Self defense not a valid reason to own a firearm

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really, using a gun in a crime should carry a stiffer penalty and that has ZERO to do with legal fire arm ownership.

The right to self defense is a god given right and cannot be given by the state, but the state sure tries to take it away.

If someone kills someone in 'self defense', does that make them automatically a hero? What if they are a psychopathically motivated killer who took advantage of the situation to 'get their perverse thrills' in a way that they would not be prosecuted for?

Have you never heard a Jim Croce song?
If you have to go to absurd extremes to make your point....you might not have a point.

No more absurd than expecting that bad guys won't take as much advantage as they can get of every piece of poorly worded legislature.

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are an average of 31,808 gun deaths in the USA every year, from 2016, going back to 1999. That is a total of 572,538 deaths over that 17 year period. In terms of the alleged "tens of thousands of times it HAS been used in self defense, or in defense of another" that's a fairly damning statistic.

US Gun Deaths by Year - Brittannica ProCon.org

Ah, statistics. What are these numbers really telling us?

#1 Cause of Homocide - 67.7% of all homocides.

Well, yeah. Makes sense. If you plan to go out and kill somebody, a gun is a good choice. It's quick and efficient. Sure, it would be nice to pull off a poisoning that looks like a heart attack, or a locked room where the victim has a harpoon with fresh seaweed in their chest. But who has the time these days?

Even so, roughly a third of those killers didn't chose the easy route, for whatever reason, and still managed to kill people just fine.

So, what if you eliminated all guns in the blink of an eye. My guess is that at least some of the 2/3 who did kill would have used another weapon or method. I would think that some of those were self defense or to save someone else, in which case there still would have been a homicide.

There is really no way to tell if a total elimination of guns would result in anything near a 2/3 reduction in the number of homicides.

#1 Cause of Suicides - 51.8%

Once again, yeah, makes sense. If you want to kill yourself, objectively, a gun is a good choice. Even so, nearly half are determined enough to kill themselves without a gun. Once again, eliminating guns isn't the answer. My guess would be the solution would be to get these people the help they need so they don't want to commit suicide.

(Question: Do the countries with no guns and free health care have free mental health care? Seriously, I don't know.)

#1 Cause of Legal Intervention Deaths - 85%

This one I find interesting. By Legal Intervention Deaths they mean when someone working for the government kills someone. Beat cops, sheriffs, SWAT teams, FBI, ATF, Secret Service, anybody with gun and a badge.

Yeah, cops kill people. Most of the time, they have a very good reason for doing so. Sometimes they don't. Most of the time, they use a gun. Sometimes they don't.

Will eliminating guns help that situation? Personally, I don't think so. But, it does represent one test case that we could try. We could make it illegal for all law enforcement to have weapons. The Second says that the People have the right to bear arms, not the Government. So, prohibit the government employees from having guns and see if that will reduce the number of "Legal Intervention Deaths." Again, I don't think it would work out well, but perfectly Constitutional to try.

#12 Cause of Death Overall - 1.3%

Interesting. With all these homicides and suicides and killer cops, 1.3% sounds like a low number, compared to the others.

But, OK. We eliminate all guns on Earth and what happens to that 1.3% ? Spoiler alert: they are going to die.

They may die because someone killed them with a hammer rather than a gun.
They may die because they jumped off a bridge rather than put a bullet in their brain.
They may die because a cop tazered them to death rather than shoot them.
They may die of old age.

On the website you linked (Reliable, Non-partisan, Empowering, ) you'll see a link for 3 The Real Top 20 Causes of Death. Scroll down a bit and you'll see a pie chart for the top 20. Notice that 1 through 7 relate to medical conditions. But there is a glaring omission there. See if you can spot it.

Here's a hint. A lot is made mention of how much the NRA spends in lobbying. But the top lobbyist sector spends 300 times what the NRA does, and they get their money's worth.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Someone needs to put gang deaths from gang bangers in there. You will find it hard to take away their guns.

Gang violence is what percentage of gun deaths? I would love to know.

P

a reply to: chr0naut

No more absurd than expecting that bad guys won't take as much advantage as they can get of every piece of poorly worded legislature.

Wait, wait, wait... criminals take advantage of laws?

Why yes, yes they do! I agree completely!

So if we both agree that criminals take advantage of laws, then why wouldn't they take advantage of a law forbidding gun ownership that doesn't force a complete search of everyone and every home to ensure compliance? I mean, that's a loophole, right? That's a part of the law that allows people to get away with breaking it.

I think we can both agree that yes, criminals will take advantage of that poorly thought out legislation. Right?

But they won't be using them, right? Well... let's talk some more statistics you seem to have overlooked. From Pew Research:

In 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, 47% of the violent crimes and 35% of the property crimes tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics were reported to police. Those figures come from an annual BJS survey of 90,000 households, which asks Americans ages 12 and older whether they were victims of a crime in the past six months and, if so, whether they reported that crime to law enforcement or not.

Even when violent and property crimes are reported to police, they’re often not solved – at least based on a measure known as the clearance rate. That’s the share of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution. In 2015, 46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police in the U.S. were cleared, according to FBI data.

So if 47% of violent crimes are reported, and 46% of reported violent crimes are solved, that means less than 22% of violent crimes are solved. And that means over 78% of violent crimes are not solved and no one is prosecuted. Hmmm... that's almost a 4 out of 5 chance than one can kill another person and never be caught.

I don't have any statistics on how many who are caught are actually convicted. Maybe you can help out with that? I'm pretty sure it's not 100%, so that lowers the chances of jail time even more.

Sounds like pretty good odds to me. Especially when one knows for a fact that the person they are after doesn't have a gun because they are illegal. It actually sounds like free money. Short on cash? Just shoot someone and take what you want. Your chances of being caught are less than 22% and your chance of being shot during the attempt is practically 0.

So tell me again how criminals will be deterred by harsher penalties that they probably will never face?

TheRedneck

a reply to: crayzeed


Lady, compose yourself and say what you want to say. Back it up with statistics.


I am more than happy to engage with you once you grow some balls and just come out and say what you want to say.

No more questions, tell it to me straight.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Instead of banning guns just make it illegal to kill someone except in the defense of self or others.

Seems a pretty catchy law. You can even make billboards, t-shirts and bumper stickers that say “Don’t Kill, Unless You Must.” Then everyone can stop fighting over a sticking point and move on to the next big thing like Mr/Ms Potatohead screaming matches.

Spot on! People don't realize that what you said is the underlying issue. There are evil people in the world that want to do harm to other innocent people. Until you solve that problem, removing guns will not solve a single thing. When a person has murder in their heart, they are going to murder, no matter what it takes. Maybe we should just make murder illegal instead of guns. I think that in the story of Cain and Able, Able would have agreed that murder is a bad thing. And guns hadn't even been invented yet.

So blame murder on the tool used instead of blaming the murderer. Brilliant!

a reply to: chr0naut

I notice the cherry picking of stats and ignoring point not easy to refute.

Bravo you win, you convinced me I won't even point out that a large chunk of those deaths were suicide.

I know I know without guns I'm sure they wouldn't jump off a bridge take a bunch of pills or cut their wrists.

I'd be much more impressed with your argument if you had one beyond they scare you.

a reply to: 19Bones79
I'll have a word with Mr Ramaphosa, he'll tell me the truth, NOT.
You KNOW what I'm talking about but you want someone else to couch it for you so you can out them as being racist.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It seems pointless trying to explain even basic logic to chr0naut.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

The point is as far as guns, the cat is out of the bag. If starting today they were to make guns illegal, who would turn in their guns? Law abiding citizens or criminals?

Obviously the criminals won't be turning in squat because those murdering raping thieves are already felons and are already illegally possessing guns so all you would have left would be unarmed sitting ducks and armed rapist-murdering- thieves.

Get it now?

In other countries that have limited proliferation, simply having a weapon in your possession without legal permit, is a criminal offense, with mandatory sentence of jail time.

It's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm. It is also already illegal to carry one without a permit. How's that working out now?

If a criminal has such a weapon on them during the commission of a crime, that is taken by the law as intent and extends their sentence at least to intended manslaughter.

They are going in there fully intended on killing and raping, they aren't worried about another lesser felony LMAO

So the criminals come to know that they must either divest themselves of their illegal firearms, or they must hide them very carefully. If they hide them carefully, they are far less likely to be carrying them during the commission of a crime or for any other reason. So therefore, gun crime is reduced over time.

Did you not know that it is already illegal for criminals to possess fireams?

Where law enforcement have strong suspicion of suspected criminals holding illegal firearms, that in itself may well be enough for authorities to perform a raid and search, and the criminals can be jailed on that criteria alone. Further reducing the criminal ownership of illegal weapons, and getting criminals off the street.

What's stopping them from doing that now?

a reply to: crayzeed

Not at all.

I know exactly how you feel.

I just don't, I assume, reach the precise conclusions that you might.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

I notice the cherry picking of stats and ignoring point not easy to refute.

Bravo you win, you convinced me I won't even point out that a large chunk of those deaths were suicide.

I know I know without guns I'm sure they wouldn't jump off a bridge take a bunch of pills or cut their wrists.

I'd be much more impressed with your argument if you had one beyond they scare you.

I have lived all my life in countries where guns are tightly regulated. These are free, first world countries and I have prospered. I really have nothing to fear from firearms at the moment.

But I want you to consider something:
The USA has slightly below average crime rate figures. Not the worst, not the best, but comfortably in the middle. Crime Rate By Country 2021

And yet, the incarceration rate in the USA, both for absolute totals and per capita, is the highest of any country in the world. Incarceration Rates By Country 2021

How can this be?

Especially in a country whose crime is supposed to be suppressed by all those vigilant good-guy gun owners? Can you see the glaring holes in this particular argument? The USA has more crime than most countries that regulate firearms tightly.

... and what of that freedom that the USA is supposed to have, so ably defended by the vast public gun ownership? Surely being locked up by authorities, for no apparent significant crime, is not indicative of a country that is free?

Self Defense IS a valid reason to own a gun

The 2nd amendment exists

Those two FACTS are not going to change

Leftists are GUTTED about those absolute facts

And that makes me laugh

(People are not locked up by authorities for no apparent crime. Turn of cNn you brainwashed child)

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

The point is as far as guns, the cat is out of the bag. If starting today they were to make guns illegal, who would turn in their guns? Law abiding citizens or criminals?

Obviously the criminals won't be turning in squat because those murdering raping thieves are already felons and are already illegally possessing guns so all you would have left would be unarmed sitting ducks and armed rapist-murdering- thieves.

Get it now?

In other countries that have limited proliferation, simply having a weapon in your possession without legal permit, is a criminal offense, with mandatory sentence of jail time.

It's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm. It is also already illegal to carry one without a permit. How's that working out now?

If a criminal has such a weapon on them during the commission of a crime, that is taken by the law as intent and extends their sentence at least to intended manslaughter.

They are going in there fully intended on killing and raping, they aren't worried about another lesser felony LMAO

So the criminals come to know that they must either divest themselves of their illegal firearms, or they must hide them very carefully. If they hide them carefully, they are far less likely to be carrying them during the commission of a crime or for any other reason. So therefore, gun crime is reduced over time.

Did you not know that it is already illegal for criminals to possess fireams?

Where law enforcement have strong suspicion of suspected criminals holding illegal firearms, that in itself may well be enough for authorities to perform a raid and search, and the criminals can be jailed on that criteria alone. Further reducing the criminal ownership of illegal weapons, and getting criminals off the street.

What's stopping them from doing that now?

The 2nd Amendment and the inability to prove intent, prior to a court case and the commission of a crime, is stopping that.

In countries where firearms are properly regulated, the firearm must be registered and the owner must be vetted and adjudged fit to own a firearm. Almost universally, in those countries, self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm.

Gun law in New Zealand - Self Defense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

The point is as far as guns, the cat is out of the bag. If starting today they were to make guns illegal, who would turn in their guns? Law abiding citizens or criminals?

Obviously the criminals won't be turning in squat because those murdering raping thieves are already felons and are already illegally possessing guns so all you would have left would be unarmed sitting ducks and armed rapist-murdering- thieves.

Get it now?

In other countries that have limited proliferation, simply having a weapon in your possession without legal permit, is a criminal offense, with mandatory sentence of jail time.

It's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm. It is also already illegal to carry one without a permit. How's that working out now?

If a criminal has such a weapon on them during the commission of a crime, that is taken by the law as intent and extends their sentence at least to intended manslaughter.

They are going in there fully intended on killing and raping, they aren't worried about another lesser felony LMAO

So the criminals come to know that they must either divest themselves of their illegal firearms, or they must hide them very carefully. If they hide them carefully, they are far less likely to be carrying them during the commission of a crime or for any other reason. So therefore, gun crime is reduced over time.

Did you not know that it is already illegal for criminals to possess fireams?

Where law enforcement have strong suspicion of suspected criminals holding illegal firearms, that in itself may well be enough for authorities to perform a raid and search, and the criminals can be jailed on that criteria alone. Further reducing the criminal ownership of illegal weapons, and getting criminals off the street.

What's stopping them from doing that now?

The 2nd Amendment and the inability to prove intent, prior to a court case and the commission of a crime, is stopping that.

In countries where firearms are properly regulated, the firearm must be registered and the owner must be vetted and adjudged fit to own a firearm. Almost universally, in those countries, self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm.

Gun law in New Zealand - Self Defense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This thread is about South Africa. There is no 2nd amendment there.

Self Defense IS a valid reason in the USA

And that isn’t going to change

Good job

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, it is clearly the case of 'people with guns' issues. You can't legislate against people being people any more than you could legislate against things being made out of of atoms and molecules. As an argument it is 'reductio ad absurdum', a logical fallacy of the simplest kind.

You need to ask why do people want to kill, or kill themselves? The gun doesn't give them that desire, so you remove guns will it then be a people bat issue, people hammer issue, people car issue as people use the next best thing? So maybe legislation isn't the key here...lol

, so bubble boy everyone up for their own good I guess by your logic. Guns is an easier direction for both suicide and mass murders, but since it is a human problem eliminating guns will not solve either or even reduce them. Suicides have been rather consistent per 100,000 in the US going back many decades of around 12 to 14 per 100,000. White males account for 70% of suicides so no wonder 50% are done with a gun, BUT opioids are almost equal per 100,000, so pick your poison... Pardon the pun.

Since the USA has had the 2nd amendment for so long, the constancy of its suicide statistics are no indication of how things may be without such gun proliferation.

OK, US is 31 on the list for suicides per 100,000, South Korea is 12 at 21 per 100,000, most EU countries are 12 to 14 per 100,000. New Zealand is about 11 per 100,000, so what is it you are going to solve again with no guns?

And although there are good people who far outnumber the bad, there are many of those who good people choose not to carry a heavy, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous weapon.Similarly they may object on ethical grounds, valuing human life higher than the protection of goods or of sexual assent.

No clue what you are saying here. You talking about concealed carry, or home defense? The vast majority who own guns do not carry too. Concealed carry account for about 80 deaths per year, AR is well under 200... Once again what are you trying to solve here?

Which is of the greatest enduring value, the wallet or a human life?

It is clear that the shooter (whomever that may be) committed the greater crime, in absolute terms, even if the shooter was just trying to defend themselves against being mugged. They have taken something that did not belong to them and which can never be repaid.

Screw the mugger... You can keep your New Zealand enduring values to yourself.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yup. And Slim Took care of Jim and Bad,Bad Leroy Brown ended up a jigsaw puzzle on a bar floor.

i.stuff.co.nz...

THIS WEEK In NEW ZEALAND, guns save lives and prevent crime

And to think, the homeowner is facing ZERO charges for this

Much to the dismay of the pathetic left

a reply to: chr0naut

stupid 3 strikes laws *cough* biden *cough* that primarily impacted minority communities and revolved around oh you have a little marijuana on you and you have been arrested twice before for possession ... to the gulag with you for 10-20.

that is the biggest single reason for our heavy incarceration rate, and neither party wants to stop taking for profit prison money so its not likely to stop.