Originally posted by 27jd
Originally posted by Curiousisall
You said that gun rights PREVENT those things from happening. I just asked you to prove that is even a little bit true. Even a little.
Okay, nitpicker, I'll rephrase my statement. I believe gun rights prevent those things.
My reasoning for that belief, is that the person who plans to invade somebody's home would have to take into consideration that the homeowner may be armed, whereas in an area where there are no rights to bear arms, they could be fairly confident that they will not meet such resistance.
I don't need to back up my opinion with facts, nor could there be any reliable facts to back them up. I don't see too many polls that ask if somebody planned on invading a home, but decided not to and why.
As for shooting rampages, the right to bear arms may not prevent them, but it can certainly stop them much faster if there's an armed citizen in the area the shooting starts. If guns were to be made illegal in the U.S., just like drugs, there would be a black market for guns in which ONLY criminals would have guns.
edit on 26-9-2010 by 27jd because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Curiousisall
I know, that sounds good. It makes sense. Unfortunately home invasions happen all over the US all the time. Did you not know that? I can only conclude that the right to bear is NOT preventing home invasions. How do you conclude anything else?
The potential defensive nature of guns is indicated by the different rates of so-called "hot burglaries," where residents are at home when the criminals strike (e.g., Kopel, 1992, p. 155 and Lott, 1994). Almost half the burglaries in Canada and Britain, which have tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries." By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13 percent. Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveals that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."
So as for shooting rampages you are admitting you were maybe a bit off by claiming that the right to bear PREVENTS them? Or even that you BELIEVE it PREVENTS them? Why so angry?
Originally posted by Essan
(looks like the theft of the manhole cover may have a lot more to do with money than anything else - scrap metal is at an premium these days)
When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Police officers or armed guards cannot be stationed everywhere, so gun-control laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves.
Other countries have followed a different solution. Twenty or so years ago in Israel, there were many instances of terrorists pulling out machine guns and firing away at civilians in public. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found ordinary people pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings.
The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in the Middle East further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Times reported that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave.
Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said."
Hardly mentioned in the massive news coverage of the school-related shootings during the past year is how they ended. Two of the four shootings were stopped by a citizen displaying a gun. In the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss., which left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter while waiting for the police.
More recently, the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, was stopped only after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes.
Who knows how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?
Anecdotal stories are not sufficient to resolve this debate. Together with my colleague William Landes, I have compiled data on all the multiple-victim public shootings occurring in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. Included were incidents where at least two people were killed or injured in a public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in the Ferguson rampage, we excluded gang wars or shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings annually, with an average of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one.
We examined a range of different gun laws, such as waiting periods as well as methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.
The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws, which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but we could not conclusively determine such an effect.
Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Horrific events like the Colin Ferguson shooting receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively--including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are ignored.
Originally posted by stumason
So, tell me, how do you propose getting round that one?
EDIT: Besides, I never said Yanks were wrong, but rather stated it was Americans who get condescending about the UK and guns. You're the one who bleated about how Brits think Americans are wrong all the time. Ever stopped to think, that on this issue, you might actually be wrong?
Originally posted by stumason
We're just not and never have been a nation of gun lovers and it is totally disproportonate to suggest low-level petty crime should be dealt with by a magnum round to the face. It doesn't solve anything, but breeds more violence.
Thanks by the way... You made me sound just like the demon spawn nobjockey himself, Tony Blair...Urrrrgh
Originally posted by p51mustang
maybe over to icehouse ..up grand past van burnin up to roosevelt? fractured skull 96- boxers knuckle 02.