10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[YADA]

elkodaily.com/news/local/shootout-in-winnemucca-three-dead-two-injured-in-early-morning/article_83fe3832-cc3b-528b-88bd-a85ce65f5967.html

Ernesto Villagomez, fired multiple shots at Jose Torres and Margarito Torres of Winnemucca, both were pronounced dead at the scene. Villagomez was shot and killed at the scene by a bystander identified only as a 48-year-old Reno man with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Appalachian School of Law, a crazed person shoots a dean and a professor, and then begins shooting students. Two students retrieve weapons from their vehicles confronting the shooter allowing others to capture this shooter.

Others:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wurst

mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Breakup-sparked-theater-shootout-4123414.php

 

[SoMissCatholic]

The South and Midwest have the most guns per capita, while the Northeast has the fewest. The South and Midwest have significantly higher death rates per capita by assault than the northeast. The three states with the highest number of guns per capita have the three highest death rates per capita by assault . The three states with the lowest gun ownership have the lowest death rates per capita by assault . The trend tracks almost evenly in the same manner for all the states in between - the more guns, the more deaths per capita by assault. If you pull up the actual studies, you can view the stats by state.

-Source: Gallup and Center for Disease Control.

Can you provide the links to these sources that you cite here? Thanks.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Can you provide the links to these sources that you cite here? Thanks.

businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Mall Shooter kills 2 sees a person pull a gun on him … and the next shot heard is the one that the shooter used to take his own life …

We will never know with certainty if Nick Meli had not been present in the Clackamas Town Center Mall on December 11th, 2012 and pulled his gun on Jacob Roberts - shooter - if more victims would have died … but the fact is - even though he did not shoot [due to not having a clear shot] - the Roberts saw himself in Meli’s sights and his next shot was himself - no additional victims were injured - no innocents were injured by Meli - neither Meli did not injure himself … or the shooter - Roberts … But it seems as Meli had an impact …

Police and even mall security were not the first ones to confront this murderous coward …A person with a conceal carry permit was … and the Mall is signed as a gun free zone … gun free zones [Malls, Theaters and Schools] are targets that advertise - murderous crazies - you shooting gallery awaits IMHO

kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

policymic.com/articles/20891/oregon-gun-owner-stops-clackamas-shooting-spree-proving-guns-save-lives

Good Morning Yada: I was actually just asking for the statistics on the death ratio you mentioned between encounters between unarmed civilians and a shooter vs armed civilians with a shooter. I was also curious statistically, what the sample size was across all gun related murders.

Thanks
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good evening Gary:

Any gap, 300% or whatever, is meaningless unless it points to a positive or negative that will allow authority to make objective decisions.

The FACT is that the violent crime rate including homicide is DECREASING in the U.S. while gun ownership is INCREASING; violent crime is INCREASING in England, Canada and Australia while their governments focus on disarming the law abiding public.

It really should not take an intellectual rocket scientist to agree that maybe England, Canada and Australia are doing something wrong and the U.S. is on the right track.

Guns are not the answer. Guns are weapons. The answer is peace and love and flowers. Brotherhood and prosperity for all, the end of world hunger and pollution…perhaps a Thomas More Utopia…

While you and Hytholday go about setting up Utopia, I’ll just keep my old “six-shooter” handy, just in case…please let me know when you are finished so I can turn it in.

Good Morning Zoltan Cobalt: I’m actually not trying to create a Utopia. The world was full of violence and misery before I came to it. It’ll be full of the same when I leave it. The same is true for joy and kindness. All such things are outward expressions of what lies within, and what I have tried for much of my life is to cultivate the latter two things within rather than the former. All things both good and bad are embedded potentials within the realm of human experience. The difference seems to lie in which ones we lock into or tune into, which ones we extract from within our own potentials and which of these in turn we project into the world around us. The cycle of violence is ever present. I have chosen not to spin up to it. If someone ends my life through violence, this is really not the point. The point is that such people were unable to affect the way in which I lived it, or the state of being I achieved. I think both heaven and hell are states of being. When this life is over, whichever one we cultivated within ourselves and around us during life is the one we live as eternal life goes on. It is not my belief that I can simply follow rules, dogma, ritual and liturgies and somehow get snatched into a mythical kingdom when it’s all done. I think it’s going to be a matter of a continuum of whatever it was I have been able to realize and produce from within.

Thanks
Gary

 

[LongingSoul]

Okay, here is my last post on this topic barring anything compelling arises.
Last summer (for we in the US) I started a thread to discuss gun control issues with LS or others if they chose to chime in. Appropriately enough it was called “On gun control for LongingSoul and others” it becomes most interesting as far as I’m concerned beginning at #10.
LS, it seems chooses to ignore these stats. I have copied some of them below.
Below are the statistics to which I referred the url is included for you to be able to read it in context and see the references.

“Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%.
Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns): More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heatfor sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it’s apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts
couriermail.com.au/news/q…-1226494729396

ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Some shootings in Australia

abc.net.au/news/2012-01-1…-spree/3772244

abc.net.au/news/2012-01-1…ot-out/3766842

abc.net.au/news/2012-01-1…ngs-am/3768744

abc.net.au/news/2012-01-1…sydney/3770476

J’ai fini Annie

I tired years back of statistics tennis because reality counts far more where peoples lives are concerned. Many argue that the Church should change its teaching on contraception to reduce the high numbers of unwanted pregnancy and abortion around the world. Probably true. People argue putting condom machines in school toilets would do the same. Probably true. People argue that legalising marijuana would free the courts of the number of drug arrests and court hours and save the community x amount of dollars. Probably true. People can make any argument and quote any figure to justify any agenda they want.

The question is is arming yourself with a dedicated lethal weapon against your neighbour outside of wartime, feeding the culture of death? More guns means more deaths. It isn’t the answer now, never was and never will be. It is not compatible with peace and life.

 

[LongingSoul]

It is reasonable that instruments of death are treated with the seriousness they deserve. The doctrine of double effect clearly defines the mentality that we are required to have when the potential death of a human being is involved in any action. It can mean the difference between necessary good and a very great evil. Arming ourselves with a lethal weapon as a defense prior to any threat, needs to be examined for its moral quality just as all other policies involving human death does.

 

[tabycat]

The South and Midwest have the most guns per capita, while the Northeast has the fewest. The South and Midwest have significantly higher death rates per capita by assault than the northeast. The three states with the highest number of guns per capita have the three highest death rates per capita by assault . The three states with the lowest gun ownership have the lowest death rates per capita by assault . The trend tracks almost evenly in the same manner for all the states in between - the more guns, the more deaths per capita by assault. If you pull up the actual studies, you can view the stats by state.

-Source: Gallup and Center for Disease Control.

Some additional stats on the US:

-Most murders in America are committed with guns:

-Blunt objects: 4%

-Personal weapons: 6%

-Other: 9%

-Knives: 13%

-Guns: 68%

Source: FBI

Are you not forgettinn something, like good old Chi-town? You can not legelly buy a gun within city limits, but it has one of the highest crime rates (including gun murders) in the nation. If the city outlaws guns within city limits, why does it have so many crimes, including gun murders???

 

[Annie39]

businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1

Hey Gary, I have stats that directly contradicts those stats. I don’t however plan to post them so you can decide not to believe me. However, playing stat ping-pong is a waste of time after a while so I have decided to take another tack and started another thread called “Anti-abortion suction apparatus” please join me there.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

It is reasonable that instruments of death are treated with the seriousness they deserve. The doctrine of double effect clearly defines the mentality that we are required to have when the potential death of a human being is involved in any action. It can mean the difference between necessary good and a very great evil. Arming ourselves with a lethal weapon as a defense prior to any threat, needs to be examined for its moral quality just as all other policies involving human death does.

LS here is your chance get on board to treat instruments of death with the seriousness they diserve. Please join me on a thread that I have started called “Anti-abortion suction apparatus”

Annie

 

[Robert_Sock]

Are you not forgettinn something, like good old Chi-town? You can not legelly buy a gun within city limits, but it has one of the highest crime rates (including gun murders) in the nation. If the city outlaws guns within city limits, why does it have so many crimes, including gun murders???

It would be important to know how much of the population are gang members compared to other cities that do allow guns? The relative levels of poverty and illegal activities might also explain the high homicide rate. Moreover, it would also of interest to have statistics on still other sub-populations that are committing homicides to get a clear idea what’s going on here. In any event, I would expect the homicide rate in Chicago to soar if guns became legal.

LOVE!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Hi Brendan!

No, we still need to weigh the pros and cons. We can see from the data you provided that having a gun can prevent a potentially violent crime, but gun owners need to be aware that gun ownership can cause homicide, suicide and accidental shooting within the household.

LOVE!

You ALMOST have that right Robert. Gun ownership doesn’t “cause” homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting within the household. Poor human decisions do.

However, I certainly see your point that having guns in the home increases the risk of poor human decisions that may lead to things such as homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.

So where does this leave us? The 2nd amendment provides Americans with a CHOICE. We can choose to have firearms which can be used for sport, for personal defense, for national defense, and to keep the government under control of the people (see the Bundy ranch for example) at the cost of slight increased risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.

Are you against me, and others, having that choice??

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Barriers and people who create them have been the cause of a good deal of misery in this world, and if we see things in the light of everything being “us vs them” then conflict is simply a very predictable outcome.

Like you denigrating people’s military service? I smell a REMF…

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Good Morning Zoltan Cobalt: I’m actually not trying to create a Utopia. The world was full of violence and misery before I came to it. It’ll be full of the same when I leave it. The same is true for joy and kindness. All such things are outward expressions of what lies within, and what I have tried for much of my life is to cultivate the latter two things within rather than the former. All things both good and bad are embedded potentials within the realm of human experience. The difference seems to lie in which ones we lock into or tune into, which ones we extract from within our own potentials and which of these in turn we project into the world around us. The cycle of violence is ever present. I have chosen not to spin up to it. If someone ends my life through violence, this is really not the point. The point is that such people were unable to affect the way in which I lived it, or the state of being I achieved. I think both heaven and hell are states of being. When this life is over, whichever one we cultivated within ourselves and around us during life is the one we live as eternal life goes on. It is not my belief that I can simply follow rules, dogma, ritual and liturgies and somehow get snatched into a mythical kingdom when it’s all done. I think it’s going to be a matter of a continuum of whatever it was I have been able to realize and produce from within.

Thanks
Gary

How did that work for you while in the U.S. Military? You have said that you “wore the uniform”…I assume that meant the uniform of the U.S. Military, and not the U.S. Postal Service.

Isn’t the purpose of the military to protect our nation by “killing people and breaking their things?” Are you saying that you would not have been capable of performing your job when you “wore the uniform”?

Or, was your job when “wearing the uniform” delivering the mail…or simply sending/receiving emails??

Good thing no operator ever needed you to have his back, or else there would have been another widow and orphan grieving over their lost serviceman.

I smell a REMF…

 

[Robert_Sock]

You ALMOST have that right Robert. Gun ownership doesn’t “cause” homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting within the household. Poor human decisions do.

However, I certainly see your point that having guns in the home increases the risk of poor human decisions that may lead to things such as homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.

So where does this leave us? The 2nd amendment provides Americans with a CHOICE. We can choose to have firearms which can be used for sport, for personal defense, for national defense, and to keep the government under control of the people (see the Bundy ranch for example) at the cost of slight increased risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.

Are you against me, and others, having that choice??

I believe that gun ownership is OK provided strict screening for people with anger, hatred or rage. Gun ownership should be a privilege, and not a right. People should be readily able to assess the pros and cons of gun ownership, such as from a pamphlet.

LOVE!

 

[tabycat]

It would be important to know how much of the population are gang members compared to other cities that do allow guns? The relative levels of poverty and illegal activities might also explain the high homicide rate. Moreover, it would also of interest to have statistics on still other sub-populations that are committing homicides to get a clear idea what’s going on here. In any event, I would expect the homicide rate in Chicago to soar if guns became legal.

LOVE!

Who is talking about gang mambers? You have been coming across (to me at least) that everybody should be limited in their ownership of guns, like in Chicago. As it turns out, when a city passes a law that no guns canbe legelly sold in the city limits, you get only people buying guns in that city are people who are all ready to break the law.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I believe that gun ownership is OK provided strict screening for people with anger, hatred or rage. Gun ownership should be a privilege, and not a right. People should be readily able to assess the pros and cons of gun ownership, such as from a pamphlet.

LOVE!

So some questions for you…

#1). Who gets to do the “screening”?

#2). What is wrong with our current “screening” system that we have that requires adjudication (ie: due process) before society takes away someone’s right to defend themselves.

 

[Robert_Sock]

So some questions for you…

#1). Who gets to do the “screening”?

#2). What is wrong with our current “screening” system that we have that requires adjudication (ie: due process) before society takes away someone’s right to defend themselves.

I’m not sure who would do the screening, and I have never really motivated to delve into this.

The current system does not adequately screen.

LOVE!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I’m not sure who would do the screening, and I have never really motivated to delve into this.

The current system does not adequately screen.

LOVE!

ANY screening system must take into account sensitivity and specificity, and a foundational perspective that NO screening system is perfect.

Sensitivity is an inverse measurement of “how many missed”. In this case, a firearms screening system would look for people who would illegally use a firearm. A 100% sensitive screening would catch every single person who would illegally use a firearm. A 99% sensitive screening would miss one in one-hundred people who would illegally use a firearm.

Specificity is the inverse measurement of false positives. In this case, a 100% specific system would NEVER declare someone a danger who was not truly a danger. However, with a screening that has 80% specificity, would falsely declare 20 people out of 100 a danger (ie; out of 100 caught by the screen, 20 people would be “innocent”).

Furthermore, when designing a screening test you must always be aware of the cost of the “false positives” (ie: those twenty “innocent” people declared “unsafe” by a screening test with 80% specificity). In this case, with an 80% specific screening test, we would effectively remove the 2nd amendment rights from 20% of the population screened by your test.

So, another question for you Robert. What is the bottom-line specificity that you would accept for such a screening test for firearm purchase? Another way of thinking of this would be “What percentage of absolutely innocent people would you agree to taking away their constitutional rights?”

While I agree that our current screening system is imperfect, I cannot think of a better one.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m lead to believe that the right to bear arms for self defense, is a *god given *right to an American. Numerous people have said that that right is ‘sacrosanct’. Sacrosanct means a thing is inviolable and is beyond criticism, change or any interference. Life is sacred making the right to life, sacrosanct. The argument stopping criticism of the policy of civilian defense guns is that the right to own them is sacrosanct and by extention, that defense gun is sacred. And Americans do celebrate their private defense guns in this way. That is not the case for guns used by military/police/farmers/sportsman. Under the constitution a defense gun is not morally neutral, it is holy and the right to own and use it is sacrosanct.

You could say that a condom is morally neutral. Although they are used for contraception, they are also used for post partum icepacks and a case can be made for disease control in male prostitutes. If however, a fellow carries one round in his wallet for a night on the town, we can safely say that that is an instrument of contraception infused with a moral value by virtue of the intention. Although it remains a piece of inanimate rubber, it is a host of the intention of the user, deserving moral examination.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

When the CCC says "For this reason,** those who legitimately hold authority **also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. "… we can know it refers to those appointed public officials… those ‘ordained’ in the public domain to protect the common good. This is not the authority given to a private citizen to be self ordained Sheriff. I see that to be a huge problem with young men perpetrating massacres. They feel ‘ordained’ in some way to defend their version of justice and truth in justifying the mass killings.

Where one reasonably believes that his/her own safety may be at risk, or the safety of those for whom they are responsible (i.e. children), it is their DUTY to be prepared to defend themselves and those for whom they have responsibility. The ownership of firearms may be a reasonable response to existing threats. One may also owns firearms for reasons that are completely devoid of moral implications, i.e. collector, hunter, target shooter. One may be morally culpable for misuse of those firearms but not for merely possessing them.

We are addressing guns for self defense here in the way that we address condoms as contraception for the purpose of moral examination.

Owning firearms is no more morally offensive than owning carving knives, hammers, or pitchforks.

You attempt to impose a moral obligation upon others that merely is a personal opinion of yours not promulagated by the church.

Why would the right to own a gun be subject to constitutional rights and not carving knives, hammers or pitchforks then? Isn’t the very fact that it rises to that level of attention, an indication that they are invested with more value than the metal they are made of? Isn’t that an indication that the *intention * is most thoroughly infused into this inanimate thing than for a knife, fork or hammer?