Ultimate Gun Defense

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:08 pm

Fact: In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate dropped 2 percent.217

Fact: Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
US Murder Rate per 100,000
218

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:38 pm

Like I said (on a post that probably nobody will see because it's right at the end of page 3), I think it's fine to get guns, but those are some very misleading facts Van.

I mean, seriously "Fact: In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. "

Duh. Honestly that number makes guns seem more dangerous than I would have thought. But that statistic has nothing to do with the inherent safety of pool vs gun and everything to do with how people use them.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:52 am

Justin,

Why don't you come right out and say it that you are a hoplophobe, that you don't like guns, that you don't think anyone should possess a gun, and that defending oneself with a gun is somehow wrong or immoral? That you are the most rabid antigun person on these forums?

And what really motivates you to suddenly become vocal on these forums when guns are mentioned while not showing any interest in any of the other subjects in discussions? Some obsession at work here?

Justin have you ever handled a gun? Are you afraid of guns? Tell us about yourself Justin, just curious to know what fuels your obsessions for constantly arguing against guns??? Because this is precisely what you keep on doing over and over with ridiculous semantics…to wit…you posted

I would apply the exact same logic to knives, or even car alarms... Where does the owner live? Where is the car being parked? If the owner is of buying a $5,000 car alarm, but is living on a farm in rural Wyoming and only driving to the country store, I might question whether the risk of having the car messed with is really worth the expense and hassle. [But what if it does happen? And what of the peace of mind of the car owner? You see the world only through your rose colored glasses Justin]

If you like owning guns because you like owning guns, great! Buy guns, train with them, and figure out different strategies for keeping them available yet secure. Have a ball. Sounds like an entertaining hobby for those so inclined. However, that doesn't mean that the stats support it from a pure risk/reward perspective on an individual basis.[ You continue to miss all the obvious points…one of them being that you personally benefit from other people owning guns…you walk the streets safer because of it]

Let me repeat: I'm not saying "don't get a gun." What I'm saying is "don't feel you have to get a gun because you/your family are going to get murdered otherwise."

And who in hell is saying that one 'must' get a gun or his family will be murdered? How can you miss the salient points of these discussions but then focus on such idiocy?

…..Same old BS expressed in different words over and over again while missing the obvious….no wonder Panther gets exasperated

Here's the answer... crap happens, tragedies happen... you do your best to prevent them in your own life and the lives of those you love... NO ONE has the right to be a nanny over anyone else (even claiming that you "love" everyone has been used as a reason on this... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit)... If someone doesn't take precautions and take care, then we can offer condolences and hopefully all learn lessons... That doesn't mean that we can stop Darwinism or "Acts of God" or just schit from happening. Schit happens... it might be from a "bad guy" or a Tsunami... Bad schit happens to good people, that's just the way it is. Some people turn to their faith/God, others get "involved"... but getting involved usually means making someone else take the care and precautions that the "involved" person desires to make themselves feel good.

[Panther]

You still have not learned the lesson that life experiences of people mold them in so many different ways thus the types of arguments that you get on this vey sensitive subject matter….something very personal.

You still don't get that guns prevent crime

Fact: Because guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes, the cost savings in personal losses, police work, and court and prison expenses vastly outweighs the cost of criminal gun violence and gun accidents. The net savings, under a worst-case scenario, is about $3.5 billion a year.245

Fact: Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.246

Fact: The medical cost of gun violence is only 0.16% of America’s annual health care expenditures.247

Fact: Drunken drivers killed 15,935 people in 1998 248while homicides with guns were 12,102 for the same year.

Drunken drivers continue to kill people randomly despite a decade of increased strictness and social pressure against drunk drivers.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:55 am

Myth: “Safe storage” laws protect people

Fact: 15 states that passed “safe storage” laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years.

On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses.

"The problem is, you see no decrease ineither juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates." 257

Fact: Only five American children under the age of 10 died of accidents involving handguns in 1997.258 Thus, the need for “safe storage” laws appears to be low.

Fact: In Merced, California, an intruder stabbed three children to death with a pitchfork.

The oldest child had been trained by her father in firearms use, but could not save her siblings from the attacker because the gun was locked away to comply with the state’s “safe storage” law.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:58 am

Myth: Trigger locks will keep children from accidentally shooting themselves.

Fact: 31 of 32 models of gun locks tested by the government’s Consumer Product Safety Commission could be opened without the key. According to their spokesperson, "We found you could open locks with paper clips, a pair of scissors or tweezers, or you could whack them on the table and they would open.”

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:00 am

Fact: California has a trigger lock law and saw a 12% increase in fatal firearm accidents in 1994. Texas doesn't have one and experienced a 28% 288decrease in the same year. Also: trigger-locks render a firearm inaccessible for timely self-defense.

Fact: Children as young as seven (7) years old have demonstrated that they can pick or break a trigger lock; or that they can operate a gun with a trigger lock in place.289

Over half of non-criminal firearm deaths for children over age seven are suicides, so trigger locks are unlikely to reduce these deaths.

Fact: If criminals are deterred from attacking victims because of the fear that people might be able to defend themselves, gunlocks may in turn reduce the danger to criminals committing crime, and thus increase crime.

This problem is exacerbated because many mechanical locks (such as barrel or trigger locks) also require that the gun be stored unloaded.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:08 am

Myth: Access to guns increases the risk of suicide

Fact: The rate of suicide is not affected by the presence of a firearm. This is true in either a time-series analysis (like the chart at right showing the change in handgun supply in the U.S. over time),

For example, Japan has no private handgun ownership (aside from an extremely limited number of licensed Olympic sport shooters), and yet had a suicide rate more than twice that of the United States in 2002.

SOURCE: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, CDC WISQARS, BATF Firearms Commerce

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:09 am

Fact: Americans believe parents and popular culture are more responsible for violence in America than firearms.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:11 am

MYTH: Most people think guns in the home are dangerous
Fact: Gallup poll concludes that a slight majority (47% vs. 43%) believe that having a firearm in the home makes it safer.387

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:14 am

Van Canna wrote: Why don't you come right out and say it that you are a hoplophobe, that you don't like guns, that you don't think anyone should possess a gun, and that defending oneself with a gun is somehow wrong or immoral? That you are the most rabid antigun person on these forums?

Because none of that is true.

In fact, I've been looking into going hunting with my wife's father, looking up classes, researching rifles, etc. Doesn't make me an expert, but kind of (ahem) shoots your pointless insults out of the water, huh? I don't have a problem with guns, I'm just not madly in love with them the way you are, ready to freak out if someone says anything that might hint that they're not critically necessary to survival at all times.

And what really motivates you to suddenly become vocal on these forums when guns are mentioned while not showing any interest in any of the other subjects in discussions? Some obsession at work here?

I talk about lots of different stuff. True, I've been less actively lately, but I have a new baby. I'm terribly sorry that this topic happened to be the one I commented on today. What do you want me to talk about? Libya's revolt? Japan's situation? Seriously I haven't talked about guns on these forums literally in years. And it's not like there aren't plenty of opportunities.

And who in hell is saying that one 'must' get a gun or his family will be murdered?

Nobody has said exactly that. However, you in particular love to post lots of anecdotes about bad things happening because people don't have guns, or asking "how will you feel when [gruesome scenario] happens because you didn't have a gun". You certainly seem to imply that having a gun at all times is a must.

You still have not learned the lesson that life experiences of people mold them in so many different ways thus the types of arguments that you get on this vey sensitive subject matter….something very personal.

I have known that people's experiences affect them for a long time. In fact, that's exactly the point that you don't seem to be getting. These life experiences that mold people don't always mold them in positive ways. Not all experience is wisdom. It's all too easy to be emotionally scarred by an event and make bad decisions because of that experience. That's why it's important to try and get perspective on the things you experience, maybe even some counseling so that you don't end up having trouble detaching enough from the emotional content to make informed choices.

So do I understand that the way people think about things is influenced by their experiences, particularly traumatic ones? Of course I do. But you seem to be assuming that those experiences always equate to having a better perspective on these things, and I think that's quite clearly not how people work.

You still don't get that guns prevent crime

No, Van, I do get that. I get that on a population level, the prevalence of gun ownership correlates strongly with lowered crime rates. And I get that in particular circumstances guns can prevent a crime or defend a person's safety. That doesn't mean that owning gun is necessarily an advantage for everyone. And the way you talk, you make it sound very much like you think everyone should own a gun because of all the horrible things that happen in the world.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:05 pm

Van Canna wrote: And what really motivates you to suddenly become vocal on these forums when guns are mentioned while not showing any interest in any of the other subjects in discussions? Some obsession at work here?

Actually, Valk pops up pretty reliably whenever Bill or I get in a debate/argument with Glenn or Ian.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:19 pm

In fact, I've been looking into going hunting with my wife's father, looking up classes, researching rifles, etc. Doesn't make me an expert, but kind of (ahem) shoots your pointless insults out of the water, huh? I don't have a problem with guns, I'm just not madly in love with them the way you are, ready to freak out if someone says anything that might hint that they're not critically necessary to survival at all times.

Well, this is the first time you have shown your true colors. And, as usual, you are wrong again.

For the most part I don't even carry a gun day in and day out…so that blows your conceit right off the deck, doesn't it!

Guns are only critically necessary for survival 'when they are' _and this is a very personal position taken by people with different experiences, such as Panther, for one, whom you continually piss off with your diatribes.

Nobody has said exactly that. However, you in particular love to post lots of anecdotes about bad things happening because people don't have guns, or asking "how will you feel when [gruesome scenario] happens because you didn't have a gun". You certainly seem to imply that having a gun at all times is a must.

That's your interpretation. I don't have a gun on me all the times…but the stats you work so hard to 'disrupt' apparently show that armed people do make a difference in

Deterring general violence…something you are currently benefitting from.

Not all experience is wisdom. It's all too easy to be emotionally scarred by an event and make bad decisions because of that experience. That's why it's important to try and get perspective on the things you experience, maybe even some counseling so that you don't end up having trouble detaching enough from the emotional content to make informed choices.

This is true, and this is precisely what you see in these discussions, people who have researched the right information out there to make the right informed decisions.

By what you are writing it seems you are being critical of Panther's ability to make the right informed decisions because of his stated emotional triggers on this subject matter. Again you are showing your conceit.

So do I understand that the way people think about things is influenced by their experiences, particularly traumatic ones? Of course I do. But you seem to be assuming that those experiences always equate to having a better perspective on these things, and I think that's quite clearly not how people work.

It is more of a 'better educated perspective' as fueled by experiences, good or bad, as opposed to 'no experiences' at all, Justin…something you still don't get after all these years of discussions.

No, Van, I do get that. I get that on a population level, the prevalence of gun ownership correlates strongly with lowered crime rates. And I get that in particular circumstances guns can prevent a crime or defend a person's safety. That doesn't mean that owning gun is necessarily an advantage for everyone. And the way you talk, you make it sound very much like you think everyone should own a gun because of all the horrible things that happen in the world.

No Justin, you don't get that, you are just making assumptions on the way that I think, mostly based on statistics that I post.

Obviously, If I though that, then I would be carrying a gun 24/7…something I never did/don't.

I think you better apologize to Panther for what you have implied as to his emotions.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:40 pm

Remember a few years ago, around 1995-1997 we were seeing a spate of car-jackings around the country? This crime would quite likley resurrect itself as it would be well known that motorists were defenseless.

And these crimes don't always involve just the theft of the car. People have been kidnapped, raped, beaten and robbed as the result of car-jackings.

Some states, notably the state of Louisiana, passed laws authorizing the use of deadly force to stop one of these crimes. As news reports started coming out about car-jackers being shot in different states the popularity of the crime declined significantly.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:44 pm

Criminals would quickly figure out that most average (unarmed) citizens can be overwhelmed by even a small group of criminals. Firearms crimes might drop, but we'd see a rise in other crimes, such as assaults and rapes because a group of criminals may be emboldened by their numbers.

Likewise, we'd see "new" crimes being committed. Car-jackings, home-invasions, gang robberies on busses or subways and so on, because the criminals would be secure in knowning that few citizens would be able to stop them.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:47 pm

We see that guns form a very real deterrent to crime mainly because the criminals don't know who has a gun in their house or not. A good benefit because otherwise we'd have to add a rise in home-invasion robberies to our lives.

Ultimate Gun Defense

'No guns' precipitates crime

keep reading

Something of interest