jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteIn fairness, you can only count the lives saved from guns in the cases where guns were not the reason that the lives were endangered to begin with.
That cannot be a fair premise in any case I can imagine.
I wonder if the fact of fearing for ones life is somehow different when confronted with gun, knife, machete, spear, 2"x4", crowbar, or a gallon of gasoline and matches.
I am sure they all would ellicit the self preservation response in most any human being.
If the guns weren't around, the dangerous situation would not have existed, by one theory.
Quote
So the fact someone(the Victim) was about to be murdered, would not have been, if the victim had not been armed?WTF?
***
By the other theory, it wasn't the gun that saved the life, any weapon could have been used to protect ones family, a knife, sword, chainsaw, etc.
so your argument is what?
That a gun could not have saved a life?
that the victim would have been able to defend themselves in another manner? and this would be true for every different circumstance?
wow
jcd11235 0
Quoteso your argument is what?
My argument is that both sides are using disingenuous arguments.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
What I havent seen yet is the fact of why the 2nd ammendment was written. That was to protect this country from tyranny. As long as the people are allowed to have guns, the chances of a tyrant taking control are slim. Our country was founded on revolution, and if needed, once more. take away the guns and we have no power over a imperialist whether the libs fear "nazi" or the cons fear "commie" or as I, know all these motherfuckers are no good and are just waiting to suck you dry for their own comfort. Dem or Rep..same thing. We must be able to fight back..and its all these anti-gun wingnuts that will be hiding and crying or snitching off those who revolt be if it must come to be.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteI agree every good lobby has an effective propoganda campaign. I don't agree that the pro-gun lobby is driven by fear.
I am not trying to smear all gun owners (I am one) nor am I trying to smear those who have dispute with the idea of gun laws. I simply cannot help but notice a tendency towrds paranoia by the most vocal gun advocates. Some of the NRA types you meet at gun shows tend to come across as Dale Gribble. I was at a gun show and some guy asked me to sign a petition he had against bill C-68. Since I was not fully informed at the time about the bill i was reluctant to sign, yet I did not feel like getting into an argument with a guy who for whatever reason was decked out in military fatigues so I figured the best way out of it was to say that I did not want my name on any government lists (figuring a guy like that might relate to such a concern). He turns around in what appeared to be the best Dale Gribble immitation i have ever seen and said in all seriousness "Do you think the government doesn't already have a file on you". The more militant NRA types tend to see black helicopters everywhere and subscribe to the most sinister conspiracies regarding gun control. To be honest I think any credibility the NRA might have once had as a legitimate sporting organization has been lost, due to the political fanatics who now seem to represent it.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
JohnMitchell 14
What you missed is that ownership of guns by criminals in the U.S. is prohibited. Most gun murders are committed by felons with a long criminal history using illegally obtained handguns, just like in your country. I hear you're fast catching up to our homicide/capita rate.Quote
Do people get killed by legally owned guns in The United States of America? - Yes.
Thus if THOSE guns were not around, THOSE people could not have been killed by them.
Therefore, legally owning guns can not be making the country safer.
What did I miss?\
At least we can shoot a dangerous intruder in our own home without going to prison. Yes, I know people who have had to do that.
Although gun ownership in the U.S. continues to rise, the last 30 years have seen a huge decrease in accidental gun deaths. Not per capita, but total number of deaths per year. Much of this decrease in accidental gun deaths can be attributed to the NRA's continuing effort to teach safe gun handling and it's hunter's education programs.
JohnMitchell 14
Does a 70 year old woman have to go crowbar-to-crowbar with a 20 year old, 6 foot tall man to defend herself? That's crap. Give Granny a gun and let her use it.Quote
In fairness, you can only count the lives saved from guns in the cases where guns were not the reason that the lives were endangered to begin with.
Get rid of all guns, and the thugs will revert to clubs and knives and machetes, just like in Rwanda. All people have the innate right to defend themselves, and beware of any government that tries to take away their means of doing so.
Ted Kennedy's Volkswagen has still killed more people than my handguns.
Richards 0
***Both sides are driven by fear; though, the pro-gun lobby's fear may be more founded in fact. Like many other misguided, liberty threatening movements throughout history, the anti-gun lobby is driven primarily by people who fear what they do not understand. Compared to other causes of death, both natural and unnatural, the number of gun deaths in America is relatively low. It's even lower when you count only homicides and accidental deaths, discounting suicides, which account for about 50% of all gun related deaths in America. Contrary to what much of the world, including many Americans, seem to believe, American streets are not plagued by constant shootouts. We don't see movements--at least not of this magnitude--to ban things like cigarettes and cars because those things are understood by most people and/or considered important tools. The problem is that the supporters of the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and gun owners and don't see guns as important tools. Most people who support strict gun control have never needed or owned a gun and don't understand why anyone, outside of law enforcement and military personnel, would or should need or own a gun. They see gun ownership as a frivolous luxury that costs lives. They see guns as weapons of violence with absolutely no redeeming value. They believe that the banning of guns to save a handful of lives each year is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, they fail to see the big picture because, as stated in my previous post, they are basing this decision on the known and not the unknown.
This is true and I agree that some of the radical anti-gun types tend to go to extremes with thier views to the point where supporting gun owner rights is almost politically incorrect. I think where the pro-gun community gets hurt is with thier representation and their tendency to see sinister intent behind gun legislation. For example many pro-gun types like to refer to historical figures that have advocated gun control such as Hitler and Stalin as a basis for thier fear based argument. The rational being that if gun control is acheived then we will live in a totalitarian state. What they miss is that most politicians who go for gun control are not budding Hitlers but merely responding to a the wishes of a portion of their voting base and are at worst political opportunists who are doing so to win a few votes. When they start fear mongering about totalitarianism their credibility plummets. I beleive in the right to own firearms and I see the value in being able to protect your family from violence but again the pro-gun lobby needs to take a step back and see how thier representatives come across to the average non-gun owner. If they can work to change that image they will make more headway.
It would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
jcd11235 0
QuoteDoes a 70 year old woman have to go crowbar-to-crowbar with a 20 year old, 6 foot tall man to defend herself? That's crap. Give Granny a gun and let her use it.
I agree. Give her the gun. I'm not anti-gun.
That doesn't change the fact that if you are going to count the times guns saved lives, then you also have to discount the times the guns saved lives against another gun. If it was the gun that saved the life, and not the person using the gun, then it was a gun that caused the life to be in jeopardy, not the person using the gun.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteIt would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms?
OK, I'm a total gun NOOB here, but weren't assault weapons that have full-auto already banned back in the 1930s or something?
And didn't the much more recent, so-called Assault Weapons Ban just have a lot of bullshit complications and loopholes, such that it didn't really do anything meaningful? Since full auto weapons were already illegal anyway?
someone who knows more about this stuff please correct me if I'm wrong.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Richards 0
QuoteOK, I'm a total gun NOOB here, but weren't assault weapons that have full-auto already banned back in the 1930s or something?
And didn't the much more recent, so-called Assault Weapons Ban just have a lot of bullshit complications and loopholes, such that it didn't really do anything meaningful? Since full auto weapons were already illegal anyway?
someone who knows more about this stuff please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm am not on top of all the gun laws myself, but anyway I was not referring to fully automatic weapons but the ones that have been converted to semi-auto. I know that even here in Canada you could buy an AK (semi-auto) up untill the early 90's. I also seem to recall that there was a thread on this site about California banning the 50 cal sniper rifle (I could be wrong as I did not read the thread in depth so I apologise if I have my facts all wrong on this one). How someone could possibly protest that is beyond me. For that matter how could such a thing be legal in the first place?
Anyway, I am just saying that the pro-gun lobby would do well with a little flexibility and some leadership that comes across as more balanced.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
craddock 0
QuoteHow someone could possibly protest that is beyond me. For that matter how could such a thing be legal in the first place?
Because you never hear about the .50 cal used in crimes. It is a very expensive heavy large gun that really has no place in criminal activity. Some people just like to shot up things. Being harmed by the Barrett .50 cal is the VERY LAST thing on this earth I am concerned about for me and my family.
Then there is the AR-15. One of the most popular target rifles of all time. There are hundreds of thousands of these firearms owned and yet hardly ever are they used in a crime. The DC sniper used one and it was hardly the best weapon of choice for their killing spree. There may have been one more dead woman had they just used a simple bolt action hunting rifle.
They are fun to shoot though. They are a low powered(compared to a hunting rifle), low recoil, and while and expensive invesment- the ammo is cheap so you can shoot alot. The .22 rimfire ( think 10-22) and the AR-15 are great shooting platforms to practice with.
What's not to like?
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
Quote
Another group that must be considered are people who live in poor, urban areas that are like war zones where children get shot in the crossfire every day by gangbangers.
Ah, hyperbole! Name that neighborhood where children are getting shot every day? People in Oakland and SF are in an uproar about the current murder rates which are just passing 100/year, and these are large cities comprising many neighborhoods and most of those victims are not kids.
Yeah, downwardspiral's notation about the use of fear by the gun control movement is proven correct.
Certainly some people in DC and NYC and Chicago resent the fact that only the hoods have guns and the police don't show up until after it's all over.
kallend 1,635
QuoteIf, on balance guns are saving lives, why are the homicide stats SO MUCH higher in the US than in other western nations?
The actions of gun toting violent criminals
Fixed it.
Other violent crime rates are quite similar, just US homicides that are way out of line.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteWhat did I miss?
The defensive uses that firearms are used each year. That number ranges form 100,000 from anti-gun studies to 2.5 by pro gun studies. Most other studies put the number closer to the middle of the two extremes. You missed that for starters.
So why are the homicide rates so much higher in the US than in western nations where this so-called "defense" is not available.
It's a totally absurd argument.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
QuoteWhat I havent seen yet is the fact of why the 2nd ammendment was written. That was to protect this country from tyranny. As long as the people are allowed to have guns, the chances of a tyrant taking control are slim. Our country was founded on revolution, and if needed, once more. take away the guns and we have no power over a imperialist whether the libs fear "nazi" or the cons fear "commie" or as I, know all these motherfuckers are no good and are just waiting to suck you dry for their own comfort. Dem or Rep..same thing. We must be able to fight back..and its all these anti-gun wingnuts that will be hiding and crying or snitching off those who revolt be if it must come to be.
Silly argument. If the government turns on you, you will need real militia weapons like the Iraqi insurgents have, not the stuff the US governmant allows you to have. Grenades, RPGs, machine guns...
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
craddock 0
QuoteIt's a totally absurd argument.
What argument?. I was answering HIS question. Nothing false or misleading about it. Not one damn thing.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
Douva 0
Quote***Both sides are driven by fear; though, the pro-gun lobby's fear may be more founded in fact. Like many other misguided, liberty threatening movements throughout history, the anti-gun lobby is driven primarily by people who fear what they do not understand. Compared to other causes of death, both natural and unnatural, the number of gun deaths in America is relatively low. It's even lower when you count only homicides and accidental deaths, discounting suicides, which account for about 50% of all gun related deaths in America. Contrary to what much of the world, including many Americans, seem to believe, American streets are not plagued by constant shootouts. We don't see movements--at least not of this magnitude--to ban things like cigarettes and cars because those things are understood by most people and/or considered important tools. The problem is that the supporters of the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and gun owners and don't see guns as important tools. Most people who support strict gun control have never needed or owned a gun and don't understand why anyone, outside of law enforcement and military personnel, would or should need or own a gun. They see gun ownership as a frivolous luxury that costs lives. They see guns as weapons of violence with absolutely no redeeming value. They believe that the banning of guns to save a handful of lives each year is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, they fail to see the big picture because, as stated in my previous post, they are basing this decision on the known and not the unknown.
This is true and I agree that some of the radical anti-gun types tend to go to extremes with thier views to the point where supporting gun owner rights is almost politically incorrect. I think where the pro-gun community gets hurt is with thier representation and their tendency to see sinister intent behind gun legislation. For example many pro-gun types like to refer to historical figures that have advocated gun control such as Hitler and Stalin as a basis for thier fear based argument. The rational being that if gun control is acheived then we will live in a totalitarian state. What they miss is that most politicians who go for gun control are not budding Hitlers but merely responding to a the wishes of a portion of their voting base and are at worst political opportunists who are doing so to win a few votes. When they start fear mongering about totalitarianism their credibility plummets. I beleive in the right to own firearms and I see the value in being able to protect your family from violence but again the pro-gun lobby needs to take a step back and see how thier representatives come across to the average non-gun owner. If they can work to change that image they will make more headway.
It would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community.
Quote***Both sides are driven by fear; though, the pro-gun lobby's fear may be more founded in fact. Like many other misguided, liberty threatening movements throughout history, the anti-gun lobby is driven primarily by people who fear what they do not understand. Compared to other causes of death, both natural and unnatural, the number of gun deaths in America is relatively low. It's even lower when you count only homicides and accidental deaths, discounting suicides, which account for about 50% of all gun related deaths in America. Contrary to what much of the world, including many Americans, seem to believe, American streets are not plagued by constant shootouts. We don't see movements--at least not of this magnitude--to ban things like cigarettes and cars because those things are understood by most people and/or considered important tools. The problem is that the supporters of the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and gun owners and don't see guns as important tools. Most people who support strict gun control have never needed or owned a gun and don't understand why anyone, outside of law enforcement and military personnel, would or should need or own a gun. They see gun ownership as a frivolous luxury that costs lives. They see guns as weapons of violence with absolutely no redeeming value. They believe that the banning of guns to save a handful of lives each year is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, they fail to see the big picture because, as stated in my previous post, they are basing this decision on the known and not the unknown.
This is true and I agree that some of the radical anti-gun types tend to go to extremes with thier views to the point where supporting gun owner rights is almost politically incorrect. I think where the pro-gun community gets hurt is with thier representation and their tendency to see sinister intent behind gun legislation. For example many pro-gun types like to refer to historical figures that have advocated gun control such as Hitler and Stalin as a basis for thier fear based argument. The rational being that if gun control is acheived then we will live in a totalitarian state. What they miss is that most politicians who go for gun control are not budding Hitlers but merely responding to a the wishes of a portion of their voting base and are at worst political opportunists who are doing so to win a few votes. When they start fear mongering about totalitarianism their credibility plummets. I beleive in the right to own firearms and I see the value in being able to protect your family from violence but again the pro-gun lobby needs to take a step back and see how thier representatives come across to the average non-gun owner. If they can work to change that image they will make more headway.
It would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community.
Every time I walk into a gun show and see booths draped in confederate flags and salesmen decked out in full fatigues, I want to go, "Are you kidding me? Is this really the image that's going to convince Mr. and Mrs. America we're not a bunch of nuts?" So to that extent, I agree with what you're saying.
With that said, you seem to have bought into a lot of the propaganda about military style weapons. Can you tell me what is more dangerous about an AR-15 or a semi-automatic Kalashnikov (AK-47) than a semi-automatic hunting rifle of a similar caliber? The answer is "nothing." Despite often being referred to as "high powered rifles" by the media, most "assault weapons" actually fire smaller, less powerful rounds than most hunting rifles. They're also less accurate than most hunting rifles. The sniper rifle the military used for many years was simply a heavy barreled version of a hunting rifle that can be purchased at any Wal-Mart. A gun designed for hunting can just as easily kill you just as dead as a gun designed for military application. Being scary looking does not make a gun more dangerous.
Portraying "Assault Weapons" (I use the quotation marks because true assault weapons are select fire, meaning they can be switched to fully-automatic) as evil killers is the anti-gun lobby's way of discrediting many honest, law abiding gun owners and making a partial gun ban seem reasonable to those ignorant about firearms.
Here is an excerpt from "Gun Facts Version 4.1," Page 26-28.
Copyright 2006, Guy Smith, www.GunFacts.info, All Rights Reserved
Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal "assault weapons ban", you were eleven (11) times more
likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”.142 In the first year since the
ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%.143
Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25%
of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In
many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland,
New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%144
Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and
California "assault weapons" confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.145
Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved
an "assault weapon".
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons".
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were "assault
weapons".
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes...assault-type firearms were the least
of our worries.”146
For the rest of the nation:
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons".
• Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”.
Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 "assault
weapons" ban.147
Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an
"assault weapon" during the commission of their last
crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously
owned such weapons.148
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower
or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and
“play a small role in overall violent crime”.149
Fact: Even the government agrees. “ . . . the weapons
banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault
Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in
gun crimes”150
Myth: One out of five police officers killed are killed with
assault weapons151
Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the former Federal “assault weapons” list. Including
various legal firearms152 inflated the statistics almost 100%.
Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”. They were
twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun.153
Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an "assault
weapon"154, though fewer than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.155
Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer) handguns than they are to carry
"assault weapons".156
Fact: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25
years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used
against police officers."157
Fact: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that "assault weapons" are/were used
in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are
more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the
hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."158
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be
bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed
carry laws) are unlikely to carry "assault weapons."
Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to
machine guns
Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.
Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.159
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were
converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.160
Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news
network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with
“assault weapons”.161 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those
were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. "You can't get around
the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to
the [gun control] movement."162
Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. The
classification scheme used encompassed most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987 (center fire
rifles and shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding more than 10
rounds). By misclassifying “assault weapons”, they expanded the scope of a non-problem.
Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban
was effective
Fact: “ . . . we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun
violence.”163
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the bans
effectiveness is automatically limited.
Fact: "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or
multiple gunshot wound victims.”164
Fact: "The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban
have not yet been demonstrated.”165
Fact: "The ban triggered speculative price increases
and ramped-up production of the banned firearms”166
Fact: "The ban … ramped-up production of the
banned firearms prior to the law's implementation”167
and thus increased the total supply over the following
decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the
1994 ban, there were 18% fewer "assault weapons"
traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than
were traced in the same period in 1994”. However they failed to note (and these are mentioned
in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in
crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the
available supply before the ban.
Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon
Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
• They are accurate
• They have value in many self-defense situations
Fact: There are many sports in which these firearms are required:
• Many hunters use these firearms
• Three-gun target matches
• Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events
• DCM/CMP competitions
• Bodyguard simulations
Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
"No one should have any illusions about
what was accomplished (by the ban).
Assault weapons play a part in only a
small percentage of crime. The provision
is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it
turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping
stone to broader gun control."
Washington Post editorial
September 15, 1994
"Passing a law like the assault weapons
ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move
... Its only real justification is not to
reduce crime but to desensitize the public
to the regulation of weapons in
preparation for their ultimate
confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, Syndicated
Columnist, The Washington Post, April
5, 1996
141 Department of Defense Small Arms Identification and Operations Guide
142 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
143 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Preliminary Summary, 2004
144 Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
145 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993
146 S.C. Helsley, Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California, October 31, 1988
147 From statewide recovery report from Connecticut (1988-1993) and Pennsylvania (1989-1994)
148 Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1994
149 Philip McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc., April 7, 1989, Mohr C. "House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work." New
York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15
150 “Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
151 This claim was made by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center in their 2003 report titled “Officer Down”
152 The “study” included legal models of the SKS, Ruger Mini-14, and M1-Carbine, which were all in circulation
before the federal “assault weapons” ban and which were excluded from the ban.
153 “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, FBI, 1994
154 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001
155 Ibid.
156 Ibid
157 Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug
1993
158 Ibid
159 BATF test as reported in the New York Times, April 3, 1989
160 Jimmy Trahin, Los Angeles Detective, Congressional testimony, Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary, May 5, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office. p. 379
161 Washington Post, May 2, 1992
162 Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Washington Post, May 18, 1993
163 “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence,
1994-2003”, National Institute of Justice, June 2004
164 “Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
165 Ibid
166 Ibid
167 Ibid
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
That cannot be a fair premise in any case I can imagine.
I wonder if the fact of fearing for ones life is somehow different when confronted with gun, knife, machete, spear, 2"x4", crowbar, or a gallon of gasoline and matches.
I am sure they all would ellicit the self preservation response in most any human being.
If the guns weren't around, the dangerous situation would not have existed, by one theory. By the other theory, it wasn't the gun that saved the life, any weapon could have been used to protect ones family, a knife, sword, chainsaw, etc.