Inherent risk for criminals

[apdst]

What about these people ?



"For the last five years, the victims of gun violence in the US have increasingly been young adults and children....since 2009, 3.8 percent more children and babies under 14 have been killed by guns each year.
And for people between ages 15 and 44, deaths have surged by over 10 percent each year since 2014, according to the new Boston University study...
...between 1999 and then, death rates held steady.
...but between 2014 and 2016, firearm mortality surged by 7.2 percent each year.

The increase during that period was even more dramatic among certain groups, including those between ages 15 and 44 and black Americans, among whom firearm deaths increased by a staggering 12.6% in a year.
It's homicides and non-fatal gunshots that concern Dr Kalesan...the predominant factor that she suspects drives this pattern is money....and the poverty gap...

...we see that gun violence is part of the "diseases of despair,"' alongside suicide, drug overdoses and alcoholism..."


Guns have killed 10% more young Americans each year for the last five | Daily Mail Online


Yet more removals from your "gene pool" that you don't care about ?

That increase is because of a decrease in gun ownership.

 

[Rich2018]

That increase is because of a decrease in gun ownership.

There are no stats on gun ownership levels - it's just an estimate.

 

[apdst]

There are no stats on gun ownership levels - it's just an estimate.

Fact: where gun ownership is restricted in The United States, the crime levels are higher.

 

[Court Jester]

Yes when presented with the figure of 10,000 US homicides by gun a year, gun owners will frequent say the vast majority of those are criminals by other criminals, which kind of undermines there own excuse that their guns are for self defense.

What MY guns are for are for LEGAL purposes, self defense or otherwise---- for which I same as others have an enumerated constitutional right to. What is so hard about that for the gun grabbers to understand? Which "switch" is unable to thrown the correct position to see that light is on? I think some people assume gun rights are something we gun owners just make up for ourselves.

 

[Court Jester]

Fact: where gun ownership is restricted in The United States, the crime levels are higher.

Bingo!

Until some people learn to accept that culture plays into criminal behavior they will go on believing that somehow it is the guns that make people do crimes. How many drive by shooting are there in Appalachia a place where people have about as many guns are there are people? Jump to South Chicago and an entirely different culture where criminals---- and criminal thinking is higher, and the result is what it is.

And before someone makes the claim that "poverty creates crime".... well, how rich are the people in Appalachia who own a lot of guns?

 

[zsu2357]

=Rich2018;1070936615]No they wouldn't

How are you going to protect yourself against an armed goon?

He could have protected himself without guns

You make it sound like everyone is Kung Fu fighting or something.

(or if he really needed to, adopt the firearms that even British gun laws allow, yet the British seldom need to use).

Yeaaah British gun laws. Probably seldom used because the victim becomes the criminal and the criminal the victim.

 

[zsu2357]

No, yours does if the only means of self defense you can think of is pulling a gun.

Maybe for some it is.
80-Year-Old Man Finds Intruder, Pats Him Down at Gunpoint, and Hands Him Over to Police - The Truth About Guns

And unfortunately some not. But hey I bet they felt pretty tough.
It Should Have Been a DGU: 88-Year-Old Man Beaten to Death - The Truth About Guns
But some work out pretty good.80-year-old woman shoots and kills intruder who attacked her husband - New York Daily News
80-year-old Arkansas woman shot, killed teen intruder, sheriff's office says

A lot of times it is the only way. Am I going to pull a cell phone and call 911? IF there is time okay, but am I going to trust that police will get here IN TIME? NO.

 

[Lursa]

Maybe for some it is.
80-Year-Old Man Finds Intruder, Pats Him Down at Gunpoint, and Hands Him Over to Police - The Truth About Guns

And unfortunately some not. But hey I bet they felt pretty tough.
It Should Have Been a DGU: 88-Year-Old Man Beaten to Death - The Truth About Guns
But some work out pretty good.80-year-old woman shoots and kills intruder who attacked her husband - New York Daily News
80-year-old Arkansas woman shot, killed teen intruder, sheriff's office says

A lot of times it is the only way. Am I going to pull a cell phone and call 911? IF there is time okay, but am I going to trust that police will get here IN TIME? NO.

I'll never understand what about "my family/my life, my choice" people dont understand? As if "other people" know other families situations and circumstances and commitment to safety & security and risk factors better than the people themselves? And then would like to see force of law used to make us all 'the same' as if life and circumstances are the same for all? That's delusional...hey, I'm not trying to convince the govt to MAKE people add security systems or buy guns or etc etc. If people want to limit their options and take their chances, that's their business...and their consequences. But since most (fortunately) dont suffer extreme consequences, they tend to believe that no one else does :doh...and would try to force us down to their level of risk-abdication.

It's incredibly arrogant & selfish to try and force that on strangers.

 

[zsu2357]

Originally Posted by Lursa
To pretend that a firearm isnt a very good solution to many self-defense scenarios is 100% dishonest....

I guess he's 100% dishonest to us and himself.

Excuse 2.2

You end up shooting a neighbor's kid or a family member far more often than an intruder according to statistics.

It always is a kid isn't it. Makes it sound better huh? Is the family member a kid or baby?

How does a fire arm stop being stabbed...you mean shoot the knifeman as you bleed out ?

Perhaps to keep him from stabbing anyone else too. If not, I bleed out so does he. At least he won't be set free to do it again.

He COULD have had a firearm, but didn't.

And maybe that's the problem.

Your solution would be for every person in the USA to go around armed - felons too.

Are you now advocating to arm violent criminals?

How do you explain European attacks or lack of - does the USA have a monopoly on psychopaths ?

What happens in Europe happens there. Also they report crime differently than we do too.


List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia

The last one was two days ago...it's almost one per day.

What do you want bet he was prohibited? And 4 wounded not exactly Sandy Hook.

 

[zsu2357]

You want a source that jumping off rooftops will most certainly result in death? :lol:

As they say "the proofs in the pudding". SPLAT!

 

[Rich2018]

Fact: where gun ownership is restricted in The United States, the crime levels are higher.

Chicken and egg.

Would it not actually be the case that where crime levels are high, local government (in places such as NYC) has sought to restrict gun ownership ?

 

[Rich2018]

What MY guns are for are for LEGAL purposes, self defense or otherwise---- for which I same as others have an enumerated constitutional right to. What is so hard about that for the gun grabbers to understand? Which "switch" is unable to thrown the correct position to see that light is on? I think some people assume gun rights are something we gun owners just make up for ourselves.

That in order to protect tens of thousand of people a year from being shot, honest gun owners have to lose their toys. It's been shown that guns are just really for recreation and any claimed "necessity" for self defense it rebutted by the fact that guns in the house tend to decrease the safety of those in it through family disputes and negligent discharge.

 

[Rich2018]

How are you going to protect yourself against an armed goon?

Excuse 2.2


"Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in..."


The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost

...you make it sound like everyone is Kung Fu fighting or something....

No the gun owners do with excuse 2.2, that they'd be dead/raped/robbed inside a day/week/month if they didn't have guns for self defense

Because give them back their guns and they're a cross between Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis

...British gun laws. Probably seldom used because the victim becomes the criminal and the criminal the victim.

No because the citizens handed in their guns - as Americans would do if they were banned.

 

[zsu2357]

Over half by suicide, I had a stat once where it showed suicide attempt by gun was bar far the most effective.

Most effective or not, 50.6 using firearms, where is the furor over the rest.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That in order to protect tens of thousand of people a year from being shot, honest gun owners have to lose their toys. It's been shown that guns are just really for recreation and any claimed "necessity" for self defense it rebutted by the fact that guns in the house tend to decrease the safety of those in it through family disputes and negligent discharge.

How is that any different from the "proper" government response to the (violent?) criminal abuse of any other tool? People are beaten or stabbed to death more often than they are shot with "assault rifles" yet a ban on blunt or sharp objects is never proposed as "the obvious solution".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Over half by suicide, I had a stat once where it showed suicide attempt by gun was bar far the most effective.

I would certainly hope so - a gun that is not capable of inflicting a fatal wound, carefully aimed at arms length is fairly useless.

 

[Court Jester]

That in order to protect tens of thousand of people a year from being shot, honest gun owners have to lose their toys.

Why would you call them "toys"? Maybe part of the problem is people like yourself who are incapable of seeing a tool as just being a toy? I suppose if we outlawed cars tens of thousands of people would no longer be killed in auto accidents. And what of those "selfish vain" people who insist on having a car when they could easily just walk and save the rest of us from possible danger?

It's been shown that guns are just really for recreation and any claimed "necessity" for self defense it rebutted by the fact that guns in the house tend to decrease the safety of those in it through family disputes and negligent discharge.

If guns are just for "recreation" then why do the police have them?

Have you ever had the business end of a gun pointed at you? Ever had one fired AT you in anger? I grow very weary of people who know nothing about firearms, their ethical and legal purpose, or who have never used one to defend their lives or the lives of others. Because I guarantee you 100% that if a criminal intent on killing you suddenly pulled a gun at started fire at you and somehow there was another gun available to you to defend your life, or the lives of loved ones---- you WOULD pick up that gun and defend yourself with it. And you would do it because is BOTH natural to want to survive AND moral to use the necessary deadly force to do so.

 

[Rich2018]

I guess he's 100% dishonest to us and himself....

"Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in..."



The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost

...it always is a kid isn't it. Makes it sound better huh? Is the family member a kid or baby?

They have the most to lose and are typically the most defenseless, but by all mean substitute ex members of the USMC.

..If not, I bleed out so does he. At least he won't be set free to do it again....

You make it sound like everyone was kung fu fighting...

OK Mr Lee if you say so....or if that fails, wack you assailant with your nunchucks.

...are you now advocating to arm violent criminals?

No you are (and people like you)

1. There are 10,000 homicides pa in the USA
2. Ah say the gun lobby, but this is mostly criminal or criminal
3. This undermines the need for you to defend yourself against something not concerning you
4. I released felons are SO at risk, why do you deny them the right to protect themselves?
5. If you ban ex felons from having guns, won't they just turn to the black market?

...what happens in Europe happens there...

A much lower homicide rate, much lower deaths/injuries from gun misuse and hardly any mass shootings (which happen in the USA at almost one per day)
More of a case of what DOESN'T happen in Europe because they are sensible and have gun control laws.


Are you a little Americano who thinks if it's not invented here it's not work having/doing ?

 

[Rich2018]

I would certainly hope so - a gun that is not capable of inflicting a fatal wound, carefully aimed at arms length is fairly useless.

Of course it's capable...so is a knife.

But a gun is far more effective and far easier to use.

 

[zsu2357]

What MY guns are for are for LEGAL purposes, self defense or otherwise---- for which I same as others have an enumerated constitutional right to. What is so hard about that for the gun grabbers to understand? Which "switch" is unable to thrown the correct position to see that light is on? I think some people assume gun rights are something we gun owners just make up for ourselves.

My guns have no rights:mrgreen: Because the next thing you know they would want equal rights and since one happens to be black and another is Chinese and one is dark brown, I would start getting racist this and that. Nope no rights for my guns.

 

[Rich2018]

Most effective or not, 50.6 using firearms, where is the furor over the rest.

What would you propose ?

Only (I say "only" in relation to deaths by gun shot) 1 on 40 (approx) attempts are successful.

Guns are more effective and easier to use and easier to acquire.

 

[Rich2018]

My guns have no rights:mrgreen: Because the next thing you know they would want equal rights and since one happens to be black and another is Chinese and one is dark brown, I would start getting racist this and that. Nope no rights for my guns.

WTF are you talking about ???

 

[Rich2018]

Why would you call them "toys"?

Because that's what they are - recreational toys.

Of course some people laboriously polish them and even place them in display boxes as some kind of substitute phallic symbol

...maybe part of the problem is people like yourself who are incapable of seeing a tool as just being a toy?

No, in private hands, a gun is not a tool

...I suppose if we outlawed cars....

Yeah, and kitchen knives, pointed sticks, swimming pools and rocks

You just fell into a well known mental bastion of gun owners. Cares are a necessity and are manufacturers are continually subject to new laws to build them safer

...if guns are just for "recreation" then why do the police have them?

Because their guns are no privately owned but issued and in their case they are a tool
Even so they resort to them too quickly in many cases

...have you ever had the business end of a gun pointed at you?

Oddly enough, no. And I bet you haven't either...unless the keyboard commando is about to open a can of testosterone

...I guarantee you 100% that if a criminal intent on killing you suddenly pulled a gun at started fire at you and somehow there was another gun available to you to defend your life...

If said criminal was a poor shot
I think I'd actually dive for cover and run or hide like a sensible person...still in keyboard commando mode ?

...you would do it because is BOTH natural to want to survive AND moral to use the necessary deadly force to do so.

And people in mass shootings often turn them into Dodge City style, Errol Flynn gunfights...not

They generally tend to cower behind cover and see how to get away.

Note: that doesn't apply to tough guys like you who've played Call of Duty and know exactly what to do.

 

[Rich2018]

How is that any different from the "proper" government response to the (violent?) criminal abuse of any other tool? People are beaten or stabbed to death more often than they are shot with "assault rifles" yet a ban on blunt or sharp objects is never proposed as "the obvious solution".

Most countries who aren't hamstrung by a constitution ban anything likely to cause a hazard unless it can be shown that the object is a necessity.

 

[zsu2357]

I'll never understand what about "my family/my life, my choice" people dont understand? As if "other people" know other families situations and circumstances and commitment to safety & security and risk factors better than the people themselves? And then would like to see force of law used to make us all 'the same' as if life and circumstances are the same for all? That's delusional...hey, I'm not trying to convince the govt to MAKE people add security systems or buy guns or etc etc. If people want to limit their options and take their chances, that's their business...and their consequences. But since most (fortunately) dont suffer extreme consequences, they tend to believe that no one else does :doh...and would try to force us down to their level of risk-abdication.

It's incredibly arrogant & selfish to try and force that on strangers.

It's strange isn't it. I told a anti gun poster awhile ago that they seem to think it's always going to happen to someone else so I'm safe. But that someone else with the same mind set is thinking the same thing.

Your right about other people. Just because someone takes a poll and says "Well 90% of gun owners want stricter gun laws" I ask myself who ARE these 90% of gun owners ? It's a number pulled out the ether.