quoting the findings that contradicted it. Do I have to post a thesis on defensive gun use in order to be able to point out that someone is full of shit without getting accused of "cherry picking"? And what exactly is the "LOT more" you're talking about that you think is so significant? "Respondents were not asked"? "It is possible"? "For example, if"? "Not conclusive"? Important stuff like that? Damn, how dishonest of me. Get over yourself. K.

TheHeretic -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist They are letting Hubbart out in the same community he committed his crimes. Unless he drove through on the way to Vegas sometime, he's never been in this valley in his life. They are releasing him into his home county, yes, but doing it on the other side of the mountains from 95% of the population, into a little community that has absolutely none of the services he's going to need available, and where the "most wanted" press releases commonly include a parolee or two who cut off the GPS anklet.

lovmuffin -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:37:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I don't live in a comic book LMAO Just the sort of emotional nonsense I would expect from anti gun people. And you are mistaken about assailants having the upper hand. The only way for that to happen is a first time gun owner buys a gun and puts it in a drawer or wherever and never fires or learns to use it. It does happen and if it ever comes down to needing it she might freeze up and get it taken away. With a little range time, at least once, that won't be a problem. The only other problem is waking up with the assailant having the drop on you. No problem there if you lock your doors and windows at night he will make noise and you will awake an retrieve your weapon. At that point, knowing someone is in your house somewhere, the advantage is yours. A yappy dog is even better. String some freakin cans for him to trip over if you have to or whatever. Other security precautions and considerations go hand in hand with having a gun for protection. What's so hard about that ? Would you rather have the means to defend yourself if someone intrudes with the intent to rape or hope he doesn't kill you when he's done ?? How does owning a firearm give an assailant the advantage ? I'm not getting the logic for that. Maybe you don't read the news or even bothered to properly read my earlier post. We aren't talking about being indoors inside a locked-up house when the assailant tries to break in. A lot of the rapes either happen outside, where your assailant would most certainly have the upper hand (being prepared and doing the stalking etc). Or, indoors where the assailant is known to the victim and again, would have the upper hand in preparedness. So my point is, having a gun really doesn't help most rape victims any more than carrying pepper spray or anything else - which was also tweak's point. And tj pointed out from the DoJ, just by having a gun increases your chances of getting killed. Ergo, getting or having a gun for rape protection is just adding to nightmare rather than finding a cure for it. So your strawman about a very particular incident really pales into insignificance when compared the general problem. What's specifically is on the news that I'm missing ? I refer you to post #91. ".............a little something called, "Situational Awareness" might be a good lesson before marksmanship. There are some other kinds of non-PC things that can be taught and talked about as well to help them keep from becoming victims....." Where you quoted me I said "there are other considerations that go hand in hand" to successfully defend yourself with a firearm. Some of them include things on avoiding having to use it. There are things that apply in or out of the home. If you don't have at least a little more common sense than what God gave a piss ant then a gun won't do you much good. I think you are deliberately trying to miss the point.

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:42:09 PM)
FR (CNN) -- A mother and four children have been stabbed to death in a Brooklyn apartment, and a cousin of the slain woman's husband has been charged with killing them, New York police said Sunday. Mingdong Chen had been staying with the family for about a week before the Saturday night horror unfolded in Brooklyn's Sunset Park neighborhood, Officer Sophia Tassy-Mason said. The 25-year-old been charged with one count of first-degree murder and four counts of second-degree murder, as well as criminal possession of a weapon, Tassy-Mason said. 5 people, 2 dogs dead at Phoenix condo complex Police identified the victims as Qiao Zhen Li, 37; Linda Zhuo, 9; Amy Zhuo, 7; Kevin Zhuo, 5; and William Zhuo, 1. All five of the dead had stab wounds to their upper bodies, police said. Three of the children were dead at the scene, while the other victims were pronounced dead at nearby hospitals, police said. A kitchen knife or butcher's knife was retrieved from the scene, Tassy-Mason said.

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 9:54:59 PM)
So my point is, having a gun really doesn't help most rape victims any more than carrying pepper spray or anything else - which was also tweak's point ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My God do you realize that what you are saying is lay back and enjoy it?

BamaD -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/27/2013 10:38:16 PM)
And because we can

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/28/2013 12:00:14 AM)
This topic has been locked for review. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for being a part of CollarMe, Gamma

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/28/2013 12:22:59 AM)
I have pulled some violations and the string of replies to them. If your post is missing and you did not get a mail, then it was pulled as a reply to the violations or string of replies from the violations. I do not send out pumpkin paper. Ignore the mails at your own risk. With the change in being more lenient and allowing more thread drift and banter, that means less actual mails. Less means they are worth more, basic economics. Your time is valuable, and it will be moderated if you do not value our time. Basically this means you are not going to get a lot of warnings before you are subject to administrative action that could be moderation or ban. If there are any questions you may contact me or any staff with them. Do not reply to this post in this topic. Thank you all for making CollarMe a better place and doing your part in the moderation process. Gamma

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/28/2013 2:43:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Clearly they can't while this may be an alien thought to you the strong are responsible to protect the weak. And nobody said it was the only solution awareness, a big dog, and when all else fails a gun. That's not how you put your arguments across. Your first reaction, like many other pro-gunners, is "get a gun" or have more guns as a defence. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Who said it would end all crime, nobody. It is the inference you give as a first response when things like this crop up. Get a gun - that would have killed the fucker. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Who said it was a panacea for all evils, nobody. Again, always your first response - more guns. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Who said that since it isn't the whole picture of making you safe that no one should have a gun, everyone in this thread who isn't part of this society ( and thus not their concern) and you. There are some US citizens that are beginning to see the light. But there are also some hard-hats that just won't give them up if it was their last dying breath. And everyone outside of the US is looking in at the hard-hat stupidity and cringes at every gun death and mass murder we hear on the news almost daily. Of all the good things in and about the USA (and there are a lot of very positive things), I think the pro-gun culture and the healthcare costs are the two mega-major items that kill the country for ordinary non-US people.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/28/2013 2:51:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So my point is, having a gun really doesn't help most rape victims any more than carrying pepper spray or anything else - which was also tweak's point ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My God do you realize that what you are saying is lay back and enjoy it? Nope. Again, your strawman, not mine. I actually said something to the contrary. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Could someone tell me how they can believe that the same firearm that makes the criminal invincible is useless in the hands of a citizen, criminals must all be from Krypton. Or if they are as useless as the left says it wouldn't hurt to pass them out like candy. Because, as I said earlier, most criminals are more prepared and alert than their victims. C'mon Bama, it ain't rocket science and to pull that sort of strawman is purile and ridiculus. And you didn't need all that waffle in the earlier posts because it said it near the begining of the very first one - quote: Criminologists concur that the unusual prevalence of guns in America—some 300 million in private hands—makes our violent crime more lethal than that of other countries. (See, for example, the excellent When Brute Force Fails, by UCLA’s Mark Kleiman.) That’s the cost of allowing widespread civilian gun ownership: In this country, when someone is inclined to commit a mugging, shoot up a movie theater, or kill their spouse (or themselves), firearms are readily available.

tweakabelle -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/28/2013 2:59:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: freedom dwarf So my point is, having a gun really doesn't help most rape victims any more than carrying pepper spray or anything else My God do you realize that what you are saying is lay back and enjoy it? This is an inane response. I don't understand freedom dwarf to be saying anything of the sort. It seems to me that for some gun nuts anything short of arming yourself to the teeth is tantamount to complete acquiescence. For them, it seems the only appropriate response to any crime - from littering or jay walking up - is to gun up and 'give it to the fuckers'. This kind of blind fanaticism has never solved a problem in history and never will.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: One reason an American might wish to own a gun... (10/28/2013 3:09:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin What's specifically is on the news that I'm missing ? Maybe not missing, but ignoring the gravity of it because it is such an everyday event it misses the grey cells. quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I refer you to post #91. ".............a little something called, "Situational Awareness" might be a good lesson before marksmanship. There are some other kinds of non-PC things that can be taught and talked about as well to help them keep from becoming victims....." Where you quoted me I said "there are other considerations that go hand in hand" to successfully defend yourself with a firearm. Some of them include things on avoiding having to use it. There are things that apply in or out of the home. Then why is it that you and Bama and other pro-gunners are always responding with the rhetoric that more guns will save the day?? It's always your first response and you don't get round to other things until your arguments have proved to be futile and nonsensical. quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffinIf you don't have at least a little more common sense than what God gave a piss ant then a gun won't do you much good. I think you are deliberately trying to miss the point. No, not deliberately. Just that I don't see a sensible point to take any note of.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625