When did you use your gun defensively?

?

 

He said 40,000 homicides. I'm assuming you both know that there's a difference between homicide and suicide.

As a matter of fact your own handy graph you just posted proves that.

It's funny that the same people who are such advocates of wide open abortion have a problem with suicide

 

As homicides? That's a tired old argument for accuracy.

Since 1999, the growth in the gun suicide rate lagged the growth in the non-firearm suicide rate, and the hanging/suffocation suicide rate grew 8 times as fast as the firearm suicide rate over that time with 13k victims in 2019.

 

I have never claimed that there was NOT a large proportion of suicides mixed in with gun mortality figures which is why I posted the graph I did

And why I made the point that a very large proportion of those are white middle aged men - you know breadwinners

 

No citation I see

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

You can operate a query and do simple maths, I presume?

https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports

Perhaps interestingly, the population of the US is at an all time high, which is why rates rather than raw numbers tell a more accurate story. The years 1981 to 1996 all had a higher gun death rate than we have now.

The latest hanging/suffocation suicide rate is 2.5 tomes what it was in 1981. Nelts and ropes should be more tightly controlled.

Source is the same CDC link above.

 

My bad. I was thinking deaths and wrote homicides. It is good of you all to be alert enough to point that out.
At one time it was 10,000 gun homicides per year and 20,000 gun suicides per year. That has changed to a near 50/50 split. As I've pointed out before the leaders in gun suicide are old white guys who own guns. You think that's not a public health issue?

You bring up the old automotive analogy. Two tools, one designed for transport the other designed to kill, not exactly the same. We continually try to make driving safer with air bags, seat belts, vehicle inspection, increased severity and enforcement of drunk driving laws, but eventually there must be a cost benefit judgement. Road deaths could be eliminated by requiring a speed governor on all vehicles set at 35 mph. Gun deaths could virtually be eliminated by banning guns.

2A is pretty vague. Does it mean you can own any type of "arms" you want? No. Does it mean any and all people shall have the right to bear arms? No. Restrictions are applied in the name of public safety and it ain't safe.

 

As an old white man, no, I don't, especially not to the point where more gun control is needed to address it. Issue all of the PSAs you wish, but belts are used to commit suicide more often than white men age 55 and up use guns for suicides.

This implies that as long as there is deemed sufficient utility the deaths aren't as important.

We don't continually try to make driving safer. There isn't a single automotive safety bill before Congress in this session.

No they wouldn't, anymore than banning heroin and meth has reduced heroin and meth deaths to zero. You seem to think that "ban" means "collect all"; not only is that a physically impossible task, none of the "bans" on classes of guns in front of Congress actually ask to "collect all", or even "collect any".

It wasn't when written. "shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any wiggle room.

It means that as a non-prohibited person I can own any class of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. There aren't any firearms made today that aren't in common use for lawful purposes.

Correct: "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill". Scalia, DC v Heller.

Restrictions still must be Constitutional, and should be effective and enforceable. The government should have a clear compelling interest, and should define the restriction as narrowly as possible to address the compelling interest.

 

I’m struck by the sudden love and concern for middle aged white men. Interesting.


On the other hand, why shouldn’t we have the right to do as we wish with our own bodies? I thought that was a central tenet of liberalism?

 

Nor was there any in your posts, do you have different rules for everyone else that you exempt yourself from?

 

.

 

?

 

Thanks for starting this thread.
I don't think it matters if "Most of these stories are years old..." because I wouldn't be writing this if I had not been armed in at least 3 instances.
A gun only has to save your life once to be the most valuable thing you own so I won't bore readers with relating all three.

I'm a blacksmith and one afternoon I was working on a wrought iron gate in my inner-city blacksmith shop when a carload (4) young individuals pulled into the parking lot and began honing the horn and signaled for me to come over to their car. They didn't look like my ideal clients and I was behind schedule so I yelled that I was too busy and kept working.

Apparently they took issue with the fact that I didn't offer curbside blacksmithing, they got out of their car, were visibly angry and I noticed that one was armed. I then grabbed the 1911 .45 acp that I kept nearby, took cover behind a 3 ton mechanical hammer, pointed the pistol at them and yelled for them to go away or get shot.
Fortunately they chose the first option and no one got shot.

The other instances were similar in that I was confronted by surly individuals whose intentions were clearly not to make me any healthier, wealthier or happier.

I have since moved to my residence and blacksmith shop to a rural location but still carry a .45 acp especially when I have to travel at night in case I hit a deer and have to put it out of its misery.

 

Please see my Post # 88

 

You said:
1: Not everyone feels a personal threat and the need to carry a gun, that is more of a conservative view and media hype.
2: That does not negate the fact that gun violence is a public health issue and a need to do something about it.
You're right I don't understand how you aren't contradicting yourself, when you obviously are
Please demonstrate,

Did you notice your failure to address any of the points I made?
I did.
I accept your concession of each.

PS:
The unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek will not "do anything about it" - but then, they aren't intended to.

 

You must have made this up as you were typing it, because you aren't even close
2015-2019, per year:
Murder 9,143 10,398 11,014 10,445 10,258 Average: 10,252
Suicide 22,018 22,938 23,854 24,432 23,941 Average: 23,437

Why do you have to make up numbers to support your point?

This is only true if it is impossible to die, or to kill someone, in a car accident at 35MPH.
Demonstrate this to be true.

Ohh - too bad about the constitution -- right?

Nope - just all "bearable arms" defined as "those in common use for traditionally legal purposes".
These weapons, as you know. cannot be banned, as the right of the law abiding to own and use them cannot be infringed.

Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions - the only kind you seek - do nothing to promote public safety.

 

but your argument is phony. I mean look at all the people you pretend to care about people as means of emotional manipulation because your position is dishonest.

If you really cared about Americans dying you would be far more likely to ban sugar and firearms.

It's not about people dying in fact I think you could care less about it outside of delighting in it because you think it supports your argument.

100% of all arguments for gun control are absolutely about taking control away from people that's it you don't care about people dying except for the fact that you delight in it so you can bolster your argument.

It's all about obedience and an armed populace doesn't have to be obedient.

 

Shot a felon who was on parole, and in violation of the terms of his release. He lived-did 2 years for the violation. Year before, a drunk guy tried to jimmy open my apartment door claiming he lived here. Held him at gun point till the cops showed up.Those are the two most important cases.

 

Edna,

While not a "harrowing" story, a couple days ago, I did pull my gun to ensure I was not attacked by my neighbors dog. My property is fenced to keep dogs out. I opened my gate and stepped out to get my mail from the box when the dog came charging from about 100 yards up and across the road. I was certainly not going to turn my back and try to run. Besides, I have a right to be on a public road. I pulled my pistol and stood my ground facing the oncoming dog. I did not have to shoot him. When he realized I was not intimidated he stopped and just growled and barked. Someone finally called him back. Not a huge dog but a mutt about the size of a lab. I feel sure, if I had turned and tried to make it to the gate, he would have attacked. Maybe not life endangering (to me anyway) but would have been very unpleasant for the both of us had he attacked me.

A person does not find too many examples of self defense, with or without a firearm, in the area where I live. I believe this is because I live in a state with Constitutional Carry. An individual 18 years of age or older, who is legally eligible to own a firearm, can open carry or concealed carry without a permit. My state also has one of the highest rates of firearms ownership in the US. I feel when a person knows that the possibility exists that 50% of the adults that they cross paths with over the course of a day could be armed, it makes that person think twice about getting out of line. I am not suggesting intimidation of others but simply saying that any criminal element is aware of the number of guns that may be around them at any given time.

If you are interested in reading more about citizens who use guns for self defense and protection, the link below is a good source. It's from the NRA. I realize many who seem to be on the side of more gun control and more gun laws often feel the NRA is not a legitimate source. They feel the organization is at the other end of the spectrum from their own beliefs. But if you take the time to check out the link you will see page after page of self defense stories. Month after month, year after year these stories are published. They are just a sampling of what goes on in a world where good people defend their lives with firearms. This column has been a feature in National Rifle Association publications since 1926. Currently the monthly column features six short articles republished from news sources around the US. These are only a few of the many self defense situations happening daily in the United States.

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/the-armed-citizen

Thanks for starting the interesting thread.
Rich

 

But those in Australia sure as he have to be obedient and do just as their government requires.

Freedom and rights are something they wished they had but short of a revolution, never will have, yet they look at the US and expect us to give up our rights so we can become just like them.

.

 

that's why I think there are so many Aussies who think we need to repeat their mistake.

It's kind of like a group of kids if one of them gets in trouble with an adult they'll read out the other ones for some other role they played in it so they're not in trouble alone.

Misery loves company. That being said there are a lot of good people in Australia and people that want to have their gun rights restored these people I support. Australia is an interesting place and it's people even more interesting. I'm not so sure that a revolution or a coup is that far-fetched. I think all it takes is voting the right people into Parliament.

They can change much like we do with an election

 

I was trying to elicit a little sympathy for old white guys who kill themselves because you're an old white guy with a gun too. So, are you against red flag laws as well?

Society makes cost benefit judgements all the time. We could ban tobacco and that would save thousands of lives, but just because we've not done it doesn't mean those that do die aren't important.

My state legislature is currently considering speed cameras at construction sites. Making the roads safer is not stagnant.

There is wiggle room in the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Let me know if you can walk around with a RPG or any class of firearms not in common use for lawful purposes.

Public safety is a compelling interest.

 

Depression need not be a terminal disease. A central tenet of liberalism is empathy for the other.

 

I doubt that.

Unless due process is involved I am totally against them.

No one has a right to smoke tobacco, nor can one use it for self defense.

Notice this clerk has hundreds of packs of cigarettes behind the counter, but when a robber threatens him with a gun guess what he uses to defend himself, I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a pack of smokes.

They have been proven to not enhance safety, instead what they do is create a lot of money in fines.

Incorrect, try again.

Public safety is a compelling interest.[/QUOTE]

 

It's also worth noting, the clerk, with a gun pointed at him drew his gun so quickly the perp didn't have time to react, he then got off a head shot and just missed the center of the guys head by a couple of inches grazing him on the right side of his head causing him to drop low and run.

Had that shot been just an inch more to the left that thug would have received what he so richly deserved, a scrambled brain and a trip in a zipped up body bag off to the morgue where he can chill.

That's some damm good shooting for a guy with a gun pointed at him and the town folks loved it, because such actions send a strong message to other thugs, if you want to stay alive go rob stores elsewhere, say in a town where guns in the hands of the law abiding are banned.