Blame the shooter, not the gun

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


Pretty much spot on.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It's quite simple: by blaming the gun you are relieving the criminal of some responsibility for the crime.

That tends to be the hallmark of the liberal/leftist and pro-government thought process.

It isn't his fault. It is the gun's fault. If he couldn't have bought the gun nobody would have been hurt.

It isn't his fault if he robs somebody. Society oppressed him and he felt hopeless.

It isn't his fault he raped that girl. He was abused as a child. He needs counseling instead of jail.

Don't fight back, just give them what they want. All they want is respect and a chance in life. They won't hurt you.

It isn't your fault you got fat. McDonald's is at fault because they don't sell organic vegan food.

The list of examples can go on and on. It is the new American way. Blame everything except the person responsible.

Here is a little statistical analysis for those talking about how evil guns are and how many people get killed. According to the study entitled "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, in March of 2000, it was found that people use guns for legal self defense 989,883 times per year. In that same year there were 15,517 total murders. That means for every life maliciously taken by any means about 63.8 lives were saved.

Now remember when you say, "but if it saves one life," you're saying "I don't care if it costs 63 lives."

reply to post by RainbeauBleu


This has become one of my big questions lately. I take it a bit farther though. It isn't just about being on the drugs. What about all of the pharma drugs that get in to the water system through human waste and people dumping old pills down the toilet? How about all of the chemicals farmers are forced to spray on their crops and feed their animals to get loans. We are being chemically altered every time we drink or eat. Is it possible that this is leading to the rise in these crimes? How about the rise in Autism and other mental "disorders?"

We really do need to look at the chemical abuses our bodies sustain and ask where it is headed.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Sorry, but using a gun for self defence does NOT equal a life saved.

reply to post by MikeNice81

That is an overwhelming ratio and an important statistic. Thanks for putting it out there.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


and not true.

The 989,833 number came from people who said yes to this question:

Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere?

It was also NOT a national survey, but the numbers were extrapolated from a smaller sample set

this study did not use a nationally representative population.

www.justfacts.com...#[18]

They tried their best to make the numbers correct, but who knows.

The other figure is interesting. The FBI says only 200 people are killed in with a gun, each year, in self-defence...

200 vs 989,883

You can choose to believe the 989,833 number (though not that that represents the number of lives saved - that's BS, on its face), but I'd guess most of those million incidents are people that had a gun in their hand when they yelled at someone to get off their lawn - hardly a life saved.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Here is the whole list of people federally outlawed from owning guns and ammo.

It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition: someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.

It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.

It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.

It is also illegal to sell a gun to someone if you believe or know they are going to transfer it to someone in the listed categories. That is known as a straw sell and can get your FFL license yanked. However, it is okay when the BATFE tells you to do it and help arm the cartels.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do...

...or something.

reply to post by mushrooms


I love when people throw out the "Old West" tripe. You do know that you were more likely to be killed in Baltimore in 2008 (on a per capita basis) than in Tombstone in 1881, right? Baltimore and MAryland in general, have some of the toughest gun and weapons laws in the country. Yet Baltimore is considerred one of the most dangerous cities to live in.

From The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality By Thomas J. DiLorenzo published in the Fall 2010 issue of The Independent Review.

In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

The wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers’ behavior.

That is just a small part of a very long article on the topic. Do some research and you will find that the reality of the "Old West" is much different than what Louis L'amour and Hollywood have told you.

Originally posted by AtcGod
I agree with stiffer punishments. Ban guns and if someone gets caught with one, then they get dragged into the street right there and shot in the head. Let's see how many folks continue to carry guns illegally then (in a gun free society.)

The public do not need guns. If you want to hunt, use a bow or traps. If you want to overthrow the government....well it will take more than you, your buddies and your AR-15's.

We could have a gun free society. And since the majority of the US population will never own a gun anyway, it seems like a reasonable thing do to.

I agree with cruel and unusual punishment, if you commit a violent crime beyond all reasonable doubt, the same should be fitted upon you ten fold. No pass go, no three squares, no warm cot.

Your last statement is completely incorrect, although you may be right for the district in which you live, I would love for you to show me the statistics for the whole of the U.S.

You anti-gun supporters say what you want, if someone broke into your house, raped your significant other and killed your children, you would think differently. If you are, God forbid ever the victim of a violent crime and have no way to defend yourself, your views will change. You might want to look it up, violent crimes are not that uncommon. I know that will shock you all, since America is so peaceful and we have no reason to defend ourselves from anything.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

Sorry, but using a gun for self defence does NOT equal a life saved.

Actually that is pretty much what it means. To be considered legal self defense you must be in fear of loss of life, grave and serious bodily injury, or rape.

Of course for me it did mean saving my life. I mean considering the two meth heads with a tire iron told me they planned to smash my head in and rob me. I didn't have to fire a shot, but they sure did change their mind in a hurry when they realized I wasn't going to be easy prey.

Me or a family member having a gun has directly saved my life four times. I have had a homeless guy attempt to shank me while pumping gas, a man try to rob me with a knife in a parking lot in the middle of the afternoon, and when I was a kid a man with a knife threatened to kill me and my mother if my father didn't had over his paycheck. I was also approached by a pair of meth addicts carrying a tire iron. I was pumping gas when they tried to flank me and threatened to bash my head in. Each time the presence of a gun discouraged the criminal without a shot being fired.

I have also stopped a home invasion because I had a gun on hand. Two gentleman (loosely speaking) were trying to break in to my neighbor's home. She was an 80+ year old invalid recovering from a stroke and cancer. What would they have done to her had they gotten inside? I don't know but considering one of them tried to rush me despite the fact that I had a rifle, I doubt it would have been good. Again no shots were fired, but the presence of my rifle stopped the attack on her home and possibly her person.

So, don't think you're talking with someone that deals in the abstract world of statistics and emotions. I've been there. I've had friends that have been there and unfortunately weren't armed. I also work for a PD and get to see what happens when the wolves come howling at the door. I've done the research and seen what really happens in life.

reply to post by clayb2004


Actually, I saw a guy shot, standing next to me, I was also pistol whipped and saw a race riot, where I grew up, in the US. And my childhood home was also robbed, three times in about a month.

Still, I would happily outlaw 99% of guns in America.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Self defense does not have to result in the death of the person you are defending against. The vast majority of defensive situations result in no shots being fired. That means it goes in the stats as an "attempted" crime against the gun owner instead of as a self defense issue. That only happens if the gun owner/defender calls in and reports what happens. Many times the incident is never reported to authorities because people are afraid they will be made the bad guy by police officers.

The justifiable homicide rate is in no way an indicator of the number of self defense uses every year. That is a red herring that shows a lack of understanding and research in the matter.

According to some analyses of the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics over 6,000 crimes a day were stopped by people with guns. In only about 1% of all cases were the guns even fired. That would put the number closer to 2.19 million violent crimes stopped per year. I went with the more conservative number in my previous post.

reply to post by MikeNice81


You're talking a 5000/1 ratio. That's kinda a big ratio.

On top of that you claimed all million of those were "lives saved" when they're clearly not.

But sure, lecture me on understanding the data I present.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Well, considering those facts I have to say your thought process confuses me and leaves me a little dumbfounded. I cannot reasonably fathom why any person subjected to violent acts would not look for and approve of a means to protect themselves. I wouldn't think humans would want to willingly be helpless victims to other humans with lesser moral aptitude.

Ban guns and if someone gets caught with one, then they get dragged into the street right there and shot in the head. Let's see how many folks continue to carry guns illegally then (in a gun free society.)

Who gets to have the gun used for the head shot?

Can we do that with other crimes also as it would save court time and people would not need to be jurors.

I believe in the constitutional right to defend yourself with a gun. And I reckon if there had been at least 1 armed civilian in the theater that night s/he could've prevented the loss of so many lives. Look at Samuel Williams who shot at a couple of would-be robbers in a Florida internet cafe a few weeks back. And let's say the armed civilian is killed in the shootout and drops their gun at least this still might give others trapped in the theater with a chance to pick up the gun and fire back. Wouldn't you rather go out fighting and firing back even if there was the slightest chance of saving your own life or other peoples lives instead of being executed like a dumb sheep? At the same time though I do wonder why we permit people to buy weapons that really should only be used in a war situation like machine guns, etc. Then again the argument could be put why do we allow car manufacturers to enable their vehicles to travel at speeds over and above 120km for instance when the maximum limit in most places is 100km. And yet we have hoons and thugs racing at speeds in built up areas to escape apprehension from the cops and threatening the lives of other motorists and pedestrians. If we're going to argue for gun control then shouldn't we be arguing for car speed control too just to be consistent?!

reply to post by MikeNice81


The error in your thinking is that in each of these situations the person trying to attack you was going to kill you....

Now that's a ludicrous assumption...... just because someone threatens you does not mean they are prepared to kill you..... the majority of gun crime is committed without a shot being fired.....

PA

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

You're talking a 5000/1 ratio. That's kinda a big ratio.

On top of that you claimed all million of those were "lives saved" when they're clearly not.

But sure, lecture me on understanding the data I present.

That is why I went with the much lower 63:1 ratio. There are also some estimates that put the number at 1.5 million, 1.2 million, and 1.029 million. I went with the lowest number that was published in a peer reviewed journal and then used the lower peer reviewed and corrected numbers. Then I compared it against the murder rate of the same year according to the FBI's Unified Crimes Report. That is actually a pretty sound method for determining the ratio of defensive uses versus all forms of murder.

You are not legally allowed to use a gun for self defense (in the vast majority of jurisdictions) unless you have the fear of death, grave and serious bodily injury (injury that could lead to death, vegetative state, or permanent disability) or rape. That even applies to instances where you are protecting property. So, you are right. I overstated. Let me rephrase myself. About 63 people stop their lives from being permanently ruined or taken for every 1 person that is murdered by any means. That is one of the most conservative estimates out there.

Take the repeated studies and surveys a step further.

In Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms it was found that 60% of convicted felons surveyed said that they had purposefully avoided targets they knew to be armed. 40% of those surveyed said they had avoided targets they "believed" were armed.

According to The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997 57% of felons surveyed said they agree that criminals are more afraid of meeting an armed citizen than a police officer. Over 70% agreed that burglars avoided breaking in to homes that were occupied because they were afraid of being shot.

So, the conservative estimate it that nearly a million people defend themselves with a firearm every year. Plus the majority of convicted criminals admit they are scared of running in to armed prey. Tell me again why I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. It seems pretty obvious to me that they actually minimize the threat to me and my family.

reply to post by cameraobscura


Regular people cannot buy "machine guns" in the US. The purchase of such would require a Class 3 license and a ton of paperwork, (not to mention money) submitted to the ATF. The most any "normal" person can obtain is a semi-automatic weapon. A semi-automatic weapon does not keep firing when you hold the trigger down. It is one shot per trigger pull.

I truly do not know if one person with a weapon could have stopped this man, as most legally concealed weapons have barrels between 2" and 4" and are accurate mainly to 7-10 yds (fighting distance). This guy was wearing armor which means a necessary game ender would have had to have been a neck or head shot. A shot that size on a moving target at 15 or so yards could be challenging at the least. Factor in that it was dark, adrenaline, noise, other factors, it would have been difficult, to safely put it.

What I can guarantee, is that once someone fired at the man, whether it was a finishing shot, glancing blow or complete miss, is that there WOULD have been a REACTION/RESPONSE. The man would have went down, or at least returned fire with his attention on the other shooter. I believe this would have allowed more people to exit the theater.