Hi Bo -
Not in the context that YOU and I were debating.
Multiple topics being debated in this thread, pedal faster sir.
best
mqqn
They have the right to present an inadequate defense when facing superior weaponry, I agree with you on that point.
best
mqqn
Somebody is certainly getting fooled.
best
mqqn
Hey WaM - that was my quote I think - not sure what happened there.
Nope - I would not present a rebuttal to that at all, but I was not debating Bo on that point, we were talking about mental states of people who would go on a mass murder shooting spree outside of a military conflict would almost certainly have some mental defect. Normal people with any compassion or value of human life would not do so, and as a result, any person who WOULD is very obviously somewhat defective.
Can we detect the subtle mental issues of every person who might do harm to other people in our society? No, certainly not.
Can we make a best effort attempt to identify and treat the cases we CAN identify?
I would like to think so.
However, you and some of the others on this board are hiding behind the typical "let’s obscure the real issues by needling in on the arcane intricacies and spend needless time and typing trying to so beat anyone with an opposing view into submission.
It is what it is; I have seen it before.
best
mqqn
Above is Wikipedia link on defensive gun use. It may not be know all end all, but the most conservative estimate cited of defensive gun use is 55,000 per year in the U.S. So its nowhere near safe to say firearms do more harm than good to our society.
You are so worried about my debate on other issues related to the subject at hand you have yet to do what you said you could so easily do:
List the items you refer to in this post -
Still waiting.
best
mqqn
I have no doubt that there are cases where a gun, owned by a civilian, has thwarted a crime. I bet it has happened hundreds of times.
Thing is we are very short on examples of this.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) there were 467,300 non-fatal crimes (PDF) where a gun was used (so add another 9,000 or so for murders and we’ll skip suicides for now).
There are an awful lot of guns in the US. Both legal and illegal. According to this more than 1-in-3 (34.4%) households in the US have a gun. From the same site they suggest, “The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people.” Also from there it suggests there are 114,000,000 privately owned handguns.
That’s a lot of guns. No matter how you slice it and dice it there should be a helluva lot of opportunity for people with guns to defend themselves. Yet despite that we rarely ever hear of it. It is not for lack of reporting. Americans LOVE stories where the bad guy gets instant and well deserved justice.
Nevertheless there is a distinct lack of stats on people successfully using guns for defense. So much so I doubt it even makes up for the number of suicides that occur because a gun is handy in a household.
In short, a gun in your house is statistically more likely to cause you harm than it is to defend yourself from crime.
There are 465,000 non-fatal crimes in the US involving a gun (PDF). That is more than 55,000 by my count.
Oh man you are so easy.
Ok - In a land that you may have heard of, the United States of America, a people who were outnumbered, and faced better trained and outfitted armies, defeated a country and gained independence and freedom from oppression using firearms and guerilla tactics. They also innovated and began using rifled long guns to make their guerilla tactics more effective.
Some of you would have had those brave souls throwing rocks and waving sticks at the British armies.
Might I also remind you of a conflict in Vietnam where an entrenched people were able to stave off the efforts of a much better trained, equipped and funded army.
You are fooling yourself if you think for a minute that no ability to defend yourself is the right thing to do - and please don’t say you still have sticks and stones.
My assertion is that people should be able to own guns. Your assertion is that they should not or they should be very restricted.
How are we going to go any further? Anything left to say?
best
mqqn
In all of your examples the other side just got tired and left.
Happening to us right now in Afghanistan.
The US was nowhere near defeating Great Britain. It just became too much bother for them to continue and other problems demanded their attention.
The Vietnamese were nowhere near defeating the US.
The Filipinos were nowhere near defeating the US in the Philippine–American War.
The Indians were nowhere near defeating the British.
The Moroccans were nowhere near defeating the French.
The Afghanis were nowhere near defeating the Soviets.
And and on it goes. In terms of actual casualties none of these invading/occupying armies were being remotely seriously threatened.
What’s more, anytime those guerrilla forces tried a straight-up fight with the professional armies they got utterly stomped. IIRC the US never lost a set-piece battle in Vietnam.
Sure a local populace can bug the hell out of an occupying army and make it not worth them staying but guns aren’t the thing that makes a difference there. In the meantime consider the cost to the locals.
Good good - glad you brought that document in here.
Quoting the document you just used as your basis of fact -
"There were 11,101 firearm homicides in 2011,
down by 39% from a high of 18,253 in 1993 "
"Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million
victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011. "
“In 2007-11, about 23% of victims of nonfatal firearm crime
were injured.”
Let’s really do the math, shall we?
Let’s talk murders - and this is directly from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR),
In 2011 there were 12,664 murders and 653 justifiable homicides (of which 393 were performed by law enforcement) in the United States.
In 2008 UCR listed 14,180 murders, 616 justifiable homicides (of which 371 were by law enforcement).
Now there are some real numbers of defensive use of a firearm - just under 2 citizens use justified lethal force for every law enforcement use.
Also - note that the number of gun murders has decreased while gun sales have soared over the past 10 years. I have seen more new gun owners in the last year than ever before.
So, out of 114,000,000 guns, there are ~13,000 murders involving guns. That is just over 1 100th of a percent of guns are used in a crime.
I still have not seen anyone dispute that most gun crime is criminal on criminal - gang related and drug related. The statistics also bear that out if you look at them.
Gun related murders have reduced while gun ownership and citizens becoming concealed carry license holders have gained in numbers.
Illinois recently started granting licenses for CCW, and the predicted blood in the streets from anti-gunners has not happened. In fact, we are starting to see statistics (it is early yet…) show a slight reduction - could be attributed to a bad winter though so take it with a grain of salt.
In Chicago, it is criminal on criminal and bystanders. The numbers are highly reported both in Illinois and nationally, but you have to understand that there are 12 million people in the Chicagoland area and lots of drugs and criminal activity. Overly oppressive gun restrictions did not have an impact on crime reduction.
What has changed is now, if you are assaulted you at least have been given back your right to carry a firearm with which to try to even the odds.
Of the people that take my classes, the estimate is that only 5 percent of the people that get a CCL will actually carry; most seem to just want to have one in their vehicle etc. ‘just in case’.
I would defend your right to not have a firearm, just as I would have hoped you would defend my right (re-read the constitution of the USA if you are unsure of my point) to have one.
best
mqqn
Would you be any less a winner if the opposing force got tired of your resistance and left?
However you want to slice it, being careful not to call it a victory, the opponent left without achieving their goal, while the resistors were able to stay and accomplish their goal of getting the opponents to leave.
Would they have been able to have these turns of events without any weapons?
best
mqqn
We could ask India…
Talk to Mahatma Gandhi about that.
In the end the trick is to make a nuisance of yourself. Guns are one way to do that but not the only way.
This is a misquote so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Then why is nothing being proposed about it? Why all the talk about banning certain types of guns, registration, anything and everything only pertaining to guns…
politico much?
It’s pretty safe to say that if they tried to propose something to recognize or help those mentally ill, it would pass.
Why haven’t they?
What makes you think nothing has been proposed? Looks to me like one or two ideas came up in the 113th Congress.
No, that isn’t at all the assertion that you made that I challenged. Perhaps you should take some time to think about what it is you want to say before you begin typing?
Here’s your original statement, where you invited challenges to your assertions:
Well, I challenged you and thus far you’ve failed to back up your assertion and in fact conceded that you were incorrect on at least one point. In fact, the only way that you’ve met my challenges to you assertion has been to move the goalposts a couple of times.
So far, you aren’t presenting any arguments or facts, you’re just posting bald-faced-ly false statements and then desperately backpedalling.
And by the way, I can still think of situations where a non-mentally ill person could come to the decision that one or more innocent people would need to be killed despite not being in a military-style conflict.
If you wanted those items, you should have replied “yes” to my two inquiries asking whether you wanted to see them.
In light of your perpetually moving goalposts, here’s the first one that popped into my head: limited resources, no support expected soon, and a small group of people finds themselves confronted with a group twice their size that has a deadly infectious plague that wants their supplies. In that case, it would not be irrational for a person to decide that the infected, who will die because of their infection, should be killed rather than waste supplies trying to keep a large group alive for an undetermined but finite amount of time.
I’m sure I (and others) can think of many more scenarios; how many would you like to see?
Then please stop saying that “no guns=no defense”. If you’d stop making claims that can’t be supported, or using words to mean things they don’t mean, I might be able to stop saying that your claim is stupid and can’t be supported.