"hapaboy Elite Member Registered: Oct 2001 Posts: 1073 05-23-03 03:02 AM Some Statistics Every 13 seconds in America a privately owned firearm is used to prevent a violent crime. That's almost 2.5 million incidents a year. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, 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." "As the data I posted earlier proves, having a gun is the best means to defend oneself bar none." What is the difference between hard evidence used to gather relevant and meaningful statistics, and "evadenz" that good old boys use to support a bias. The above quoted "statistics" are from defenders who have a belief. Of course they believe that guns are necessary, they own them! Do self reported beliefs by those who have a bias toward gun ownership for protection and defense constitute proof and validity sufficient to support a case, and do the statistics constitute proof? This is the difference between hard science and hackery. Hacks look for self reported studies, which are well known to be quite invalid statistically, when the people who are being interviewed have a pre-existing bias. Imagine Betty Lou was confronted by someone wanting all her money. She pulls out here 45 magnum, and says "over my dead body." Just how do you think Betty Lou is going to respond to the questionnaire? She is pre-disposed to answer in favor of gun ownership. Consequently, her response is not considered valid and objective, nor does it constitute proof simply because she "believed" the gun to be a factor in the outcome of the situation. There is no proof that if Betty Lou had reasoned with the attacker, or had a non lethal weapon, that the outcome would have been any different. ____________________________________________________ Here are some hard facts, not quasi statistical evidence based on self reported studies: Gun Death - International Comparisons Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): Country.................Homicide..........Suicide..........Unintentional USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999) Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997) Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) - Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) - England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999) Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997) * Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network ____________________________________________________ Regarding suicide and guns, and the claim that those who are going to kill themselves will find another way, perhaps. However, I doubt that kids would have killed so many at Columbine, Santanna H.S.-----or postal workers who go crazy at a McDonalds would have been successful carrying sleeping pills. The revealing aspect of the suicides are how many involving guns also involved the killing of others in the process. That will tell you that guns, not controlled properly, are a danger to more than just the person whos want to jump off of a bridge to end their life. I doubt that in Canada more people died in the process of someone jumping off of a bridge in a suicide attempt, than did a person who took out family members or others who just happened to have a loaded gun at their disposal.
In the words of our great NRA President Chuck Heston, " From my cold dead hands..." Denying a free person the right to self defense is immoral. We have no obligation to respect or obey gun control statues, no more than we would obey slavery laws. All real Americans should possess and be ready to use in defense of our freedoms the most effective firearms you can lay your hands on. Anything less is an insult to our Founders.
A Gun Named Jesus As soon as I could afford him I've held Jesus close to my heart Since then he's been my savior When the red rivers part Jesus in my holster Jesus in my hand Jesus spitting out hot lead All across the land He's come to judge you Determine your final fate When you see him it's judgment day Pray you don't be late Jesus in my holster Jesus in my hand Jesus spitting out hot lead All across the land If ain't been sinnin' Then you better not start Or I'll get out Jesus And he'll let light into your heart Jesus in my holster Jesus in my hand Jesus spitting out hot lead All across the land (c) 2001 Hidden Agenda
As usual, Optional777 makes no sense. If gun owners were as biased as he says they are, the percentages would be much higher than say a mere 15% claiming someone would have died in a confrontation. And note how he does not even attempt to debate the noted anti-gun criminologist's opinion. I suppose the Dept. of Justice is biased, too, huh Op? Keep living in your make believe world. Optional=VICTIM
As stated previously, Jesus isn't the guy you have to worry about breaking into your home or raping your wife or daughter or killing them. If religion means anti-violence, you should be condemning even the use of non-lethal weapons, shouldn't you? Why not debate the Crusades then while you're at it?
Ex-president. His brains are now officially potholed. He'll retire to Hawaii, a haven for senile fools. Rights to firearms/gun control issues should devolve to the states. The constitutional amendment declaring the "right to bear arms, a well regulated militia..." was intended to allow states the right of self defense. Recall, 220 years ago a state could be the point of foreign attack (or even internicine attack) and the states as a whole could take months to mount a defense. State militias existed well into the 19th century.
Why debate the crusades? Every intelligent 21th century thinker knows they were barbaric in the light of the evolution of mankind since that time frame. Here is a simple method to reveal the hypocrisy of many gun nuts who rest their argument for gun ownership on their understanding of the constitution and what they think the founding fathers had in mind when they scripted the constitution: First ask them if they have the ability to think hypothetically. Most of they will get self righteous, intimating "how dare you suggest that I can't think hypothetically." Few will understand what it means to think hypothetically, but rather than admit their dense mindedness, they acquiesce to the challenge. Then say: "You believe we have the right to own guns because of your understanding of the constitution, correct? Well, imagine there was a constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of ownership of all weapons by private citizens." Here they will go a bit crazy. "Impossible they scream. That could never happen." You reply: "Sure, it probably won't happen, but we are just discussing a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument, you do know what hypothetical is, don't you? (they of course don't want to admit they don't know what hypothetical is) So imagine that there was an amendment to the constitution that revoked the citizen's rights to bear arms. Would you give up your right to bear arms, as it would be unconstitutional to bear arms in this hypothetical situation? Would you follow the constitutional nature of our society and government?" If they say no, then their whole argument about gun ownership being based in the constitution is a sham, as they are only using the constitution to support some other real reason for gun ownership. If they say yes, they will not like it one bit....but at least they are being true to the essence and spirit of the constitution, which allows for ammendments and changes. After all, it is a living and breathing constitution....although many don't understand that concept and still live in a 200 year old mentality. Likely most will just get frustrated, and refuse to answer the question repeating over and over again, "but that could never happen." If deeply disturbed enough, they might even go and look up the term hypothetical in a dictionary, at which time they will just get angry......go get their gun and clean it.
If the law is changed and forbids firearms, I will follow the law. I understand what "hypothetical" means. Do you understand the meaning of "hypocritical"? You should as you are the master of it. All your whining aside, you still have not addressed the issues of firearms being used for self-defense. Furthermore, you have failed to address the very real fact that if you or your loved ones are ever threatened with harm or worse, all you will be able to confront your attackers with will be pleas for mercy. Optional777=VICTIM
So when are you making the move? We're very tolerant of immature, feeble-minded New Yorkers. Like the capital punishment issue? So when the majority of states allow firearms, I suppose you'll be screaming along with your buddy Beavis/Optional that the states' are wrong, that it takes time to change things, and then throw in a discussion about slavery. LOL! Time to huddle back up with your guru Optional and formulate a new strain of nonsense.