Mount Vernon Killing: Evidence Gun laws dont matter

Chapdog said:
I live life assuming everyone has a gun. Safest way to be.
Click to expand...
I live life by the notion of "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword", though I'm a stuanch defender of the second amendment.

What amazes me and confounds me is the disconnect I see between rural gun enthusiast and urban groups who have to deal with the criminal consequences of the easy availability of firearms.
 
Topspin said:
it's the supply of guns, please read up on how many murders in Europe
Click to expand...
And as the population of Europe becomes less and less homogenous, the rate crime rates have gone up. The piece I posted on german crime rates says that. There is also not near the class destinctions in Western Europe as there are here. Guns are used in the US legally far and away more than they are used illegally. There is almost one gun for every man woman and child in the US. When compared to the number of times a gun is used criminally, it becomes a fairly insignificant statistic. Unfortunately not so much for the victims of crime.
 
Topspin said:
it's the supply of guns, please read up on how many murders in Europe
Click to expand...

No it's not the supply of guns. There are plenty of nations with plenty of gun owning citizens (Switzerland and Israel for example) that have much lower crime. And on the opposite end of the spectrum you have countries that have virtually no guns, and little crime (Japan). Now is you wanted to look only at GUN crime, then yes, supply can affect that. But it has been shown for decades that VIOLENT crime, is unaffected by gun supply or gun law.
 
LOFL, site a single country and say many alst while dodging the main point.

England and France are the countries most like us socially, much less supply of guns and much less murder rates.
I'm not interested in talking points taught by the NRA to ward off sensible people.
 
Chapdog said:
Its evidence that crime still is committed even without guns and limiting the right of homeowners to have guns invites more home invasion crime and less defense.
Click to expand...
To be honest with you, A number of years back I was in just such a situation. I was traveling a lot for work and had to leave my wife behind in our house out in the country. Instead of a firearm (which I did consider and try) I opted for a big black dog. That worked out quite well. The gun, though certainly a viable option, was not nearly as affective as the big black dog. So I see a certain bias in your point. There are other solutions then guns. Again, I stress, that guns are a viable option. One could also draw the conclusion that using both, a big black dog and a gun, is very affective indeed. LOL
 
Topspin said:
LOFL, site a single country and say many alst while dodging the main point.

England and France are the countries most like us socially, much less supply of guns and much less murder rates.
I'm not interested in talking points taught by the NRA to ward off sensible people.
Click to expand...

You scoff at the mentioning of a couple countries for my purposes and then commit the same offense your self. England and France are like us socially in many ways, but not when it comes to the carrying of arms, as are the nations I pointed out, so my comparison is more appt.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
To be honest with you, A number of years back I was in just such a situation. I was traveling a lot for work and had to leave my wife behind in our house out in the country. Instead of a firearm (which I did consider and try) I opted for a big black dog. That worked out quite well. The gun, though certainly a viable option, was not nearly as affective as the big black dog. So I see a certain bias in your point. There are other solutions then guns. Again, I stress, that guns are a viable option. One could also draw the conclusion that using both, a big black dog and a gun, is very affective indeed. LOL
Click to expand...

As are Mace, knives, martial arts, etc. The point is choice. And that guns are very effective, hence their use by police and the military.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
As are Mace, knives, martial arts, etc. The point is choice. And that guns are very effective, hence their use by police and the military.
Click to expand...

i dont think that that was what he was talking about. dog = deterrence, not defense. i, for one, cant tell if there is a gun inside a house or not (x-ray vision would be SO cool), but i will notice a big black dog in the front yard. not that i would scope out houses for potential break-ins.
 
MOe said:
i dont think that that was what he was talking about. dog = deterrence, not defense. i, for one, cant tell if there is a gun inside a house or not (x-ray vision would be SO cool), but i will notice a big black dog in the front yard. not that i would scope out houses for potential break-ins.
Click to expand...

Oops, my mistake. My point still hold water though.
 
Chapdog said:
One of the more heinous crimes I have seen in awhile. Imagine you live in the rural suburbs in a quiet peaceful community where many don't even lock there doors. Your 42year old nurse wife and 11yo daughter are left at your hard earned home while you are away on business.

Then 4 punks decide to invade your home and hack up your wife and daughter with a knife and a machete just for the hell of it.

This is the evidence I would present when I see the argument that there is no need for people to have personal firearms.
#1) criminals will still commit crime
#2) victims will be more powerless to defend.
Click to expand...

1. Do you know for certain if this woman put in for a gun permit?
2. If she did, do you know if she was approved or denied?
3. Did you research how many homes WITH guns and/or rifles have suffered criminal invasions?
4. Did you research how many victims there were in #3.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
To be honest with you, A number of years back I was in just such a situation. I was traveling a lot for work and had to leave my wife behind in our house out in the country. Instead of a firearm (which I did consider and try) I opted for a big black dog. That worked out quite well. The gun, though certainly a viable option, was not nearly as affective as the big black dog. So I see a certain bias in your point. There are other solutions then guns. Again, I stress, that guns are a viable option. One could also draw the conclusion that using both, a big black dog and a gun, is very affective indeed. LOL
Click to expand...

A good option if you want to be executed under the coming Socialist revolution.
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. Do you know for certain if this woman put in for a gun permit?
2. If she did, do you know if she was approved or denied?
3. Did you research how many homes WITH guns and/or rifles have suffered criminal invasions?
4. Did you research how many victims there were in #3.
Click to expand...

There's no mention of a gun in the article so it is possible she had one. Also, it says she was murdered in her bed, so maybe she was asleep when she was attacked, and a gun wouldn't have helped her anyway.
 
This site, http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html , takes you to a paper by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph.D, who conducted the the National Self Defense Survey along with Marc Gertz. You will also find paperless version of J. Neil Schulman's book on gun use for self defense. Both are very informative and they will lay out how millions of people a year use fire arms to deter crime without ever firing a shot. If you do a search of Dr. Kleck on Google you will find some critiques of his findings and typically elsewhere you will find his response to those critiques. If you go here, you will find one such response. Dr. Kleck is no "gun nut" but a man who set out to examine the use of firearms in self defense. He made no suposition at the outset of his survey and let the chips fall where they might. If you are going to adequately debate this issue, you should know both sides of the story. Dr. Kleck is an excellent source for just that.
 
Socrtease said:
This site, http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html , takes you to a paper by Dr. Gary Kleck, Ph.D, who conducted the the National Self Defense Survey along with Marc Gertz. You will also find paperless version of J. Neil Schulman's book on gun use for self defense. Both are very informative and they will lay out how millions of people a year use fire arms to deter crime without ever firing a shot. If you do a search of Dr. Kleck on Google you will find some critiques of his findings and typically elsewhere you will find his response to those critiques. If you go here, you will find one such response. Dr. Kleck is no "gun nut" but a man who set out to examine the use of firearms in self defense. He made no suposition at the outset of his survey and let the chips fall where they might. If you are going to adequately debate this issue, you should know both sides of the story. Dr. Kleck is an excellent source for just that.
Click to expand...

Kleck is not as balanced and reliable as you think. Check this out:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/david-hemenway/files/Review_of_Gary_Kleck_2004.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/09/dgu-00050.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top