Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

Oh dear, more evidence:

Deep sigh.

Seth,

When will you learn that anecdotes are not evidence. Certainly not of trends.
There are men in this world who have taken blunt knives and cut off their testicles.
If I told such a true story, I could not conclude that all men hate their testicles.

Indeed, but if 2 million or more men per year cut off their testicles, it would be data pertinent to the analysis of the underlying causal factors.

Nor does a story of a person drawing a gun to stop a wife beater mean that all people should carry guns.

I never claimed that it did, so you're making up a strawman.

The USA already has far too many guns, as shown by the fact that the USA is redolent with cases of murder by gun.

Your opinion is noted...and rejected for gross ignorance of facts.

I quote overall numbers. Not garbage anecdotes.

No, you misquote and abuse "overall numbers" without giving them in proper context.

Overall numbers show that the USA has 600,000 gun crimes a year.

That's 600,000 VICTIMS of gun crimes, any or all of whom might have been able to defend against such crimes had they been lawfully armed.

100,000 gun woundings per year.

Ibid.

20,000 gun deaths per year.

An enviably low rate of gun deaths as compared to various other causes of deaths in a nation of 300,000,000. And we can significantly lower the number of gun deaths caused by criminal attack by allowing every person to choose whether or not they wish to be armed for self defense. As for accidental deaths, they are actually quite rare in a nation with 200,000,000 guns in circulation, and gun related accidents have dropped more than 90 percent since 1907 due mostly to the NRA's gun safety education programs even as the number of guns in our society has exploded.

These are not anecdotes. They are statistics From those statistics I can draw the clear conclusion that the USA has far too much evil based on guns.

Yes, they are. So what? You quote them as if they inevitably lead to your conclusion. They don't.

Over the average lifetime, 1 in 50 Americans will have a bullet pass through his or her body. Only someone who is far removed from reality could believe that is a good thing.

Which of course is a completely bullshit and bogus use of statistics, as Samuel Clemens suggested.

[Seth]

The 'Sturmgewehr' or 'Assault Rifle' was the name given to it by Adolf Hitler.. but how is that relevant?

It's relevent because the term "assault" is still being used as a propaganda tool and is being applied to firearms that aren't factually assault. They have a look.

Just a bit of history for anyone who would get a little education to mix in with the opinions.

All and any of my arguments for banning semi-automatic centre fire rifles with high capacity magazines don't depend on pedantic word definitions.

These are a class of weapons that are unnecessary to a serious hunter, but perfect for a mass murderer of human beings.

In other words, they are magnificently effective military firearms. What you refuse to accept is that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government can never prevent or infringe on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms suitable and effective for warfare and combat. The Founders did so precisely and exactly to preserve the ability of the nation to call forth the Militias, both organized and unorganized, to defend the nation against all enemies foreign OR domestic, in times of national, state or local need.

Members of the Militia are expected to report for duty with their own arms, with which they are familiar and competent. Infringement of the right to keep and bear arms of military utility on the part of each and every individual in the US is prohibited because it interferes with Congress' power and ability to "raise and equip" armies and call forth the Militia. Congress itself is FORBIDDEN from infringing on that power and ability even if it wants to do so, because one Congress might ban the very arms necessary to defend the nation in an orgy of paranoia over crime (as we are seeing today) and thereby destroy the ability of a future Congress to raise an army in the case of invasion or civil insurrection. That's WHY the RKBA is explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. Go read the writings of the Founders on the subject and educate yourself before you ignorantly bloviate any further.

Hunting is also a lawful activity protected by the 2nd Amendment, but the preservation of the military might of the nation is the foremost concern. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, therefore it's not up to the government to say that I don't "need" my semi-automatic sporting rifles that look similar to fully-automatic military arms. "Need" is not even a consideration that Congress is authorized to think about, much less enact into law.

[Seth]

1 in 50 Americans will be shot in their lifetime you say. Does this figure include suicide?

He said " will have a bullet pass through their body". Yes, it also includes suicides, and we do know how compassionate you and Seth are about mental sickness leading to suicide. You would have made first class nazis, you two. You would have fought against the allies!

I think something has pushed you off your rocker.

Sorry, but at most three people on this forum consider you to be sane. I go with the majority with this, since at least one of those three is a fucking lunatic. Take your pills like a good girl now, and consider the sexually pleasing esthetics of your handguns.Only they will be with you to the end, all others will fail you.

Fortunately our rights are not at the mercy of the whims and caprices of the majority...any majority.

[Seth]

1 in 50 Americans will be shot in their lifetime you say. Does this figure include suicide?

A minority are suicides. Most are woundings and maimings. It comes from 100,000 people per year who receive a bullet. About 10% are attempts at suicide (mostly successful).

Which of course is a bullshit statistic because some number of those are criminals who end up on the right end of justice, and most of the rest are either suicides, who have a perfect right to kill themselves if they like, or crime victims who might have been protected if they had been able to legally possess a defensive firearm. You conflate them all together as if every bullet wound is equal to every other bullet wound. They aren't.

[Blind groper]

You conflate them all together as if every bullet wound is equal to every other bullet wound. They aren't.

Unlike those of a fascist turn of mind, I regard all humans as deserving of life. Putting a bullet through a criminal may sometimes be necessary, but it is never desirable. Much better to capture the criminal and put him through the proper justice procedures.

What you ignore, Seth, is that those statistics of mine (600,000 gun crimes plus 100,000 gun woundings, plus 20,000 gun killings each year) gain power by comparison to other western and wealthy nations. The USA is a sorry case by comparison. When you realise that, out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of all gun murders put together, you realise something is badly, and I mean truly badly, wrong with the USA.

What is wrong is gun availability (especially hand guns) and gun culture in the USA. This gun culture is exemplified in its worst and most extreme form, by the comments posted by Seth.

[Gallstones]

The argument oroborous.

You conflate them all together as if every bullet wound is equal to every other bullet wound. They aren't.

Unlike those of a fascist turn of mind, I regard all humans as deserving of life. Putting a bullet through a criminal may sometimes be necessary, but it is never desirable. Much better to capture the criminal and put him through the proper justice procedures.

What you ignore, Seth, is that those statistics of mine (600,000 gun crimes plus 100,000 gun woundings, plus 20,000 gun killings each year) gain power by comparison to other western and wealthy nations. The USA is a sorry case by comparison. When you realise that, out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of all gun murders put together, you realise something is badly, and I mean truly badly, wrong with the USA.

What is wrong is gun availability (especially hand guns) and gun culture in the USA. This gun culture is exemplified in its worst and most extreme form, by the comments posted by Seth.

[Gallstones]

Assault Weapons Ban - Let's Talk FACTS


The Stupid, it Burns

[Gallstones]

Focusing on this:

You conflate them all together as if every bullet wound is equal to every other bullet wound. They aren't.

Unlike those of a fascist turn of mind, I regard all humans as deserving of life. Putting a bullet through a criminal may sometimes be necessary, but it is never desirable. Much better to capture the criminal and put him through the proper justice procedures.

What you ignore, Seth, is that those statistics of mine (600,000 gun crimes plus 100,000 gun woundings, plus 20,000 gun killings each year) gain power by comparison to other western and wealthy nations. The USA is a sorry case by comparison. When you realise that, out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of all gun murders put together, you realise something is badly, and I mean truly badly, wrong with the USA.

What is wrong is gun availability (especially hand guns) and gun culture in the USA. This gun culture is exemplified in its worst and most extreme form, by the comments posted by Seth.

If we could ask Rachel Nickell if it was better for her that Robert Napper was put through the proper justice procedures instead of Rachel putting a bullet through him, what do you suppose she and her child and her family and friends would answer?

Or Samantha and Jazmine Bisset, would they think it was much better?

[Seth]

You conflate them all together as if every bullet wound is equal to every other bullet wound. They aren't.

Unlike those of a fascist turn of mind, I regard all humans as deserving of life. Putting a bullet through a criminal may sometimes be necessary, but it is never desirable. Much better to capture the criminal and put him through the proper justice procedures.

Which is fine if the criminal surrenders. But when the criminal doesn't surrender and tries to kill you, are you going to let him kill you, or rape and murder your wife in front of you, without acting because you're filled with compassion for the poor criminal? I don't think so. So quit spouting strawman bullshit.

What you ignore, Seth, is that those statistics of mine (600,000 gun crimes plus 100,000 gun woundings, plus 20,000 gun killings each year) gain power by comparison to other western and wealthy nations. The USA is a sorry case by comparison. When you realise that, out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of all gun murders put together, you realise something is badly, and I mean truly badly, wrong with the USA.

They gain no power at all because you cherry-pick which nations to include and you deliberately exclude the OTHER nations where the crime and murder problem is much worse than it is here, and where citizens are forbidden to carry defensive weapons. Like the UK, where you can't even carry a can of pepper spray or tear gas. I believe the same is true in NZ. What a bunch of ignorant fucks.

What is wrong is gun availability (especially hand guns) and gun culture in the USA.

Nope, what's wrong is that more people are not allowed to carry defensive firearms, specifically handguns, as proven by the case of Chicago, which has a zero-tolerance law for private citizens carrying handguns yet has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation. Same with DC.

It's simple, more guns, less crime. Been demonstrated here in the US time and time again, so much so that the legislatures of 40 states have agreed and have liberalized concealed carry laws, resulting in dropping crime rates in every such state.

In other words, you lie.

This gun culture is exemplified in its worst and most extreme form, by the comments posted by Seth.

Poorly veiled personal attack.

[Gallstones]

Why screw around with one at a time?

30 days of guns saving lives: A collection of true stories of self-defense

[Seth]

Why screw around with one at a time?

30 days of guns saving lives: A collection of true stories of self-defense

Let me expand on that thought:

30 days of guns saving lives: A collection of true stories of self-defense

Guns Save Lives
March 14, 2013
By: Jennifer Cruz
Subscribe

Representative Short-Recoil pistols of 20th Century: Mauser C96 and M1911 type Colt series 80's.
Representative Short-Recoil pistols of 20th Century: Mauser C96 and M1911 type Colt series 80's.
Credits:
Photo by Amenhtp/ Wikimedia.org
Tweet
2 Email
Policy & Issues newsletter
Related topics

Guns Save Lives
gun rights
Guns
armed citizens
self-defense
Gun control

Advertisement

In February and March of 2013, the Little Rock Gun Rights Examiner started a series that was unofficially called 30 Days of Guns Saving Lives. The series was in response to a weeklong series aired by NBC which “investigated” “gun violence” in America.

On each day of the week, NBC exploited a single death where a gun was used as the instrument of death. The exploitation was yet another attempt for biased mainstream media to gain acceptance and support for gun control.

The 30 days series was an effort to help show that guns not only take lives, but very often save them. The series highlighted one story each day of a gun being used in self-defense. Most of these stories never even hit mainstream media. This was a fact that was both shocking, yet not surprising. But that fact in itself should be proof positive of the biasness and underlying intentions of the media.

These are the stories from the 30 days series.

Woman shoots intruder as he chokes her sister and demands money

Homeowner shoots intruder while waiting for police to arrive

87-year-old man saves woman from attacker, possibly prevents rape

Man shoots and kills intruder after returning home to burglary in progress

Armed robber runs away scared when woman pulls gun on him

Man with AR-15 saves tax preparation business from armed robbers

Dad protects himself and 2-year-old son during home invasion by armed intruders

Cell phone store employee stops armed robbery

Robbery stopped by armed sandwich shop employee

Armed Texas homeowner assists police in capturing robber

Young man in Texas protects parents from violent intruders

Pizza delivery driver in Indiana shoots armed robber

Texas homeowner shoots intruder during home invasion, protects wife and kids

Texas resident shoots intruder during attempted home invasion

North Carolina man fights for his life during violent home invasion

Alabama mother of two scares off intruder, he returns with letter of apology

Baton Rouge father shoots and kills armed intruder

Houston man holds three burglars at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive

Armed Maryland resident shoots intruder during attempted home invasion

Armed citizen shoots suspect during attempted bank robbery in Missouri

Armed citizen stops attempted robbery at liquor store in Topeka, no shots fired

Grocery store owner shoots suspect during attempted robbery

Woman fires shotgun at armed intruder after waking to find him in her bedroom

Miami man shoots and kills armed robber

North Carolina widow holds burglar at gunpoint until sheriff arrives

Armed citizen in Washington shoots intruder who threatened to kill woman inside

Intruder shot after breaking into South Carolina home and attacking woman inside

Tennessee teen shoots at armed prowler

81-year-old man in Florida stops attempted robbery, shoots would-be robber

Texas boy uses handgun to stop murder plot after mother and sister are raped

Armed citizen in Wisconsin stops woman from being severely beaten on a sidewalk

This concludes the series. However, at the overwhelming request of her readers, Jennifer Cruz has decided to continue to help bring stories of self-defense and firearms to light. She invites readers to share any gun related self-defense stories with her, so that they may be shared with others. She can be found on Facebook or contacted at jenniferlcruz@hotmail.com.

©2013 Jennifer L. Cruz. All rights reserved.

[Gallstones]

Tammy Salle Might have been wishing she could have put a bullet through John Goldberg so he couldn't stab her to death two days before Xmas and dump her body into the Clark Fork where it would not be found for months.

No proper justice procedures for John. He shot himself--read that again, he shot himself but he stabbed her.

Why, if he had an evil gun, didn't he use it to commit one of those gun homicides the US is famous for? It would have made the whole thing so much easier for him.

[Blind groper]

Noticeable that most of those 30 examples are not clear cut in any way. In other words, someone felt threatened and used the feeling as reason to kill someone. Probably valid some of the time, but certainly not all the time.

I am aware that Gallstones and Seth have made claims that they would shoot and kill someone on the basis that the person they shoot made them feel threatened. I hope those claims were pure bluster, because, as I said earlier, anyone who kills another human to avoid a possible risk to themselves is a coward, unless the threat is almost certain. A courageous person will accept a small risk to his/her own life to avoid a killing.

This is not, at this time, an accusation that Seth or Gallstones are cowards, since to my knowledge, neither has killed another human to avoid a small risk to his or her own life. However, if they did kill, to avoid a small personal risk, I would have no qualms whatever about accusing them of arrant, lily livered despicable cowardice.

[orpheus]

So you contend that if they had
fired on federal officers earlier, if they had wanted to start a war, then they'd have won against the Feds?  

Not at all. In war, people die. The point I was making was that Waco is not a good example of what the citizenry, once aroused and mustered, can do to put down a tyrannical government.

But Koresh and his people beat the shit out of the BATF assault teams, forcing them to retreat in ignominious humiliation. And the only way Reno could get them out of their compound was to murderously incinerate them all, thus making them martyrs.

Which of course lead DIRECTLY to the killing of more than 230 people in OK city by people outraged at the slaughter in Waco.

Debatable. Can you show a direct causal chain?

Not debatable at all. Just look at the record, McVeigh admitted he did it as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Direct connection.

How'd that work out for the feds?

In terms of fighting power? Feds are still here. Koresh et al aren't. 

Eighty people at Waco died. More than 230 died in Oklahoma city. 3 to 1 kill ratio. Wouldn't take long for the feds to give up if every encounter went that way, as the Russians discovered in Afghanistan. Federal cops don't want to get killed for Marxist drivel, neither do our soldiers, who swear allegiance to the Constitution and therefore the citizenry, not the President or anyone else.

I didn't say any particular individual or individual's would survive a revolution, but the nation would, and the tyrant would be deposed. That's all that's important.

So what you're actually saying is that guns aren't enough. In order to accomplish your goal, you're in favor of citizens having the right to bombs as well.

They already have that. A "bomb" (explosive or incendiary device like a hand-grenade or explosive firearm round) is defined as a "destructive device" under the NFA, and all you have to do to own one legally is file the Form 4 paperwork and pay the $200 tax per device...and meet the storage requirements of both the state and federal government which require proper storage in an approved explosives magazine. In fact, to own dynamite, det cord and other explosives like ammonium nitrate mixed with diesel fuel (ANFO - what Tim McVeigh used in Oklahoma City) used in mining, industry or agriculture (farmers) you don't even need to register under NFA, you just have to have a federal explosives license and a state permit.

Firearms alone might not be enough to win, but without them there is no chance whatsoever. And that's the point that our Founders clearly understood when they forbade Congress and the states (through the 14th Amendment) from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms...a pre-existing natural right not granted by government.

So you approve of McVeigh's actions? If guns aren't enough you're in favor of people stockpiling enough other weapons such as explosives to try to stand down the gov't? (I still think that impossible, but that's beside the point.) And since y'all would have to be organized (and it's already been hinted that gun owners are), you're in favor of a widespread network/organization of citizens stockpiling guns and explosives to do the sort of thing McVeigh did if they think it right?

Just want to understand where you stand here, Seth.

[Gallstones]

Noticeable that most of those 30 examples are not clear cut in any way. In other words, someone felt threatened and used the feeling as reason to kill someone. Probably valid some of the time, but certainly not all the time.

I am aware that Gallstones and Seth have made claims that they would shoot and kill someone on the basis that the person they shoot made them feel threatened. I hope those claims were pure bluster, because, as I said earlier, anyone who kills another human to avoid a possible risk to themselves is a coward, unless the threat is almost certain. A courageous person will accept a small risk to his/her own life to avoid a killing.

This is not, at this time, an accusation that Seth or Gallstones are cowards, since to my knowledge, neither has killed another human to avoid a small risk to his or her own life. However, if they did kill, to avoid a small personal risk, I would have no qualms whatever about accusing them of arrant, lily livered despicable cowardice.

Has Gallstones said any such thing--that my feeling threatened would be enough for a trigger finger?

Your view of what is acceptable in responding to threat is perverse. It causes me to suspect there might be something more sinister behind it. Who has the most to gain by belittleing and denigrating those who would protect themselves if not predators themselves? Look for fools elsewhere Blind groper.

You don't know of what you speak and I have been in a life threatening situation, I survived an attempt to murder me. So don't lecture me of what I should do in that situation. I not only would have killed him without remorse then, I'd do it still today. The difference is that today I am armed.

I am not obligated to your sensibilities when my safety is on the line.
I won't be either, ever. Deal you impotent shit.