If you carry a gun are you obligated to put your life in danger to stop a shooting?

Absolutely, death and rape of your children are preferable than having the means to protect yourself, the Bowerbird preference.

 

The question up to this part (Which is the real question) Dosnt base Social, Political, legal, morally, Imaginative obligation other then obligation.

For people who have received their CCW They are also trained during the course to think things through and the out come. Legal rammifications of being a "hero"

This leaves it open to ask later if we (Gun owners) have a social obligation when the beggining seemed more legal questioning then social would be a new question with a new poll, not the same poll used for different questions.

 

It all comes down to the word "obligation'' being inserted into the poll. Perhaps Americans and Aussies look at that word differently.
I know when I clicked on the poll I didn't even stop to read and digest the different scenarios. They didn't matter at all because there is NEVER a time a CCW is "obligated" to act.
If someone has a flat tire on the road no American is "obligated" to stop and help. That doesn't mean no one will stop and help, it just means we're not obligated to.

So in Australia do all the cars that pass a stranded motorist get tickets by the police or pelted by rocks from the irate citizenry?

 

And again you have no proof without repeating this experiment with a different "operator"

As I have said I am perfectly willing to repeat this with rewording and would be delighted if you wanted to participate in the research with me

 

As I have said to others let us repeat this experiment with different wording - I am happy to have an American word it as long as the central core question is answered

How many people would step forward during a mass shooting to stop the shooter?

Oh! And did you know that our traffic police don't get shot at? Shocks us when we hear of police in the USA having to draw a gun when stopping a motorist. Most of the time over here the cops are more likely to shoot at feral wildlife than people - and even then they give savage dogs a second chance

 

That about sums it up.
Let your character show through, do what you feel you must.
No one can make us do anything, we are not obligated to do anything, but we must live with the consequences of our action or inaction.

 

Sorry but there is no evidence that having a gun prevents child rape (which is overwhelmingly more commonly done by someone the child knows and trusts than a stranger) and a LOT of evidence that children are far more likely to be at risk with a gun in the home

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf

 

As I said - happy for this to be repeated. Even happy if we want to go further and use Survey monkey to do a formal internet poll - it would be interesting to see what the result would be.

 

Plenty of evidence that not having a gun leads to death and rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Plenty of evidence that not having a gun leads to death and rape.

 

A fact that the bowerbirds of the world never want to address eh. Good Post

 

If you got it post it

But I doubt you have anything other than, of course, the lies spread by the NRA

 

Already did but you keep arguing that having a gun would do no good when not having one clearly leads to death and rape.

 

Well, if you posted them I did not see them and I doubt they were anything but NRA propaganda because the real research shows otherwise

Yes you are "safer" with a gun.........................NOT!!!!

 

I can post links all day of people mugged, raped, and murdered where the victim did not have a firearm and you will still whine about how it "might" not have helped them and you will never admit that it "could" help them. You would rather see criminals be successful than a victim protect themselves.

 

Actually that little study there proves nothing on your side. First off, it is not taking into account of someone being scared off by a gun, someone choosing not to commit a crime because of knowledge of a gun being present, and all other types of factors. You won't get conclusive results on this in my favor or yours. These are skewred results as the total homicides that were used included the justified shootings, police shootings and the accidental deaths. Once all of these things are seperated, the total murders shrink quite a bit.

 

And I am sure if I researched enough I could show you where people who were armed were similarly shot or raped - in fact my research just has shown you that it is MORE dangerous to own a gun

Here is another paper showing the same thing

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

You can see your logical fallacy here - it is the equivalent of saying "Red Roses are more likely to be affected by droop" and I posting a research article showing that droop affects all roses equally but you then countering with "but this rose is red and has droop"

Statistics - show not single cases but counted and measured numbers

 

LOL, no shyte Sherlock..

 

A very biased study, a study like this can't factor in a big handfull of variants and factors that would be monumental in the outcome.

 

So when someone goes for a gun licence are they subjected to a blood test?

- - - Updated - - -

It was enough to scare the NRA into defunding research at the CDC

 

Why would someone want to fund anything that produces eroneuos fecal matter like that? They took the entire death by firearms, like the justified shootings, police shootings, accedental shootings, and suicides, put them together and made there percentages off that. They needed to seperate all that stuff and do it individually.

 

Gosh, houses with criminals in them are more likely to have a firearm incident eh? That anything like your house?

BTW, the NRA cannot defund anything. Keep the FAIL rolling!

 

Why do gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement to a War on Crime instead of being more necessary to the security of a free State?

 

haven't failed - what is a fail is proof that these are indeed convicted criminals - and they most probably are not because they DO own guns - it merely pinpoints the failure of any "background checks"

 

Oh, I see, you only participate in criminal activity if you have been convicted. Brilliant!

Now, show where any of the guns used were purchased legally in the first place. So much FAIL!

 

Another Study from about the same time period…..

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."it.

Article
http://news.yahoo.com/yes-guns-kill-often-used-self-defense-070000428.html


Are you safe in your home anyway?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018578-504083.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders