Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 6 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Mar 2012, 12:08 pm

simon_says wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
What's the we? You two are like talking to Sybil. Is there a third personality?


Well, Raptor hadn't said anything particularly "country" and yet you used the appellation "bubba" in a presumably pejorative fashion, leading me to believe you used it solely due to his gun owning status. As an urban and urbane gun owner, I take umbrage to the stereotypes so commonly used on us, hence my shared annoyance. I think guns is possibly the only area of politics where Raptor and I tend to completely agree, he's more of a traditional conservative while I'm a non-orthodox libertarian.

Now if you'd care to bring an original argument to the gun debate you might get some more original responses; as I mentioned before I've fought this exact fight many times (as has Raptor), and both of us tend to have the same weariness towards debunking the same claims and the same hyperbole for the umpteenth time.


Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.


I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

07 Mar 2012, 1:55 am

Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.


I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.



Hi Raptar, Dox47, AceOfSpades,

"In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death:

Suicide 16,883;
Homicide 12,791;
Accident 642;
Legal Intervention 360;
Undetermined 220.

This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S."

"The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S."

The justifiable homicide by weapon weilding private citizens against felons in 2006 was 238, of which 192 "defended" themselves with firearms.

The "16,100%-against-ONE" odds make expanding the notions of any increased defense of availability, through firearms, of "justifiable homicide by firearm weilding private citizen" being promoted as something completely sound, and the better use of logic, seem like nonsense propagated through the blatherings of individuals who are very inept, and dangerous to themselves and the public in general, with their faulty logic decisions, to take any action involving weighted judgments in actually utilizing firearms.

Tadzio

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Mar 2012, 7:35 pm

Tadzio wrote:
Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Raptor decided he would once again whine and be insulting rather than accurately address a point. He seems to ignore context often and is perpetually insulting. Knowing what he represents, Ive tried to ignore him.

My latest comments were deaing with the issue of automatic weapons, which was raised by others, and which you chimed in to discuss with another poster. If neither you nor Raptor care to address my somewhat minor point, then move on with your life.


I can't see where I've done any whining. Insulting? Possibly if you're overly sensitive but you implying that legally armed citizens are inept and a danger to themselves and the public was insulting. I've objectively answered all these concerns in your "context" but all you've done is repeat yoursef ad nauseum.
Anyone who would disarm innocent citizens in the face of the threats they are arming themselves against IS an insult. There's no way I could top that.



Hi Raptar, Dox47, AceOfSpades,

"In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death:

Suicide 16,883;
Homicide 12,791;
Accident 642;
Legal Intervention 360;
Undetermined 220.

This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S."

"The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S."

The justifiable homicide by weapon weilding private citizens against felons in 2006 was 238, of which 192 "defended" themselves with firearms.

The "16,100%-against-ONE" odds make expanding the notions of any increased defense of availability, through firearms, of "justifiable homicide by firearm weilding private citizen" being promoted as something completely sound, and the better use of logic, seem like nonsense propagated through the blatherings of individuals who are very inept, and dangerous to themselves and the public in general, with their faulty logic decisions, to take any action involving weighted judgments in actually utilizing firearms.

Tadzio

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html



I don’t know why I’m doing this, but………..

So what do those statistics tell us?
This is assuming that these statistics are accurate but they seem a bit embellished to me. I’ve done my own research on this and other highly controversial topics before and have never gotten consistent figures.
Even the #1 cause of death in general, aside from natural causes, can vary significantly from one study to another. One thing for certain is that the #1 cause is NEVER gun related.
I can pretty much find statistics to support anything I want and so can you.

For the purpose of this debate let’s call these figures accurate, anyway:

Suicide16,883 : These are in a class by themselves. This is self-inflicted so it shouldn’t even be under consideration. If I purposely drive a nail into one of my tires I don’t count that as being caused by nails or any other road hazard. I’m not totally without some experience on the suicide topic.

Homicide 12,791: That’s pretty much as self-defeating as can be if you’re arguing against *armed citizens. If homicide is that much of an issue then it stands to reason that there needs to be more armed citizens to counter a homicide attempt against them.

Accident 642: Not really that bad of a number considering the population and all the other causes. This could be cut down significantly by familiarization, preferably at an early age. Gun related accidents, like most accidents, are caused by lack of knowledge and/or carelessness. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone, usually a mother, vow that her kids are NEVER going to touch a gun so therefor have no need for any kind of firearms safety training / familiarization. They must be planning on riding herd on their kids 100 % for the rest of their lives or they’re just grossly negligent. I can’t help but wonder how many accidental firearms deaths and injuries this head in the sand approach has caused. This state requires firearms safety training prior to issuance of carry licenses.

Legal Intervention 360: A good portion of these interventions are de-escalated without shots fired when the would be victim presents his/her firearm in an aggressive manner. I have a little experience with this, too.
A lot of these close call cases go totally unreported for one reason or another.

*Armed citizen being defined as a law abiding citizen armed for the sole purpose of lawful self-defense against assault which could result in death or serious injury.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

07 Mar 2012, 7:44 pm

One also has to guard against raptors, who might attempt to scratch one's eyes.


_________________
hyperlexian: "WP is not society"


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

07 Mar 2012, 8:08 pm

Whether it's legal or not people are going to shoot each other for stupid reasons anyway.

I don't really see the issue with letting me defend myself.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

07 Mar 2012, 8:13 pm

People will always shoot for stupid reasons, but if they do they should go to jail rather than be freed because they "defended themselves" by shooting the suspicious Latino delivering pizza in the house next door.


_________________
.


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

07 Mar 2012, 8:19 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
People will always shoot for stupid reasons, but if they do they should go to jail rather than be freed because they "defended themselves" by shooting the suspicious Latino delivering pizza in the house next door.


I agree with your particular example.

However, here's on one my side:

I'm out for a walk in the woods. Usually it's pretty empty but sometimes I see other people. A man walking by turns out to be violent and attacks me (unlikely, but it's happened to people). Under the shoot first law, he is dead, I am safe. If I must attempt to get away or defend myself non-lethally, there is a pretty good chance that I end up beaten and bleeding in the middle of woods (which can lead to death depending on how far along the trail I am).

So without this law, my options are shoot him and go to jail for murder (for defending myself. After all, dead men tell no tales so I must be lying...) or risk ending up injured or possibly dead.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Mar 2012, 8:36 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
People will always shoot for stupid reasons, but if they do they should go to jail rather than be freed because they "defended themselves" by shooting the suspicious Latino delivering pizza in the house next door.


Shooting the pizza man is about like shooting Santa Claus. Not much sympathy can be expected from any jury in the pizza eating world.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

07 Mar 2012, 9:05 pm

Quote:
Whether it's legal or not people are going to shoot each other for stupid reasons anyway.

I don't really see the issue with letting me defend myself.


What's funny is that all sorts of crime has been dropping across the US for 15+ years. Including in places with strong gun laws. Americans are safer today than they've been in many years and criminologists aren't entirely sure why. It's likely related to the fact that we lock criminals up for a long time but there are probably many factors.

But the perception people have is that they are less safe. Maybe it's tv. Maybe internet news. Maybe 9/11 + the financial crisis.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Mar 2012, 11:56 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
Whether it's legal or not people are going to shoot each other for stupid reasons anyway.

I don't really see the issue with letting me defend myself.


What's funny is that all sorts of crime has been dropping across the US for 15+ years. Including in places with strong gun laws. Americans are safer today than they've been in many years and criminologists aren't entirely sure why. It's likely related to the fact that we lock criminals up for a long time but there are probably many factors.

But the perception people have is that they are less safe. Maybe it's tv. Maybe internet news. Maybe 9/11 + the financial crisis.

Maybe it's the fact that a higher percentage of children born since the 70's are growing up wanted.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Mar 2012, 12:33 am

simon_says wrote:
What's funny is that all sorts of crime has been dropping across the US for 15+ years. Including in places with strong gun laws. Americans are safer today than they've been in many years and criminologists aren't entirely sure why. It's likely related to the fact that we lock criminals up for a long time but there are probably many factors.

But the perception people have is that they are less safe. Maybe it's tv. Maybe internet news. Maybe 9/11 + the financial crisis.


You know what else is funny? Gun ownership is up, way up, and right to carry laws have never been stronger. I'm on my mobile so I don't have the patience to dig up the stats, but I believe that though crime is down across the board including in some anti-gun areas, it's even further down in places with far more widespread ownership and carry. I'm not arguing that the guns caused the crime drop, but I'm sure as hell pointing out that record gun sales coincided with record low crime rates.

To address another poster's point, raw statistics do not tell the full tale when it comes to defensive gun use as the vast majority of incidents do not result in shots fired and go unreported. Again hobbled by my mobile, I can't link the studies right now, but statistical analysis has been done on the issue and IIRC the lowball figure is around 100,000 DGUs per year, not too shabby.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 1:52 am

Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
What's funny is that all sorts of crime has been dropping across the US for 15+ years. Including in places with strong gun laws. Americans are safer today than they've been in many years and criminologists aren't entirely sure why. It's likely related to the fact that we lock criminals up for a long time but there are probably many factors.

But the perception people have is that they are less safe. Maybe it's tv. Maybe internet news. Maybe 9/11 + the financial crisis.


You know what else is funny? Gun ownership is up, way up, and right to carry laws have never been stronger. I'm on my mobile so I don't have the patience to dig up the stats, but I believe that though crime is down across the board including in some anti-gun areas, it's even further down in places with far more widespread ownership and carry. I'm not arguing that the guns caused the crime drop, but I'm sure as hell pointing out that record gun sales coincided with record low crime rates.

To address another poster's point, raw statistics do not tell the full tale when it comes to defensive gun use as the vast majority of incidents do not result in shots fired and go unreported. Again hobbled by my mobile, I can't link the studies right now, but statistical analysis has been done on the issue and IIRC the lowball figure is around 100,000 DGUs per year, not too shabby.



I read that gun ownership is way down as a % of the population. There are fewer hunters today and less interest on the part of kids. But gun sales are up. It's largely the same gun owners who are buying more and more guns. Just as both you and Raptor appear to own many guns. Anyway, some kind of gun consolidation has happened for those stats to make sense.

Teasing out the story hidden in those stats would take more interest than I have in the subject.



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

08 Mar 2012, 6:22 am

Um, I haven't responded to this thread in a while.

I guess I just find this whole typic very mystifying.

I mean, from what I have read there are at least 33% of US citizens who hold guns? Is this true?

If this case, then perhaps I am the crazy one, for not keeping a gun on me at all times.

I just don't get it. I am not pro-gun-regulation because I haven't seen any hard statistics so far that say gun-regulation actually decreases crime.

My bigger question is what is the fascination with violence in my country?

Anyway, I am an idiot. Take no notice of me. :)



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2012, 10:16 am

simon_says wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
What's funny is that all sorts of crime has been dropping across the US for 15+ years. Including in places with strong gun laws. Americans are safer today than they've been in many years and criminologists aren't entirely sure why. It's likely related to the fact that we lock criminals up for a long time but there are probably many factors.

But the perception people have is that they are less safe. Maybe it's tv. Maybe internet news. Maybe 9/11 + the financial crisis.


You know what else is funny? Gun ownership is up, way up, and right to carry laws have never been stronger. I'm on my mobile so I don't have the patience to dig up the stats, but I believe that though crime is down across the board including in some anti-gun areas, it's even further down in places with far more widespread ownership and carry. I'm not arguing that the guns caused the crime drop, but I'm sure as hell pointing out that record gun sales coincided with record low crime rates.

To address another poster's point, raw statistics do not tell the full tale when it comes to defensive gun use as the vast majority of incidents do not result in shots fired and go unreported. Again hobbled by my mobile, I can't link the studies right now, but statistical analysis has been done on the issue and IIRC the lowball figure is around 100,000 DGUs per year, not too shabby.



I read that gun ownership is way down as a % of the population. There are fewer hunters today and less interest on the part of kids. But gun sales are up. It's largely the same gun owners who are buying more and more guns. Just as both you and Raptor appear to own many guns. Anyway, some kind of gun consolidation has happened for those stats to make sense.

Teasing out the story hidden in those stats would take more interest than I have in the subject.


In 2009 guns and ammo were in higher demand than the industry could support.
MANY new gun owners have been created since then. By your logic and that of a few others here the streets should be running red with blood.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 12:26 pm

There was a sales spike in 2009, probably driven by the financial crisis and possibly the crazed apocalyptic rhetoric of the NRA about what Obama was going to do. They are still saying crazy things about what he would do in a second term. They seem to exist to scare people into buying more guns.

But I havent found a survey showing gun ownership at an all time high. Ive found one where it's down 20 points per household since 1980 and a Gallup survey that has it down 7 since 1993 or so. It's true that there are fewer hunters today so if the surveys are accurate it's possible to imagine that a narrowing pool of rifle owners is masking a growth in handgun owners. But you'd still have more guns in fewer hands.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm

simon_says wrote:
There was a sales spike in 2009, probably driven by the financial crisis and possibly the crazed apocalyptic rhetoric of the NRA about what Obama was going to do. They are still saying crazy things about what he would do in a second term. They seem to exist to scare people into buying more guns.

The thing I was hearing from people was adding a component to ammunition to give it an expiration date, which in turn caused people apparently to run out and buy a lot of it.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin