ForumGarden

Jester;905669 wrote: lets see.. how many times were guns used to kill someone?



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCxc ... gD91KJFCO2

Please note there were 31000 deaths from firearms in the US in 2005. and your answer and RJ's and a number of other folks is to ban handguns outright.

Are you prepared to ban other factors in th eleading causes of death? Lets take the top ten leading casues of death (please note firearms deaths did nto make the top ten list)




It's an interesting suggestion. I'm certainly open to looking at the regulations of all these things. Netherlands recently banned tobacco, but marijuana is legal... I believe.

I notice also home intruders are not on the list ...

Jester;905669 wrote:

My point of course is... go to the list of things that cause the most deaths and work your way down the list, when youv'e illiminated all our personal freedoms all together, (and BTW Id like you to lead by example) you can come try to take my guns by force. bring lots of ammo. you'll need it, and be prepared to engage at 1500 meters, step inside that range and your mine. May God be with you.


I'm the bad guy in your mind, for trying to save you money. But what makes you think the bad guys won't win? You've reduced the conflict to a battle of might, not ideas. All I've got to do is buy a bigger gun. A rocket launcher should do just fine. I don't need any merit to my position at all ...

rjwould;902172 wrote: That brings me back to BTS's post concerning the homeowner who shot the drunk guy.



......................... But no, the shooter puts himself in a dangerous situation and the story he tells is that he commanded this person to halt, the drunk guy refused to communicate back and advanced on the shooter like some sort of silent monster. These stories lack so much common sense and credibility.








Yah common sense is when you are intruding on someone else's valued property and confronted with an armed citizen, you pay a little attention to what is requested of you. You do not advance towards them, no matter how drunk you are.



It never ceases to amaze me how anti gunners can not see that there are people among them that have the fortitude to protect what is theirs and are so shocked when they do use self protection. They are not afraid to put themself in a dangerous situation. It appears you would do just the opposite, call 911 and hope they (the police) get there before you are assalted or killed.

Check these out:



Cop's daughter killed after five 911 calls - Crime reports- msnbc.com

A kidnapped detective's daughter called 911. So did her husband. So did witnesses. They all thought help would be on the way. They were wrong.



Woman killed after calling 911A pair of police cars converged on the scene 17 minutes after the victim's first Friday night call to 911, but Ronyale White, 31, was dead on the bedroom ...



He called 911 and asked for backup, but before they arrived, he was shot.



http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=6224838



Wisconsin College Student Made 911 Call Before Being Killed | KCRG ...



I have many lucky #'s........rj

.45, .38, .357... just to name a few, but "911" just ain't one!

rjwould;905819 wrote: Its good to see you around to provide some laughs, BTS. Stay well!



Love,

rj


yes rj you are the only one to see the humor in this





Cop's daughter killed after five 911 calls - Crime reports- msnbc.com

A kidnapped detective's daughter called 911. So did her husband. So did witnesses. They all thought help would be on the way. They were wrong.

So, just for us stupid inbreds, please do show us the humor as I can't quite get a laugh out of it like you can

love bob

BTS;906837 wrote: yes rj you are the only one to see the humor in this





Cop's daughter killed after five 911 calls - Crime reports- msnbc.com

A kidnapped detective's daughter called 911. So did her husband. So did witnesses. They all thought help would be on the way. They were wrong.

So, just for us stupid inbreds, please do show us the humor as I can't quite get a laugh out of it like you can

love bob


BTS, why do you think that a list of people getting killed by guns helps your case in any way? Some of these people may have been gun owners, for all you know. Every time you try to prove a point in this thread, you shoot yourself in the foot. Ironic, no?

yaaarrrgg;907614 wrote: BTS, why do you think that a list of people getting killed by guns helps your case in any way? Some of these people may have been gun owners, for all you know. Every time you try to prove a point in this thread, you shoot yourself in the foot. Ironic, no?
I don't see that. His point is clearly that often you can't depend on "the authorities" to be there when you need them and you have to defend yourself. Point made.

rjwould;907777 wrote: Its a rather small point in a vast cosmos. Of course not, its not a perfect world, shortcoming occur, but BTS makes it sound like (and it probably is in his perspective) these are not isolated incidents that are far and few between, far fewer than the incidents of unintended consequences due to guns in America.
That's your opinion, and valid as far as opinions go. Got any stats to back it up?

rjwould;907971 wrote: Have you checked post #54?
Not that thoroughly. Is there a stat comparing the rarity of late 911 responses to the rarity of having to use a firearm (vs just showing it) to deter a crime?? That'd be really impressive.

I don't know about anybody else but the issues faced with the illegal use of guns is not going to be won in the next 100 years as far as I'm concerned...

Jester, I only know of one person that used a gun as a deterrent. Probably quite unnecessarily too.

He was driving (possibly a little drunk) and made a bad move, and another driver bacome enraged and wanted to fight. He (the gun owner) flashed his weapon, and the other guy cooled down. Did he need to use the gun? Probably not.

These incidents might be under-represented, if we are just looking at justified homicides...

Although the same person was a big time alcoholic, and I also found out he would threaten his (now ex) wife with the same guns while heavily intoxicated.

This type of gun use is also under-represented ...

I don't know what happened to the guy, but I fully expect him to be one of the people that eventually blows their own brains out... the only actual use he'll ever get out of his gun.

What you are saying essentially, is that millions of people have reported that they used a gun to threaten someone they perceived to be "in the wrong" ... not sure that's really a good thing. As part of human nature, people always see the rightness in their own point of view, and using a gun to threaten another person doesn't make them "more right" ... just more threatening. Quite possibly, the person in the above case deserved to have the sh!t beat out of him. He was probably driving drunk.

A reasonable assumption. He had a gun, after all. :rolleyes:

Accountable;908412 wrote: A reasonable assumption. He had a gun, after all. :rolleyes:


On him driving drunk? He was an alcoholic and always drank..

It's obvious that until the borders of Mexico are taken seriously there won't be any prevalence in the slightest to ban hand guns in America...Because as it is now it's completely ludicrous to think that banning them isn't going to spur underground gun smuggling operations and it's all going to be the same except with more incentive for criminals to break into what is known to be a well known deterrent of the thought that the home owners might be armed...

yaaarrrgg;907614 wrote: BTS, why do you think that a list of people getting killed by guns helps your case in any way? Some of these people may have been gun owners, for all you know. Every time you try to prove a point in this thread, you shoot yourself in the foot. Ironic, no?
yingyangggggggggggg

Go back and read the thread and you might see my point.......

FYI the point I was making is if rj wants to let his fingers do the walking and wait out a 911 call just look at some who did and never saw the light of day.



No I did notshoot myself in me own foot, I hit the mark that is why all rj or you for that matter never attack my message only the messenger.

Way to support BTS' accusation, rj.

Jester;909275 wrote: ...

There are many deterrent uses of firearms, 31000 deaths in the particular year we are discussing (2005) I etsimate there are well over 500,000 instances of a gun used to dismiss a crime (deterrant use of a fire arm) of those I'd estimate about 500-700 ended in justifiable homocides. I agree the suicide issue is large, but unstoppable, and I dont agree we should stop folks who want to commit suicide anyway its a complete side issue. So the only other issue of concern to me is the negligent use of firearms, which are those occurances of accidental gun dishcarge that kill or maim and innocent person. Then of course we have those perps who use a gun in a crime, an illegal use of a firearm.




If what you are saying is true, there should be a positive correlation between gun ownership, and longevity. But there isn't. What benefits the gun confers to the owner, is purely psychological.

yaaarrrgg;909792 wrote: If what you are saying is true, there should be a positive correlation between gun ownership, and longevity. But there isn't. What benefits the gun confers to the owner, is purely psychological.
The fact that I possess the right to keep and bear arms if I choose, even though I don't currently exercise that right, does me a world of good psychologically. :-6

rjwould;910220 wrote: So what do you see as BTS's point? That some have been the victim of slow emergency response? Offer a few stories of which seem to be lacking any common sense scrutiny, against all the evidence and figures from the FBI which clearly points out that public safety is suffering disproportionately to any legitimate and/or justifiable use of firearms for defensive purposes?



At the same time, people making this claim, are demanding taxes, which pay for police and other emergency related public services be reduced if not completely halted?How are you sure they're the same people?



rjwould wrote: Its all getting old and I think a large enough majority of the American voting electorate are wise enough at this point to say "out, you bunch of hypocrites".So go for it. Get that Constitution amended! I have a funny feeling you don't have quite as many in agreement as you claim. The very small but vocal minority find it easier to get legislation via decree from the bench rather than passed through legislation. But by all means, recall the 2nd Amendment if you can.



rjwould wrote: Incidentally, I heard on NPR this morning that the NRA has announced they are going to be spending $40,000,000.00 (thats 40 million dollars) of its members hard earned money on campaigned adds this election cycle in order to tell their members how to think. Mighty thoughtful of them, don't you think.....oops....or not?:)No different than the NEA or the UAW. Hell, the AFL-CIO spent nearly 9 grand in one month all in little old Iowa. LINK They call it their political education fund. Nice that they care about education.

rjwould;910220 wrote: So what do you see as BTS's point? That some have been the victim of slow emergency response? Offer a few stories of which seem to be lacking any common sense scrutiny, against all the evidence and figures from the FBI which clearly points out that public safety is suffering disproportionately to any legitimate and/or justifiable use of firearms for defensive purposes?



At the same time, I suspect the people making this claim, are demanding taxes, which pay for police and other emergency related public services be reduced if not completely halted?
You'd be hard-pressed to find evidence of that, I think.

rjwould;910332 wrote: I don't think its far fetched to say that unregulated gun ownership and dismantling government through reducing taxes is mostly part of the conservative agenda. You do?
Yes I do, absolutely. Never mind that they are both great ideas, especially that last one (gave me chills).



Look around. You're right what you say about marketing, yet you believe their marketing even as you talk about how sneaky (I can't remember the better word :-5) it can be. The "Conservatives", or those that currently claim the title in the gov't, want to rule the world. Ya can't rule the world with small gov't. Gov't grows no matter who's in charge.



Gun ownership has become just another wedge issue. It's a right. Let that go. Just as any other right, this one can be abused. Punish those guys.

rjwould;910672 wrote: I don't understand this part.


You think the 'conservative' arm of the Demopublican Party want to shrink gov't? Name one program they've stopped, one way they've reduced spending, one department they've dissolved.

rjwould;911075 wrote: I don't think conservatives want to shrink government the way you seem to mean it. On the contrary, they want to occupy it and make it ineffective except for military and police (although I think they would actually like to privatize both). The conservatives want to redistribute wealth via spending in support of big business. They kneel to the business interests of corporate America because corporate America provides jobs, mostly low paying jobs, too. They have a euphoric idea that if we will all just become investors, we all will become rich. Delusional.



Look at the windfall for Insurance, pharmaceutical, banking and credit industries while republicans were in power in congress for 12 years. Look at all the bubbles that surfaced during their reign. We are in the midst of another financial bubble right now (oil speculation) due to the policies that have lingered from them. And why were we steered into this current bubble? In order to pressure and persuade our people to permit drilling in public lands for the good of the oil industry, again to provide job. They resist progressive ideas to encourage alternative energies through denying there are environment problems looming.
You invest

rjwould;911075 wrote: They have a euphoric idea that if we will all just become investors, we all will become rich. Delusional.




If everyone had equal share between the bias of 60%-40% everyone would be rich...

rjwould;911263 wrote: So!
You take advantage of all this greed and bubble-blowing. Why can't the average joe? Are you smarter than the average American? More savvy perhaps? What prevents others from doing what you do?

rjwould;911296 wrote: [...] My point was... its unrealistic to think that is what America will transport itself on to a non-poverty society/world.Why? It strikes at the heart of what it is to be American: Providing for oneself and honoring the Pursuit of Happiness.

The concept of free society is based on equality...How is it that there can be "logic" based on the notion that if everyone didn't hold equal share, or damn close to, that all of society wouldn't benefit?...

rjwould;911303 wrote: Okay! Its 2008, when should we expect this to come to fruition?
Nice sidestep. Do you have an answer to my question?

rjwould;911314 wrote: Answer what? Your why question. Because it hasn't happened yet. Its a pipe dream. The system is rigged to intimidate people from taking control of their own finances.
But you overcame the rigging. Can't every average American do the same?

rjwould;911344 wrote: No!
Why not??

rjwould;911377 wrote: Most people can't even balance a checkbook. I think we"re off topic.
I disagree. Getting nervous? (rhetorical question)



Not rhetorical:

So you're smarter than the average American? better? more diligent? What makes you think the average American cannot succeed where you apparently have?

rjwould;911395 wrote: It has nothing to do with success or smarts, It has to do with priorities. Not everyone shares my interests or priorities. This is tedious, I'm done. This subject is no longer interesting enough for me....Sorry......You want to say you beat me? Knock yourself out.
Okay, so people have different priorities. Agreed. Is that enough reason to require taxpayers to pick up the slack? Saving for an emergency or for my retirement is not a big priority for me, therefore you must be responsible?



We both agree that the average American is capable of taking care of himself or herself. Then why shouldn't they be expected to?

I agree...America is much too rich to think that a very large majority of it's citizens cannot provide a suitable and healthy lifestyle...The rest is just laziness both in optimism as well as furthering their education...

I do although feel that there are some pretty significant obstacles in the way of alot of people both in racist tendencies as well as purely not having a very good local economy...

But America for the most part shouldn't see poverty at all...That doesn't however mean that there isn't and there isn't justifiable excuses either...Racism has been a downfall of America for quite some time...

But having said all that...What's that got to do with guns!!??!??...:wah:

K.Snyder;911443 wrote: I agree...America is much too rich to think that a very large majority of it's citizens cannot provide a suitable and healthy lifestyle...The rest is just laziness both in optimism as well as furthering their education...



I do although feel that there are some pretty significant obstacles in the way of alot of people both in racist tendencies as well as purely not having a very good local economy...Racism cannot, does not, prevent anyone from making a living in America today.



K.Snyder wrote: But America for the most part shouldn't see poverty at all...That doesn't however mean that there isn't and there isn't justifiable excuses either...Racism has been a downfall of America for quite some time...Racism is nothing more than an obstruction to knock down or go around. If someone gives it more credence than that it becomes a crutch, an excuse.



K.Snyder wrote: But having said all that...What's that got to do with guns!!??!??...:wah:The right to keep and bear arms help to keep independent people independent. It helps keep racists in their homes rather than in someone else's front yard.

Accountable;911462 wrote: Racism cannot, does not, prevent anyone from making a living in America today.



Racism is nothing more than an obstruction to knock down or go around. If someone gives it more credence than that it becomes a crutch, an excuse.


I agree with you for the most part but I think that racism is far more prevalent than most would like to forget...People still don't hire people of a different race(Most often African Americans) because they either don't like them, or they have stereotyped them as being more criminal than their preferences allow them to tolerate...

There's no way people can convince me that the South give equal opportunity even remotely close to national ideal...And that's not to say it isn't identical in many random places across the United States...

Accountable;911462 wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms help to keep independent people independent. It helps keep racists in their homes rather than in someone else's front yard.


I was just joking around really...I'm not undermining your intellect...You're smarter than I am...

K.Snyder;911483 wrote: There's no way people can convince me that the South give equal opportunity even remotely close to national ideal...And that's not to say it isn't identical in many random places across the United States...
Too bad. You should never buy into stereotypes.

Accountable;911647 wrote: Too bad. You should never buy into stereotypes.


One quick question without trying to completely hijack this thread...

It's safe to say that you don't feel that racism is more prevalent in the south compared to the rest of the United States?...

K.Snyder;911894 wrote: One quick question without trying to completely hijack this thread...



It's safe to say that you don't feel that racism is more prevalent in the south compared to the rest of the United States?...By who's definition? If you use RJ's, racism is everywhere in equal measure. One can only get away from it by going to a school for the blind.



If you are talking about ethnic bigotry, I would estimate from my own experience that it's more pervasive in the north, but since it's not PC, the bigots hide behind smiles and nice words - at least until they think they're among their own kind. At least in the South most bigots are open about it and can be avoided.

Accountable;912007 wrote: By who's definition? If you use RJ's, racism is everywhere in equal measure. One can only get away from it by going to a school for the blind.



If you are talking about ethnic bigotry, I would estimate from my own experience that it's more pervasive in the north, but since it's not PC, the bigots hide behind smiles and nice words - at least until they think they're among their own kind. At least in the South most bigots are open about it and can be avoided.


Racism as defined by hatred and ignorance...

Surely it can be agreed that the South at least was more indoctrinated to racism considering the South comprised of a very significant and overwhelming majority of slaves compared to anywhere else within the world let alone the United States...

K.Snyder;912011 wrote: Racism as defined by hatred and ignorance...



Surely it can be agreed that the South at least was more indoctrinated to racism considering the South comprised of a very significant and overwhelming majority of slaves compared to anywhere else within the world let alone the United States...
Was







Lots of things happened in history. Look at what's happening now.

Accountable;912018 wrote: Was





Lots of things happened in history. Look at what's happening now.


I can agree that the south isn't as racially divided as it once was but I'm not willing to admit that racism is equal throughout the country...

Most of what I thought of racisms incorporation into the North was more often than not strategic in the concern of job security...That's not to say that racism in the North isn't prevalent...

I just don't see the South being equally as civil as the North...There are more white supremacists and hate groups in the South...

K.Snyder;912028 wrote: I can agree that the south isn't as racially divided as it once was but I'm not willing to admit that racism is equal throughout the country...



Most of what I thought of racisms incorporation into the North was more often than not strategic in the concern of job security...That's not to say that racism in the North isn't prevalent...



I just don't see the South being equally as civil as the North...There are more white supremacists and hate groups in the South...
I stated that the North is more civil. Civility is not an indicator of equality.

Interesting column.



Why Do We "Keep and Bear Arms"? Part 1



Why Do We "Keep and Bear Arms"? Part 2