Op-Ed IF ONLY POLICE HAD GUNS, this never would have happened...

[TX-Beau]

TAG LA you're IT!

President Barack Obama on Sunday condemned the slayings of three Louisiana law enforcement officers, as he called on the nation to condemn violence against law enforcement."We as a nation have to be loud and clear that nothing justifies violence against law enforcement...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/us/baton-route-police-shooting/

Well, targeting the police is certainly not going to help one's cause, and yet again armed people gunned down in the street. One would think that the great, proud, tradition of carrying around one's holy relic would protect one from such a fate.

 

[rareboy]

I'd prefer freedom from being killed rather than the freedom to kill.
Stats over the 2000s:
Homicide rate in Western Europe: between 0.7 and 1.4 per 100,000
(Excluding Italy, home of the mafia with 2.5)
Homicide rate in USA: 6.1 per 100,000 people

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/546379ed6bb3f7fc44a12570-960/screen shot 2014-11-12 at 10.14.53 am.png?_ga=1.149783030.1728581758.1468750664

Pretty much nails it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Statistically, that is questionable. What is certain is that I am far more likely to be attacked and need a gun to defend myself than to be shot by anyone.

Actually the most likely use of your gun is to commit suicide by shooting yourself with it.

Every other use is getting into the margins by comparison. Its least likely use behind theft, accidental shooting is that it is used to stop a crime or to protect yourself.

Despite the obvious illusions you're clinging to otherwise.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd prefer freedom from being killed rather than the freedom to kill.

False dichotomy, which is a method of lying.

Of course "freedom from being killed" is a meaningless phrase, so there are two lies going on here.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually the most likely use of your gun is to commit suicide by shooting yourself with it.

Every other use is getting into the margins by comparison. Its least likely use behind theft, accidental shooting is that it is used to stop a crime or to protect yourself.

Despite the obvious illusions you're clinging to otherwise.

By the most conservative measure, there are at least twice as many defensive gun uses in the U.S. as there are suicides annually.

And the most common use of a gun is occasional target shooting, followed by varmint shooting, things which occur tens of millions of times a year. So if your claim were accurate, there would be multiple tens of millions of suicides using a gun per year.

And since a gun has protected me infinitely more often than it has been used for any kind of harm, let alone for suicide, my statement is correct.

 

[xbuzzerx]

By the most conservative measure, there are at least twice as many defensive gun uses in the U.S. as there are suicides annually.

NIH disagrees and I'm unaware of any credible source backing up this claim.

 

[rareboy]

By the most conservative measure, there are at least twice as many defensive gun uses in the U.S. as there are suicides annually.

And the most common use of a gun is occasional target shooting, followed by varmint shooting, things which occur tens of millions of times a year. So if your claim were accurate, there would be multiple tens of millions of suicides using a gun per year.

And since a gun has protected me infinitely more often than it has been used for any kind of harm, let alone for suicide, my statement is correct.

I'd appreciate the sources for this stat.

 

[Kulindahr]

NIH disagrees and I'm unaware of any credible source backing up this claim.

I can't find anything by the NIH that even addresses the issue -- their studies are too narrow.

The smallest figure available for defensive gun uses annually in the U.S. is on the order of 70,000, and they had to adopt a very narrow definition of DGU in order to get that low. At the upper end is the 3 million figure, which does the opposite, counting even instances where a gun was not even handled by a human being (e.g. was in a holster and available or an intended victim merely claimed to have a gun).

If the NIH had any actual figure for defensive gun uses, the CDC report would have included it, but there's no such figure as you suggest there. So you either have to concede the point or agree with the NRA that the CDC is not trustworthy on gun issues.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd appreciate the sources for this stat.

On defensive gun uses? It's in the CDC report.

For the use of guns? It's derived from manufacturers' studies on what people buy ammo for. Excluding the military, killing human beings is a statistical zero.

 

[Kabluey]

False dichotomy, which is a method of lying.

Of course "freedom from being killed" is a meaningless phrase, so there are two lies going on here.

Nope.
You chances of being killed are considerably lower in other developed countries than the USA.
There is a direct correlation between gun control and public safety.

 

[Kabluey]

On defensive gun uses? It's in the CDC report.

For the use of guns? It's derived from manufacturers' studies on what people buy ammo for. Excluding the military, killing human beings is a statistical zero.

Manufacturer info being cited as reliable or authoritative?

Defensive gun usage arguments tend to argue use of guns in response to threats by criminals with guns.
Other countries have successfully reduced the number of criminals with guns. The homicide rates in other developed countries underline this.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope.
You chances of being killed are considerably lower in other developed countries than the USA.
There is a direct correlation between gun control and public safety.

There's a direct link between gun control and individual safety: it requires individuals to be victims.

 

[Kulindahr]

Manufacturer info being cited as reliable or authoritative?

Defensive gun usage arguments tend to argue use of guns in response to threats by criminals with guns.
Other countries have successfully reduced the number of criminals with guns. The homicide rates in other developed countries underline this.

Manufacture info has to be reliable -- they base their production on it.

And defensive gun use is defensive gun use, regardless of whether the criminal has a gun, knife, baseball bat, tire iron, rock, or a truck (note that in France good guys with guns were counted on to respond to the bad guy with a truck, and the response by the government called on more people to be armed).

 

[Kabluey]

There's a direct link between gun control and individual safety: it requires individuals to be victims.

There are more guns and more victims in the USA than anywhere else in the developed world.

 

[Kabluey]

Manufacture info has to be reliable -- they base their production on it.

And defensive gun use is defensive gun use, regardless of whether the criminal has a gun, knife, baseball bat, tire iron, rock, or a truck (note that in France good guys with guns were counted on to respond to the bad guy with a truck, and the response by the government called on more people to be armed).

So you think a gun is a suitable response to a bat? How weak are you?

The truck driver killed himself. His weapon could not be countered by guns.
The 'good guys' were armed police, not paranoid bipolar types with guns.

And their government has not called for citizens to be armed. Only American pro-gun websites are claiming that.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you think a gun is a suitable response to a bat? How weak are you?

It's not hard to kill with a baseball bat, so yes, a gun is a suitable response.

It would also have been a suitable response to the guy who came after me with a two-by-four, but it defended me in that instance without me even having to touch it.

And their government has not called for citizens to be armed. Only American pro-gun websites are claiming that.

Oh, so when Frenchmen join the security reserves, they cease to be citizens?

 

[Kabluey]

It's not hard to kill with a baseball bat, so yes, a gun is a suitable response.

It would also have been a suitable response to the guy who came after me with a two-by-four, but it defended me in that instance without me even having to touch it.

I don't actually believe any of your anecdotes anymore.

Oh, so when Frenchmen join the security reserves, they cease to be citizens?

They want citizens who join the reserves to be under the total command of the military, not the independent militia that you describe frequently on here.
I'm not sure they're able to keep arms normally either.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Oh, so when Frenchmen join the security reserves, they cease to be citizens?

Right to bear arms FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is not a duty for all individuals to bear arms. Yes, it is only pro gun groups claiming that interpretation.

Citizens were expected to be watchful. Not armed.

 

[opinterph]

Right to bear arms FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is not a duty for all individuals to bear arms. Yes, it is only pro gun groups claiming that interpretation.

Citizens were expected to be watchful. Not armed.

It is my impression that citizens in contemporary US society are not required to keep and bear arms; however (subject to reasonable restrictions) they have a fundamental right to do so.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. District of Columbia et al. V. Heller

 

[Rolyo85]

"We shouldn't have to be armed if we don't want to."

That's exactly the NRA's position. It's called "freedom": no one should be forced to be armed.

Personally, I (here's one of my opinions, for once) think that should come with a trade-off: if you're not willing to learn to use, own, and train with the instruments that keep a free country free, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And that is different from forcing me to carry murder weapons how?

And no, this is no "freedom" when there are so many guns out there and so many backbirths with small dicks, eager to shoot when they get angry. Your points are so intellectually dishonest, there is literally green pus oozing from them...