More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[wmw999 2,121]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

This one discusses the phrase,“a good guy with a gun” is the only thing that can stop “a bad guy with a gun.”  There is little clarity on the issue of legitimate gun use.

I disagree on that second one; there is plenty of clarity for most people, it's just that there is a wide gap between the ends of what people think. The thing is that guns seem to be an easy solution to problems for people without imaginations, just as a hammer is used to let out frustrations sometimes. And the ready availabilty of guns, combined with their relative ease of use (no actual risk much of the time, and you don't have to actually touch someone), makes them attractive too.

They've become a political symbol for a lot of people; I see them as a tool that's the tool of first (or early) resort for too many people, and the tool that other people say absolutely NO ONE should resort to. To me, those are both rather extreme views, but a world with too many guns seems to result in far more dead innocent people than a world with too few guns (as evidenced by most of Europe).

Wendy P.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Two robbers that won't do that again. I would be interesting to see if the 1/week jugging incidents stop.

https://www.kbtx.com/2023/07/08/man-shoots-kills-2-men-trying-rob-him-atm-police-say/

In Alamo City: Jan - May 2022  - 704 robberies, Jan - May 2023  - 710 robberies 

Hi Bill,

Re:  Two robbers that won't do that again.

And, from your link:   Right now, we’re looking at he’s the victim of a robbery and was acting in self-defense,” 

I see nothing in your linked article that says this was an actual robbery.  It might just be someone who had a gun & got scared & decided to kill two innocent people.

Where is your proof that this was a robbery?  You know, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Where is your proof that this was a robbery?  You know, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

A handy gun allows you to cancel that lengthy, tedious process.  BOOM!

And if you kill a few (or 5) innocent people in the process?  Well, rather not be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and all that.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 3/23/2021 at 7:25 AM, BIGUN said:

And that, is not a "gun problem" that is a "people (mental health) problem."

Then instead of locking up the shooters in asylums, which don’t help, let’s instead lock them up in gun stores.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

A woman was visiting El Paso TX and called for an Uber to take her to a casino to meet with her boyfriend.  Along the way she saw a road sign for an upcoming exit to Juarez, Mexico.  She immediately assumed she was being kidnapped and taken to Mexico, so she pulled out a handgun and shot the driver in the back of the head, killing him.  The road they were driving on was, in fact, the correct route between her hotel and the casino, and they were nowhere near the actual border.  Oh well, nobody's perfect.  Can't have the 2nd amendment without breaking a few eggs after all.

[Phil1111 910]

1 minute ago, GeorgiaDon said:

A woman was visiting El Paso TX and called for an Uber to take her to a casino to meet with her boyfriend.  Along the way she saw a road sign for an upcoming exit to Juarez, Mexico.  She immediately assumed she was being kidnapped and taken to Mexico, so she pulled out a handgun and shot the driver in the back of the head, killing him.  The road they were driving on was, in fact, the correct route between her hotel and the casino, and they were nowhere near the actual border.  Oh well, nobody's perfect.  Can't have the 2nd amendment without breaking a few eggs after all.

Sounds like a matter ready for the republican laws that justify homicide when you feel your life is threatened. Hopefully she won't be charged with anything.

America.

[billvon 2,396]

5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Sounds like a matter ready for the republican laws that justify homicide when you feel your life is threatened.

Well, they only justify GUN violence.  Had she merely strangled him - that's not covered.

[kallend 1,623]

7 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  Two robbers that won't do that again.

And, from your link:   Right now, we’re looking at he’s the victim of a robbery and was acting in self-defense,” 

I see nothing in your linked article that says this was an actual robbery.  It might just be someone who had a gun & got scared & decided to kill two innocent people.

Where is your proof that this was a robbery?  You know, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

Also from the link:

". . . . and saw two people approach him who he believed were trying to rob him. The man then shot and killed the two men."

We don't know if it was an actual robbery, or just over-active imagination.

[wmw999 2,121]

Would it make a difference if they both had been attacking people at ATM's before, like had been convicted for it? Is it the possible guilt, or the risk to the person doing the defending that's more important?

To me, they can have my money. What I get out of an ATM isn't worth taking a life over. That's a fear of life thing; possessions are just stuff. Someone else's life is just as precious to them as mine is to me.

The fact that someone was, in fact, guilty of trying to steal my stuff is significant, but executing justice is for the judicial system, not the victim directly. Defense means exactly that -- anything else is like executing a preemptive attack because you might be attacked. Had Ukraine attacked Russia during the buildup, that would have been wrong, too. And any more, I don't really think the six-day war, with its preemptive strike, was necessarily right. 

It's all about whether on a grander stage than myself, where do my rights rank? Right there with everyone else's, but so do their rank right there with mine.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,911]

26 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

To me, they can have my money. What I get out of an ATM isn't worth taking a life over.

You are missing the entire point. Many of the people who keep themselves armed with a pistol at the ready dream of the day when they get to use it. Most likely the reality of what happens afterward is nothing like they imagined. But at least their day of glory has arrived.

[Phil1111 910]

14 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You are missing the entire point. Many of the people who keep themselves armed with a pistol at the ready dream of the day when they get to use it. Most likely the reality of what happens afterward is nothing like they imagined. But at least their day of glory has arrived.

Yep. Payback for when their bike was stolen as a child. Payback because they pay taxes yet people still want to steal from them. Payback because they work so hard yet criminals just don't want to work. Justification for lugging around the .40 cal for a decade because it has better stopping power than the nine. Owning and proving to the Libs that guns are a necessity.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

You are missing the entire point. Many of the people who keep themselves armed with a pistol at the ready dream of the day when they get to use it. Most likely the reality of what happens afterward is nothing like they imagined. But at least their day of glory has arrived.

Bingo.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Yep. Payback for when their bike was stolen as a child. Payback because they pay taxes yet people still want to steal from them. Payback because they work so hard yet criminals just don't want to work. Justification for lugging around the .40 cal for a decade because it has better stopping power than the nine. Owning and proving to the Libs that guns are a necessity.

Una mas Bingo.

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You are missing the entire point. Many of the people who keep themselves armed with a pistol at the ready dream of the day when they get to use it.

Yet most of the crime is committed by those that actually use it. . .guess where?

[kallend 1,623]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Yet most of the crime is committed by those that actually use it. . .guess where?

Where?

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, the 5 most hazardous states in the U.S. in 2023 are:

1. Louisiana: Overall Crime Rate of 537.5/100,000 people, making it the most dangerous.
2. Mississippi: Overall Crime Rate of 413.2/100,000 people.
3. Alaska: Despite a low population, a high Overall Crimes Rate of 386.2/100,000 people.
4. Arkansas: Overall Crime Rate of 385.9/100,000 people.
5. New Mexico: Overall Crime Rate of 369.5/100,000 people

[normiss 622]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, they only justify GUN violence.  Had she merely strangled him - that's not covered.

There are a surprising number of people defending a former Marine for choking a man to death for yelling at people on a subway train though.

Apparently there are some people easily triggered in big cities. I hear screaming fairly regularly from people on the streets.

Still ain't scared. Apparently my level of paranoia has not yet reached the must be armed everywhere all of the time threshold.

[billvon 2,396]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

Where?

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, the 5 most hazardous states in the U.S. in 2023 are:

1. Louisiana: Overall Crime Rate of 537.5/100,000 people, making it the most dangerous.
2. Mississippi: Overall Crime Rate of 413.2/100,000 people.
3. Alaska: Despite a low population, a high Overall Crimes Rate of 386.2/100,000 people.
4. Arkansas: Overall Crime Rate of 385.9/100,000 people.
5. New Mexico: Overall Crime Rate of 369.5/100,000 people

And the top states for gun death rates are very similar, also from the CDC.

Mississippi – 28.6.
Louisiana – 26.3.
Wyoming – 25.9.
Missouri – 23.9.
Alabama – 23.6.
Alaska – 23.5.

Note correlation to gun ownershop rates.  (From the RAND corporation)

Mississippi – 50% of adults live in a household with a gun.
Louisiana – 48%.
Wyoming – 59%.
Missouri – 48%.
Alabama – 50%.
Alaska – 59%.

For the other side of the equation, the LOWEST gun death rates:

Hawaii – 3.4 (8% of adults live in a household with a gun)
Massachusetts – 3.7 (10%)
New Jersey – 5 (8%)
Rhode Island – 5.1 (11%)
New York – 5.3 (14%)

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 3/23/2021 at 12:12 PM, BIGUN said:

We don't "feel" that way; it's guaranteed in writing.

And, can we not do the name calling thing. You can make your point without getting inflammatory. I know; I've seen you do it. 

Nonsense. It's been “guaranteed “ through an absurd collection of rewritings.

[kallend 1,623]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

And the top states for gun death rates are very similar, also from the CDC.

Mississippi – 28.6.
Louisiana – 26.3.
Wyoming – 25.9.
Missouri – 23.9.
Alabama – 23.6.
Alaska – 23.5.

Note correlation to gun ownershop rates.  (From the RAND corporation)

Mississippi – 50% of adults live in a household with a gun.
Louisiana – 48%.
Wyoming – 59%.
Missouri – 48%.
Alabama – 50%.
Alaska – 59%.

For the other side of the equation, the LOWEST gun death rates:

Hawaii – 3.4 (8% of adults live in a household with a gun)
Massachusetts – 3.7 (10%)
New Jersey – 5 (8%)
Rhode Island – 5.1 (11%)
New York – 5.3 (14%)

"More Guns Less Crime" (title of a silly book by John R. Lott aka Mary Rosh) doesn't appear to align with the facts.

[lippy 771]

The real sacrifice on this one was mine....traffic getting home Wednesday was horrendeous!

 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-driver-shot-apparent-victim-of-road-rage-on-i-35w/3293911/

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

The real sacrifice on this one was mine....traffic getting home Wednesday was horrendeous!

 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-driver-shot-apparent-victim-of-road-rage-on-i-35w/3293911/

Typical left wing media reporting. Obviously the driver is a hero for simultaneously defending himself while driving a busy highway. Gun shop owners and republicans will celebrate the skill of the shooter and the benefits of a handy gun at all times.

[billeisele 122]

On 7/10/2023 at 1:28 PM, wmw999 said:

I disagree on that second one; there is plenty of clarity for most people, it's just that there is a wide gap between the ends of what people think. The thing is that guns seem to be an easy solution to problems for people without imaginations, just as a hammer is used to let out frustrations sometimes. And the ready availabilty of guns, combined with their relative ease of use (no actual risk much of the time, and you don't have to actually touch someone), makes them attractive too.

They've become a political symbol for a lot of people; I see them as a tool that's the tool of first (or early) resort for too many people, and the tool that other people say absolutely NO ONE should resort to. To me, those are both rather extreme views, but a world with too many guns seems to result in far more dead innocent people than a world with too few guns (as evidenced by most of Europe).

Wendy P.

I was commenting on, and the article addresses, the fact that there are little to no credible stats on self-defense gun use. Yes, when the gun is fired and someone is shot the data is there. The experts agree that when no one is shot the data is not available. 

We agree on the rest of the comments.

That raises the same ole questions. What legal and effective measures can be used to limit access to guns for people that should not have them while allowing the other 98+% of law-abiding people to have them?  A number of suggestions have been made. One problem remains, criminals don't follow laws.

[billeisele 122]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:59 AM, billvon said:

Let's see.  She asked if it was really OK to kill 5 times as many innocent people in order to kill a few guilty people.  You said that the question itself had no validity.  You then posted a study that - you claimed - demonstrated that there were far more good gun uses than she suggested.

However, the study talked about ALL defensive gun uses, including brandishing.  If you include that, you of course have to include all the instances of brandishing being used in muggings, robberies, rape etc.  The study indicated that there were 70,000 defensive uses of a gun a year, compared to 484,000 criminal uses of guns per year.

So if you just go with defensive vs criminal use of guns, guns are used SEVEN times more often for crime than they are used for defense.  So going back to what Wendy said, she is not understating the defensive use of guns.  She is overstating them - per your own data.

No that is not what I said. What I said was comparing these two incidents isn't valid. Big difference. I further said that the experts agree that there is no reliable data on defensive gun uses where no one is shot. The Trace article clearly describes two data sets that use different criteria and, no surprise, have different summaries. Your final analysis is incorrect.

[kallend 1,623]

No quibbling over these data.

 

https://apnews.com/article/mass-killings-record-gun-violence-0174103c37756fe4d247fd15cd3bc009

"Six months. 181 days. 28 mass killings. 140 victims. One country."

[billvon 2,396]

28 minutes ago, billeisele said:

No that is not what I said.

Yes that is exactly what you said.  Wendy asked if it was OK to "kill 10 (or whatever) innocents to justify the means to kill 2 miscreants."  She was obviously not discussing any specific incidents.   Hence the "whatever."  She was talking about that sort of ratio. 

You said "comparing two incidents, 10 vs. 2, has no validity."  And again, there was no incident that Wendy was talking about where 10 people had been killed.  She was using that as the ratio.

Quote

I further said that the experts agree that there is no reliable data on defensive gun uses where no one is shot. 

I have absolutely no doubt that you would consider any research that shows that defensive gun use is not as prevalent as you imagine it to be "unreliable."  But from the best data we have, guns are used to harm people far more often than they are used to prevent harm.  And from the best data we have, guns are used to kill innocent people far more often than they are used to kill criminals - suspected OR convicted.

I would note that the REASON we do not have even better data is that republicans have managed to successfully cancel any such research.  They know what it will show, and they do not want that information out there.  For them, ignorance is far preferable to certainty.