Summations Only

Why should that be the goal?

Hi Percy, I agree that reducing deaths is the main thing. That is why I support the second amendment other than it being the law of the land.How many of the times a gun was used to foil a criminal in self defense would the people have died had they not used a gun in their self defense?Do you have any numbers?I can find numerous occasions where an intruder was killed in self defense.The lie that is being put forth is that assault rifles are the bad weapons and need to be banned.In 2010 there was 358 murders with all kinds of rifles.

quote:

---

While anti-gun advocates argue that banning semi-automatic rifles, like the popular AR-15, will help decrease shooting deaths in the U.S., FBI data suggests that the average American is more likely to be killed by hands, fists or feet than a rifle. The anti-gun crowd has intensified its calls for a federal assault weapons ban following the tragedy in Newtown, Conn. last week.

---

SourceI find 1 report that says 851 funerals were the result of accidental death by gun in 2011(I am assuming 2011 as the article does not specify). It does not give a breakdown of what kind of gun was involved. SourceI have no knowledge of the reliability of the source. It could be perfect or less than perfect.But anyone that is involved in an accidental death by gun should not have a gun in their posession.I raised 2 boys and had loaded guns in the house all the time. There was no trigger locks or gun safes. The shotguns and rifles were in a gun rack on the wall 5' off the floor. My boys knew what a gun could do from the time they were able to walk. They were present at hog killings. By the time they were able to hold a gun and shoot it they were taught the proper way to handle a gun. My oldest son killed his first deer when he was nine years old. But when my grandkids came along I placed the weapons in places they could not get to them as they had never been taught to respect a gun or authority.A gun in the hands of a trained person is a tool. In the hands of an untrained person it becomes a toy like the one they see on TV where people get shot and get up, or they see them in the next movie. They play computer games where when they are shot and killed they get a new life and go again. So there is no bad results until they point a real loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber at someone and pulls the trigger. Then and only then do they respect what a gun can do.So if you really want to save lives it can be done by education. It will never be done by banning weapons. Because if someone wants to kill someone they will find a way whether they have access to a gun or not. If you don't believe so just check out the FBI information found HereIn 2011 eleven people were murdered every two days in the US.You may not think that is very many but I do.Do you want to take the right of those eleven people to have a gun to protect themselves with away from them? Had they had a gun they may be alive today.How about the Georgia mom and her two children this month who where hiding in a crawl space and an intruder broke into the house and found the place they were hiding. She shot him 5 times and he still got out of the house but was captured shortly.The police and her husband was on the way but would have been too late had she not had the revolver. The husband was gun savy and had only 5 bullets in the revolver so the hammer was on a empty chamber. But I bet you by now there is a Glock with a 10 round clip or equivelant available for defense in the home.Would you rather that she did not have the revolver in the home?I would rather that she have a AR15 or AK47 with a 30 round magazine and know how to use it. But thats just me. I would like to see you convince the families of the 11 people who are murdered every two days that you are correct.God Bless,

ICANT, did you seriously reply to a message noting that you're just repeating yourself while ignoring rebuttals by doing it yet again? Impressive! You might want to reread the arguments you made in the last three paragraphs of your Message 1435. It's ground we've been over before - you just repeated your arguments as if no one had ever responded with counterarguments. That's why you should have continued with, "Now I know it's been argued..."--Percy

Unless you are referring to 'relief from living,' and 'aid to the Grim Reaper,' it seems you are not acquainted with america's body of work.

Hi ICANT,Simple numbers is the problem with your position. First, one number you mention a couple times is wrong, that eleven people are murdered every two days in the US (I assume you meant by firearms). That comes out to 2008 murders per year, except that there are more like 8000 or 9000 murders a year.Second, the number of people murdered by firearms every year far exceeds the number whose lives might have been saved by firearms, and then there are all the suicides by firearms.The argument that guns prevent murders is silly. It isn't that they can't - it's that the confluence of circumstances necessary for an armed but otherwise unprepared person thwarting someone intent on murdering them is incredibly unlikely. And of course, the goal of the vast majority of premeditated crimes is not murder. A gun can easily thwart theft, particularly if the criminal himself is unarmed, but a murderer whose goal is to kill you is not going to drop his gun and run when you reach for your own weapon - he's going to shoot you.The bottom line is that the odds of getting shot by a gun while just out and about on your daily routine is incredibly unlikely. But buy a gun and the odds go way up.--Percy

Hi GDR, That was the reason I took the smallest number.But if you don't think people are saved by having a gun available to protect themself I will present a few. Here
Here
Here
HereBut the second amendment was not placed in the constitution to grant a right to a citizen to possess a gun to hunt with, target practice with, or just to protect them from a crook. It was place there to insure that the Federal government could not infringe the right (that the people already possesed) of the people to possess and bear Arms. The fear was that the Federal government through a standing army could take over the country and install a dictatorship or a kingship. If such were to take place I hope we have enough active military men that believe in the constitution and will disobey to follow orders to fire on the citizens of the country and instead choose to obey their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and use all means at their disposal to make sure such an event would not take place. That is great.But if you take the makeup of the citizens of Canada and the citizens of the US you will find that our homicide rate and that of Canada is not very different.
Check HereGod Bless,

No, I'm just trying to make myself heard.And your blather about fear-laden this and that is again just your own fantasy and I'm tired of talking about it since you continue to get it all confused.

Provided your routine isn't in Pleasant Grove Dallas TX.
Then your odds go up exponentially Urban Dictionary: Pleasant GroveEdited by 1.61803, : link

I guess things have gotten so bad nobody knows what basic Christianity is any more. MY belief? No, it's standard historical Biblical Christianity that was the basis of western civilization.This discussion was brought up by GDR, not by me, as an accusation that defending gun rights is contrary to Christ's teachings.And this is being misconstrued AGAIN:The restricting of gun rights is not something WE'd do that He'd react to with punishment, but would itself be God's judgment on the nation, which I would take as a sign that we're so far down the road to total judgment He's abandoned the nation altogether. That is, I attribute the loss of our gun rights to HIS will as judgment against us. It IS punishment, not something He'd punish us FOR.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This discussion about how many lives are saved or lost is not the important thing to me. The important thing is retaining our second amendment right. Whatever can be done to improve safety without imperiling that right is fine with me.NOT consulting commentaries when there is a dispute about the meaning of a Biblical text is stupid, as if you and you alone know the meaning that recognized teachers don't.I reject all your theology anyway, GDR, there's no point in discussing it. You're one of those here who makes it up to suit yourself. It's not worth it to me even to read through it. I listen to and read the best of the best preachers and teachers, there's no point in getting all caught up in a self-invented system like yours.

I drive through East St. Louis twice a day to and from work...Their murder rate is on the order of one per one thousand, rather than per 100,000.
Burglary is on the order of one per one hundred...
Assault: one per twenty... for real eek on that one.

When the cure for a disease kills more people than the disease, should you take the cure?Enjoy.

Why are people this short sighted. The vast majority of western civilization in christian Europe was dominated by dictators, not democracies. You are aware of this, are you not? In fact, Charlemagne, in the name of God, conquered the Goths and offered them two choices: convert to Christianity or die. Many opted for death. That is your beloved christian western civliziation. Yes, let's look at our punishment. We have more freedoms than any previous generation of humans ever. The technology we possess is beyond anything dreamt of just 100 years ago. We are a very, very affluent nation. So affluent, it turns out, that just one of our states, California, would rank as the 5th most powerful economy if it were its own nation. Yeah, we are really feeling that wrath.

Hi Percy, So where does that help you. Now you have 35 families to convince that you are correct.You are correct I should have used 12,996 for homicides in 2010.That come out to 35 each day. My bad.Or the 8,775 murders committed with firearms which would be 24 per day.Or the 6,009 murdered with hand guns which would be 16 per day.Or the 358 murdered with all rifles which would be .98 per day.Or the 1,704 murdered with knives or cutting instruments which would be 4.6 per day.Or the 540 murdered with blunt instruments (clubs, hammers, etc), which would be 1.47 per day.Or the 745 murdered with personal weapons (hands, fist, feet etc) which would be 2.04 per dayIf you notice the lowest number is the rifle of which the assault rifle is a part. Which is what everyone is saying to ban. Shuks they would only use a shotgun or a handgun. What is silly about it?Do you think persons that have hunted all their lives from childhood is unprepared?Do you think the 21.5 million men and women that have been in the armed forces in the last 60 years that are not active service are unprepared?Do you think all the people that belong to gun clubs are unprepared?Do you think all the people who go to the firing range regulary are unprepared?Is there a lot of people that are unprepared? I am afraid so that is the reason I said they need education in the use and care of firearms. So a person that gets a CCP and carrys a concealed semi-automatic handgun is more likely to get shot that a person that does not carry a handgun. Remember to get the CCP license you have to be proficent with the gun.In 2011 you had a 22.5 in 1000 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. HereI have owned a gun since I was six years old and have never been shot. That means in 68 years I haven't been shot. Have I ever needed my gun? Yes on 2 occasions. Did I have to use it no. Just the knowledge by the other person that I had it was sufficient.

Why should the goal be to reduce gun death, specifically, as opposed to reducing all homicides?Or how about reducing violent crime in general? How much violent crime are you willing to increase to save one life from a gunshot?