Blame the shooter, not the gun

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


I think the ludicrous assumption is that the meth head telling me he is going to kill me is bluffing. That isn't really a situation where I want to gamble on the good nature of the person. He is already violently threatening me, engaging in criminal behavior, and acting in a less that civilized manner. I'm not banking on him having a sudden change of heart just because I say no.

Marko Kloos said it best in his essay, "Give Them Nothing."

It’s mind-boggling to me that there are people who perpetuate the dangerous myth that you can rely on the humanity and reason of a person who is already threatening to kill you over the contents of your wallet, an entirely inhumane and unreasonable act in itself.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Fair point, well made...

However.... their is a MASSIVE difference between saying you will kill somebody, and actually doing it... that is all I am pointing out....

I would be very surprised if as you stated, in each of thoses situations each of the assailants actually said "I'm going to kill you"... are you possibly hamming it up, just a little bit??

I wish I could see statistics for how many times people had said "I'm going to kill you", and then actually carried it out.... that would help the situation!!

PA

reply to post by AtcGod


I'm assuming you have never heard of the U.S. Constitution and pay zero attention to the tools used to give you the freedom to act like a moron.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Sorry, but there's some simple math that proves you're paranoid.

In America, as you have noted, 25% of the population protects themselves from about 1 million attacks.

However, only about 100,000 people are shot every year.

So, even if we assume that no one with a gun is threatened, that's still a 10/1 ratio. More likely 30/1+.

What that means is that for every time someone pulls a gun and shoots someone they DON'T shoot someone 29 times.

Now, 100,000 shooting victims is a lot, but those on the right think that's just necessary collateral damage, and they control this debate.

Originally posted by longlostbrother


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

edit on 24-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

Wow. seriously....just WOW.

Not a big fan of freedom are you?

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


You equate freedom with guns; I don't.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


We are free here in the UK.... certainly as "free" as you are in the US....

And yet we don't see the need to associate the concept of freedom with gun ownership.... You can be "free" without owning a gun you know....

Your concept of freedom is frightening..... yes, you would probably be free to protect yourself... but you are certainly not free from paranoia....

PA

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


The meth head told me he was going to bash my head in and take what was in my pockets. I definitely take that as the threat of death.

The homeless guy said "I'm not asking I'm telling you" and proceeded to pull a shiv from his pocket and lunge at me. As I backed up and started to draw he actually said "I'll kill you." Amazingly he changed his mind when he had a gun about three feet from his nose.

The guy in a busy shopping center actually pursued me as I was backing away. That is at the minimum a threat to do extreme harm. I'm not banking that he had a surgeon's knowledge of carving flesh in a non fatal manner. To me that is threatening my life.

The guy that threatened me and my mother as a kid was holding a large hunting knife on me and my mother and said "I will make them bleed." Definitely a threat of death when you have a hunting knife near a person's throat.

Saying "I will kill you" is not enough by itself. The person has to show that they have the ability and opportunity. Threatening language alone is not grounds for lethal force.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd

 

You equate freedom with guns; I don't.

Firearms are the tool used to gain freedom in the U.S.

Ever heard of that little thing called the Revolutionary War?

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


While freedom everywhere is on the decline, I'm sure as a brit you are free to bow to your haggard old "queen", free to smile at all of your government sponsored surveillance cameras, free to pay confiscatory tax rates, and free to read about how the U.S. kicked the collective asses of the brits and now protects them.

Of course you can be free without owning a gun. You can also be free to be victimized and rely on others to protect you since the idea of personal protection is a foreign concept to you.

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


So for you UK guys, say someone rises to power in your country that everyone supports and has great ideas/policies at first (i.e.the way the general population supported Hitler) Then as time goes by imposes a bunch of strict laws and other policies that you don't agree with. In your "peaceful" culture where only the police/military have weapons, how exactly would your population be able to remedy that situation?

I mean sure you could all riot in the streets and burn stuff/flip cars, but what are you really going to do, when people knock on your doors to take you to camp?

I'm not paranoid, I simply firmly believe in using the resources available to me in order to be prepared for any number of situations that could possibly arise.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Could you provide some sources? I have done that with my claims.

According to the 1994 survey National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, 35% of Americans owned guns. So, that is a bit more than a quarter of Americans. A gallup poll from 2005 showed that 47% of men and 13% of women reported owning a gun. Their findings in their "Gun Ownership and Use in America" article from 2005 shows that 30% of Americans own a gun. That is still more than a quarter of Americans. That actually puts the number of gun owning Americans at over 90 million.

What you are ignoring is that the vast majority of people being shot each year are actually criminals being shot by other criminals. As I stated before only about one precent of defensive gun uses result in any one being shot. (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics) That means the number of people shot defensively would be about 8,908. (The actual rate was 0.9%)

According to studies done by the cities of Charlotte and Milwaukee, 71% of gun shot victims had a previous arrest record, 64% had been convicted of a crime and on average they had 11 previous arrests. (Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission, July 13, 2009)

According to a study in San Francisco, 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). (Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002)

The majority of people getting shot are criminals either in the act of committing a crime or being shot by the criminals thy associate with. They are not being shot by your average gun owner.

ETA:
According to the above mentioned Gallup poll 40% of Americans report living in a home where a gun is owned. So, that is a little more than 120 million Americans with ready access to guns.

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

Thats what ive been trying to tell them! What does it say about their country if they feel they need to be armed to kill at all times! Ive NEVER been in a situation where a gun might of helped and i most likely never will be.
Americas paranoid in general. Their ability to hold people indefinitely on suspicion kinda proves it, the old stop crime before it happens.
Theyve got every citizen thinking theyre in constant danger.
Great place you got there guys (y)

reply to post by lambs to lions


Very well said. I lost a friend years ago to a crazy with a gun. I was fearful and freightened by guns for awhile and didn't think anyone should have a gun, then I became educated. Here is a video from Natural News that easily explains why I am pro-gun. I think if everyone carried and were property educated and trained on gun safety, the crazies out there will think twice before pulling a gun on someone. Sorry I don't know how to link.
www.naturalnews.com...

last night a man armed with 2 sharp pencils managed to kill12 people and injure 58 others......nope, you really need a gun to pull that off.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Proving your paranoia even further there! We know for a fact that if our government was going to do that they would fail miserably. Politics is different here. The average citizen doesnt give a flying f**k about whts happening in parliament, the gap between the rich and everyone else couldnt be much bigger. Working class People generally arent bothered by whats going on, it never seems to affect us, we just sit back and laugh at the sad little squabbling little private scool boys who "run the country" we just do our thing at get on with it. NOT arming ourselves to the teeth thinking the governments one day gonna take all our freedoms away!
Americas supposed to be the land of the free, yet the government has you all cowering in fear of them

reply to post by SoulSearching8

I understand, but i think anyone can become a crazy and whats to say they dont already own like 5 guns?

reply to post by Wongbeedman


I am American woman and I don't feel like I am in constant danger. However, crime does happen. No one ever thinks it will happen to them. I like to know that I can defend myself just in case I happen to be the one targeted by a criminal. You can bet I will take their life before they take mine, or my children. Its not being paranoid, its just being smart.

no way in hell you can blame the gun. guns don't load themselves, and guns don't shoot by their self. a person has to load it and shoot it, and the person that did that was the aurora shooter, so he is the one to blame.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
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

I disagree. If someone points a weapon at you and says "give me the money or I'll kill you" it is perfectly reasonable and logical to assume that your life is in jeapordy.