@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:Freedom lovers detest guns
What a foolish thing to SAY!
Do enjoy making a fool of yourself, Plain?
David
@engineer,
You only restricted your search to instances you wanted to use to "demonstrate" your point.
Guns are used over 2 million times a year in self defense, almost always without a shot being fired. Your 'stats' are cherry picked and not the least bit scientific or balanced.
Here is a nice case to which the USSC has cited with approval
in D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
The USSC says the following:
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
[i.e.: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"]
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in
the prefatory clause, [i.e., the militia clause]
in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]
@engineer,
OK I didn't read all the stories you linked to here but just off the top of my head I'm guessing that in most cases the people involved were not carrying legally i.e. in other words they were probably illegally in possesio0n of a gun. As such they made a decision to disregard the law before ever leaving the house. Typically in these kinds of stories you find you are dealing with people who really have no business with a gun or even sharp objects.
@ronc0011,
Welcome to A2K ronc,
Those people are called criminals and the armed public
has the right to defend themselves from said criminals.
@DrewDad,
Those statistics are skewed by including suicides.
@ebartley,
ebartley wrote:DrewDad wrote:I once found the statistic for how much more danger you're in from just having a gun around the house, let alone carrying one around with you.
A member of your household is many times more likely to get shot by the gun (by accident or by it being used in a domestic dispute), than for it to be successfully used in stopping a crime.
Those statistics are skewed by including suicides.
I'd say just plain skewed period.
The likelihood of "domestic violence" verses "having a criminal enter the home" has nothing to do with the presence of a gun.
If one is more likely with a gun present, it is also more likely without a gun present.
@engineer,
Constitutional rights: President Obama is a killing machine
@engineer,
If u turn your back upon the predator in a docile, humble effort
to retreat without hurting the bad guy, then u present an ez, undefended target.
If u stand and defend from the front,
then u get his partner, liberal government, mad at u,
poised to avenge the predator upon his brave victim.
David
"The concept of a citizen's right to bear arms has been the subject of one the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word 'fraud' -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime." US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1991
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:"The concept of a citizen's right to bear arms has been the subject of one the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word 'fraud' -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime." US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1991
Freedom-hating trash such as this burger clown always get quite bitter when they don't get away with violating people's rights.
Shame he was never waterboarded.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
plainoldme wrote:"The concept of a citizen's right to bear arms has been the subject of one the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word 'fraud' -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime." US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1991
Freedom-hating trash such as this burger clown always get quite
bitter when they don't get away with violating people's rights.
He wrote that in "Parade Magazine" (like "The National Inquirer")
between the horoscopes and the fertilizer ads.
The USSC proved him rong in 2008 and again in 2010,
with meticulous historical analysis.
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If u turn your back upon the predator in a docile, humble effort
to retreat without hurting the bad guy, then u present an ez, undefended target.
Nice thought, poetically presented, but contrary to the actual data.
Quote:Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.
"Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," he says.
As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, "we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period."
This goes back to my original post: if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like a nail. Some people carrying guns have a false sense of security that leads them to make poor decisions, putting them in a place where they feel they have to resort to the gun for "self defense". I'm sure you can point out many people that is not true for but the overall numbers show that a gun carrying population is not safer than our current situation.
@engineer,
engineer wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:If u turn your back upon the predator in a docile, humble effort
to retreat without hurting the bad guy, then u present an ez, undefended target.
Nice thought, poetically presented, but contrary to the actual data.
Quote:Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.
"Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," he says.
As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, "we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period."
I question the validity of this study. There have been tons of studies over the years making claims that sound something like this, and they all have tended to be bogus in the end.
Studies of "stand your ground" are fairly new, so I don't have concrete data to refute this particular study's claims. But it has the same old whiff of "balderdash" to it that all the other bogus studies have had.
Then again, who knows. Maybe this one is actually legit, and further scrutiny will bear that out. But I'm certainly going to wait until I know for sure before I accept the claims as valid.
engineer wrote:This goes back to my original post: if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like a nail. Some people carrying guns have a false sense of security that leads them to make poor decisions, putting them in a place where they feel they have to resort to the gun for "self defense". I'm sure you can point out many people that is not true for but the overall numbers show that a gun carrying population is not safer than our current situation.
The overall numbers (referring to carrying handguns in general, and not to this new study of "stand your ground") also show that letting people carry guns does not make it any more dangerous. In other words, no difference either way.
@oralloy,
I'd encourage you to read the study. As someone who designs and executes experiments for a living, I really liked the design of this one in terms of controls. Extracting social data is a lot harder than conducting process experiments, but I thought the layout was very good and the results very clear (which is something that often happens when you use good controls.)
@engineer,
It's funny how Lott's methods were good but the same methods that show different result are suddenly suspect.
@oralloy,
Quote:The overall numbers (referring to carrying handguns in general, and not to this new study of "stand your ground") also show that letting people carry guns does not make it any more dangerous. In other words, no difference either way.
Overall numbers are a bad way to study anything unless you want these facts to show that conceal carry and stand your ground increase homicides by more than double.
Gun deaths in Texas - Conceal carry and stand your ground state -1089
Gun deaths in Illinois - no conceal carry - 452
@parados,
parados wrote:Overall numbers are a bad way to study anything unless you want these facts to show that conceal carry and stand your ground increase homicides by more than double.
Gun deaths in Texas - Conceal carry and stand your ground state -1089
Gun deaths in Illinois - no conceal carry - 452
The overall numbers show that widespread concealed carry does not cause any noticeable increase in homicides, or any other social ills.
@oralloy,
Then explain why the overall number of homicides is more in Texas with widespread conceal carry compared to Illinois which does not have widespread conceal carry.
