People who carry guns legally are less likely than average to be convicted of violent crimes, and working back from that I can conclude that they are less likely to commit them. Some say that "an armed society is a polite society," meaning that everyone is afraid to piss each other off. I've found that the contrary is true in personal experience, People I know who carry guns understand the extreme responsibility that comes with the capability to use deadly force and are more cautious when armed than not to avoid conflict, or its escalation when it is inevitable.

The media and popular culture have painted an unflattering portrait of gun owners, and although many seem to embrace the macho man/Wild West image, the majority are responsible people who simply want to be prepared for the worst.

I just want to remark that this is the first time in my life I've been referred to as the sound or voice of reason.

just a nagging question mr sd - I presume that with regard to a five year old being to id an ak vs. an sks you were speaking of the media- I own one of each, and at the time of my post none of the mall cam footage was released, and all the outlets were saying it was an SKS, so that was what I thought he had used......

sometimes i even surprise myself! :rolleyes:

Of course I meant the media, I don't have a very high opinion of them.

Looks like it was an AK after all.

cool- sorry for my insecurity- as to the media, on another forum they were complaining about how the media did not know computers or guns- and that they noticed it cause they knew a lot about those things- then one poster asked if anyone had thought about how little the media knew about all the things they (at the forum) knew nothing about- kind of scary when it is often our major source of info......

Hmmm. There's a difference here...no fear of death in paintballing.
I've played paintball with friends, and while it does hurt like a bitch, you're still more likely to actually aim carefully and shoot well than in a real life, real, letahl bullets situation.
Although the first time I played, someone came out of a door, with his gun over his head to admit defeat (he'd been shot). I was so nervous, I reacted quickly and shot him in the chest. That kind of thing could very well happen to someone with a legally-owned gun, in a high risk situation.

The whole concept of carrying a gun to theoretically protect yourself from a theoretical attack is laughable to me. I couldn't imagine preparing myself for an event of that likelihood every day. It's like stockpiling supplies for the Apocalypse, attempting to minimize personal risk to the point of obsession. I would be much more dangerous to myself with a gun than anyone else. I would also be more concerned about getting killed by the police if I WAS carrying a gun than by a random individual if I wasn't.

Besides, arming the populace will do nothing to prevent these kinds of attacks. Maybe end them faster, but not prevent them in the first place, which I think could be much more effective. When you WANT to die, the fact that other people might have guns is no deterrent, and none of these shooters have any delusions about the fact that they're going to die. They shoot first; somebody's going to die no matter how many other guns are around. They are all estranged from a society that they believe has wronged them. Some people just don't want to deal with life, and some further are determined to take others with them. Ask why that is, and maybe in the answers lies a better solution than more guns.

What kind of reality do YOU live in and who's fighting the war?

we have been looking for a "better solution" for thousands of years- ultimately, some people are broken and will fail in any society- until someone finds a mythical way to make everyone fit in and feel loved, I'll be getting my concealed carry permit- its more likely to give me an advantage over someone trying to end my life than believing in the goodness of the human spirit....

The study was done over 20 years ago, but in 1986, 60% of felons avoided committing crimes when they knew the potential victim was armed, 40% when they thought the potential victim might be armed, and that they avoided home invasions because they were afraid of being shot.

source: James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”,

In a survey of convicted felons,
74% agree that"one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is
that they fear being shot during the crime."
57% agree that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim
than they are about running into the police."
source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997


It is a deterrent.

60% is a D-. The other 40%? They open fire. It' call that a dangerous deterrant.

Statistically speaking, how likely is one to be shot by a felon if they aren't armed and pose no threat? I'm sure I can guess, but I'm hoping someone has a line on stats so that we can compare and contrast. It'd be silly to only have statistics for one side of a debate, after all.

Nice, if not dated, statistics. A deterrent, maybe, but a sloppy one considering how many women are shot by their partners and how many people die from self-inflicted gun-shot wounds.

But, really, what do home-invasions and muggings have to do with a guy losing his nut and shooting up a mall? Do you really think this guy would have changed his mind if he thought people were armed?

The kid only fired 15 shots ! Not enough time for anyone with a gun to react. 16th shot was to his own damn self. Depression sucks, but a depressed teen is horrible to see and its sad when they take other people out before they shoot themselves.

Jonathan

I was responding to the idea that a gun is a liability rather than an asset. Random shooting sprees like this can only be prevented by remaining vigilant and helping the mentally ill get the treatment that they need before they can become a threat to themselves and others.

Self-inflicted gunshot deaths are unfortunate, but a suicidal person who is intent on killing himself will find a way to do so. The statistic that family members are more likely to be killed by a gun than criminals was based on a study of a nonrandom sample of 43 incidents in two cities. The statistic of women being murdered in the home was a case study of only 266 incidents, did not use a random sample, and did not distinguish between legal and illegal guns. It also concluded that 54% of homicides of women in the home are committed without firearms, and that drug use and prior domestic abuse (which, if reported and addressed properly, will disqualify an abusive spouse from legally owning guns.)
According to the British Home Office (this was before the 1997 handgun ban, I don't have a definite date on the numbers but 1993 is coming to mind for some reason,) the chance of being injured by an armed robber was as follows:

Victim resisted with a gun; 6%
Victim did nothing at all: 25%
Victim resisted with a knife: 40%
Victim used non-violent resistance: 45%

Those numbers just shifted radically. When we ask the convicts, they say 40% will not be stopped by a gun. In the UK, it's closer to 6%?

The main reason I asked is because I'm pissed that it seems the whole internet is pro guns. I'd be okay if both sides were equally researched and evidence was presented, but they're not. I can't find the information on the flip side of your stats, MSD.

Obviously it must be the internets fault, not your strong assumptions.

How often are people who are unarmed shot during a robbery?

Go ahead. Google it.

How many home invasions where the homeowner is not armed are the homeowners shot?

Go ahead. Google it.

Accessibility is an issue:

Accessibility to firearms, particularly handguns, influences the rate of teen suicides. Handguns were used in nearly 70% of teen suicides in 1990, up 20% since 1970. A home with a handgun is almost ten times more likely to have a teen suicide than a home without. If you have a gun, please take every precaution when storing it.

(emphasis mine)

"...please take every precaution when storing it." (i.e. Make is as though it weren't there at all.) The sad truth is, this isn't being done nearly enough.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/thesilentepidemic...tors/guns.html
(I will dig up more recent statistics upon request.)

So, the fact remains, regardless, that 46% of homicides of women in the home are committed with firearms. Does this mean it is the leading method? It appears so.

In the USA, a gun in the home increases the risk that someone in the household will be murdered by 41%; but increases the risk for women by 272%;

It isn't an isolated problem:

In France and South Africa, one in three women killed by their husbands are shot; in the USA this rises to two in three;

Source: http://www.iansa.org/women/vaw/guns-women-en.pdf


* * * * *

Are you saying there is only one study? Are you suggesting that there isn't any other data? Who told you that, exactly?

wouldn't once be enough? within the last year, half a mile from my home, a store clerk was murdered during a robbery. He was unarmed. The mere thought that it could happen should be enough to make anyone carry. Those who 'play the odds' confuse the hell out of me. How can you 'play the odds' when your families welfare is at stake?

when THIS can happen, who cares how many? Would it matter to you if YOUR family were that one in whatever?

1 in 6 billion? No, that would not be enough. You'd have to be certifiably insane to prepare for something that has 6,000,000,000 to 1 odds to occur. Frankly, one would be certifiably insane to prepare for something that's 1,000,000/1 odds.
Well 4 miles from my house the other day, a store owner was not killed after working 30 years at the store. I can name hundreds of people I know who weren't killed last year, myself included (surprise!).

*knocks on door, lets himself in, is wielding big tube of KY jelly and a pair of handcuffs*

Hey... uh, I'm here for the gang bang.

note the church shootings in colorado today- most security that is armed has less strict rules/testing than it takes to get a CCW- (around here, for example, in the city there is a written test and a shooting test, but no training required, while a ccw requires a course- in the county you can just carry a gun with the employers permission) and an armed security guard stopped the gunman, not before he killed and wounded a few, but before he could kill more- as the pastor saids, the armed guard prevented a greater tragedy.... that tells me that more guns = less casualties..... or as malcolm reynolds said, "if someone tries to kill you, you kill em right back." armed people are by nature more likely to fight back, and that is what you SHOULD do if attacked......

and yet people wear seatbelts, have fire extinguishers, and buy insurance for something that may never happen.

Frankly, one would be certifiably insane to NOT prepare for the mere possibility that their family could be tortured and murdered.

Personally, willravel, I think that it is your immense animosity towards guns and violence that prevents you from even acknowledging anything other than 'guns are bad, mmmk?' and I sincerely hope your family never suffers for it.

Can we please keep a little perspective? One is far more likely to die in any combination of ways related to automobile crashes, fire, and other accidents than they are from a home invasion or random shooting.

Are you calling me insane for not owning a firearm? Or is this merely for you Americans where you are far more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than here in Canada?

If I told my family and friends that I had just bought a rifle, while living and Toronto and having no intention of being a hunter, they'd likely consider me a bit paranoid....or insane. But maybe you're right, DK. Maybe it would be insane not to have a firearm in the American home. But that doesn't mask the fact that there are far too many problems with firearms that have nothing to do with home invasions and random shootings. What can we do about those?

No. I am not saying you are insane for not owning a firearm. I'm saying that those who would say that the odds of their family being tortured, murdered, and mutilated are so low that they don't even bother considering it should be insane. My opinion is that my families safety, especially from those bent on criminal intent, is my highest priority, and it should be that way for others.

why?

For one, keep the violent offenders locked up instead of sentencing them to 25 years and then letting them out after 3 because the prison is overcrowded. For two, stop letting places like NYcity, chicago, DC, and california deprive the people of gun ownership while instilling good firearm safey values and make the criminal element scared to employ it's chosen career field.

There are an average of over 6 million auto accidents in the US alone every year. There are an average of over 1.5 million reported fires each year. How many shootings are there?
What? You prepare to be tortured? By whom?
Fortunately, unless I get lottery like odds drawn, they won't. I'm very fortunate that police in San Jose are really good and that there actually aren't many guns per capita in my area. Our crime rate is VERY low. (It's like living in Canada!) I'm more likely to be a finalist on American Idol.

Washington D.C. crime rate... say what?

Will, you've made your point. People that wear pants prepare for not being naked.

FINALLY someone gets what I'm saying!
*puts 3 pairs of jeans on, just in case*

*gives WillRavel a Romanian SAR-1 semiauto AK47 w/ 75 round drum*

This is in case of boredom. Point it at the paper targets, squeeze the trigger, enjoy the noise, and try not to think too much about things out of your control.

Fun, isn't it!?

I believe I will 'stick' with my sword for now,
and if I drop it, I will bend at the knees to pick it up.

/End Thread Jill.

I agree with your intent but disagree with your method.

Because the normal (i.e. sane) thing to do would be to install a sophisticated alarm system, move to a better neighbourhood, take self-defense courses, or a combination thereof.

I agree. Violent offenders should serve their sentences, but should have the opportunity for parole and only within a reasonable amount of time (3 years seems a bit short). Overcrowding is not a good reason, which is why it's good that de-industrialized and de-agricultrialized small-town America is shifting to prison farming. Well, it's not a good thing, considering America as a prison state needs to sort out its problems, but, for the time being, it's better to house your abject citizens rather than exterminate them.

And good luck scaring criminality out of criminals. Many criminals aren't that way by choice. It's not like they're going to be too afraid to rob or steal and decide to try corporate America to fulfill their crack habit or to shake off those loan sharks in fear of losing their kneecaps. You can't scare away desperation. Desperation is already afraid. That's how people get shot.

But I'm all for instilling firearm safety values, especially since there are so many guns floating around in America. Children should be taught how to avoid blowing their faces off when they find Daddy's "cool gun." But this only goes so far. The suicidal don't care about safety values, nor do enraged spouses. Oh, and murder suicides are usually a combination of the two.

and yet, it does seem to work.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

GAAAAHHHH... just typed out a long reply and lost it...now...
lets try again...

thats odd. a church with armed volunteer security guards.


guess i'm insane then.
i dont think believe that owning a gun would make any difference. first off, the gun would probably be stashed away somewhere in the house. if someone was breaking in to harm myself or my wife (we dont have children), chances are they would get me before i got the gun. if i was so paranoid that i kept the gun handy at all times, i probably shouldnt have one.
furthermore, the odds of someone doing that are probably the same as me winning a $150million+ lottery jackpot. i have no solid numbers but the occurances of both in my area are the same. 0.
my attitude towards gun ownership might admittedly be different if i lived in a high crime area. it might not. i dont know and i'm not moving to find out.

i seriously dont believe that more guns are the answer. these shootings are random events scattered across the country.
what needs to be done is improvements in the area of mental health. long term hospitals are a thing of the past. insurers dont pay. the short term hospitals dont take people without insurance. mental health workers are grossly underpaid and overworked. if resources were available, this kid may not have slipped through the cracks and got the help he needed.

/SUPER BONUS THREADJACK w/ LARGE FRY

My karate instructor, an eight time world champion in full contact freestyle martial arts competition was asked about his feelings regarding guns and self defense:

"You know what karate move I deploy when a man pulls a gun on me? Surrender."

There are only a handful of men on the planet that can fight like him, but he's made it quite clear that technology has one-upped the human body in that aspect.

"I've got two sets of amazing weapons: My hands and my feet. Neither of them are faster than a bullet."

All the martial arts training, physical fitness, situational awareness, and hardcore discipline in the world can be destroyed by some street thug with a loaded Glock and a functioning index finger.

Guns are not dangerous because they kill people efficiently... they're dangerous because any idiot can use them regardless of education or physical ability. That old pearl: "God didn't make men equal... guns did."

There is very little honor in firearms. They are not poetic. I like them as a hobby, not as a way of life. Maybe that is the fundamental difference between myself and some of the other "gun nuts" on the board here. Hard to tell at times... but if I had my way? I'd melt 'em all down and make 'em into motorcycle parts and there would be no more war.

Human violence would find a way, people. It is in our nature to destroy ourselves. As an crusty old paratrooper mentor of mine said: "Only the tools change."

NO FRIES! I'M ON ATKINS!
He should take Krav Maga. They have entire forms based on separating people from their guns at close range. Long range? Duck.
Well put.

I wish more people who have actually been in gun fights had such strong opinions about firearms. :D

Hmmmm...

So nice to see this devolve into the usual "Guns are the spawn of Satan." vs "Don't infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights." argument. I'd sure hate like hell to see anything refreshing.

The Westroads did, in fact, reopen last Saturday. The community turned out in force. Not to go to the mall, but to stand outside of it, in 13 degree cold, to counter protest a promised arrival of a contingent from the Westboro Baptist Church.
Yep, Freddie Phelps says all of this is 'cause o' them damn fags. Must've been to cold for the pussies, because they never did show up. Instead, those that showed up to counter protest, held a candlelight vigil. Oddly enough...I didn't see any of that on CNN, or the BBC. Guess it wasn't spectacular enough.

you answered your own question, then realizing that doesn't fit your agenda, sum it up with paranoia abounds claims?

The billionaire, jimmy buffet, suffered a home invasion a while back. I'm pretty sure that he lives in what would be considered a low crime area. Didn't seem to make a difference though.

Translation: "There are 1/1,000,000 odds that this will happen, but it's common because I point out that one case."
It's the same old song and dance. "BUT WILL, you wouldn't want to be that one!" No of course not, but it's so unlikely that preparing for it makes no sense. It'd be like preparing for a plane to land on your house or for my dog to learn how to speak. There are some things that are so unlikely that it really makes no sense to prepare for them. "But the second amendment...!" Yes, the second amendment, as it's currently interpreted, says you can have a gun. That's great, own a gun and try to be responsible with it. That hardly means that everyone will be responsible with their gun. If you need proof of that, read the OP. "Gun bans don't work!" Well they sure don't work in Washington D.C., which is within throwing distance of West Virginia, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the US. Obviously they can't stop every car that crosses the state border to check for guns, so it was never going to work. Fortunately, gun crime in the UK is working really well. That's not to say I think a gun ban would work in the US, just that it can work in some places.

Is that all the arguments we usually have? I wanted to get them out of the way so we don't threadjack.

Yeah, these stale old arguments need a good douche of Summer's Eve.

The problem with this debate is how "right" each side can be.

no. i was replying directly to your statement as it relates to me.