Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beau_Ouiville said:
I showed you **four **examples in the last sixty days and you ‘almost never’ in thirty years? That’s past highly unlikely.

Look, you made an inaccurate statement. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
I made a perfectly accurate statement. You are finding the exceptions to the rule, advertising them falsely as common occurrences, and using them to defend your anti-gun agenda. For someone from bloody Chicago to claim that gun violence primarily affects innocent children by way of careless accidents is nothing more than a lie fueled by leftist paranoia.

You want to sling links? Fine; let’s sling links. Here’s one; 41 separate incidents where guns were used in self-defense. Every story was taken from a local news outlet.

Here are 49 more incidents where those naughty talismans of evil were used to protect innocent lives (I refer you to the column of links on the right-hand side). Each story here also taken from a local news outlet.

Here’s a whole blog full of stories about self-defense with firearms. I didn’t even bother to try counting all the incidents. Again, cited from local news sources.

Let’s change it up a bit; here’s an article about how doctors kill more people per year in the US than guns do. According to the article, *“doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners are”. *Uh-oh, better ban doctors.

Here’s an article, complete with handy chart, about the fact that children are not threatened near as much by firearms as by car accidents and swimming pools. To quote: *“Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.”

*You can claim I am inaccurate all you like, but the facts back me up. Kids are more likely to die as a result of getting into the family car or the family swimming pool than from the family firearm, and the dangerous conditions in America practically demand widespread firearms ownership amongst the civilized populace. There is no excuse for improper handling, storage, or use of firearms, whether or not children are present, and firearms education ideally would be mandatory in all levels of schooling. However, there is equally no excuse to argue that Americans should be disarmed for any reason, especially because of a few criminals who misuse firearms or a few accidents that occur each year.

Molon labe.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
I showed you **four **examples in the last sixty days and you ‘almost never’ in thirty years? That’s past highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
Lycorth said:
I lived in cities for almost thirty years of my life and I almost never heard of a single genuine account of an actual child dying because of an accident with a gun.”
Click to expand...
Again, this comment changes the premise of the discussion and without careful and throrough followup it appears to make a really strong statement about the statistical dangers of gun ownership. Lycorth said he’d “almost never heard of a child dying” from accidental shootings and 4 examples are posted purportedly of accidental deaths… however, when you follow the link in your most recent example, one discovers the girl accidently shot by her brother is in fact live and well. Scrolling back further, another example posted was an adult wife who sadly did die from a gun related accident, but regardless, was not a CHILD who DIED from a gun related accident… seems like out of the 4 examples you mentioned, half of them were thrown in (lumped together) to make a point which would be lost upon the casual reader unless they took it upon themselves to pursue the followup research. Now having seen it, and coping with the realization that some are willing to throw any remotely related arbitrary statistics together with no regard for objectivity merely to make their point stand, it makes one question likewise, about 50% of all such statements. I’ve been unable to root out the actual events of your other examples, but hope I’m correct in assuming you did research them before citing them as examples, and that your claims about them are accurate, objective, and pertinent to this discussion. I’m still scrolling back further to see if I can validate the assumptions made on your remaining example.

I know there are those who feel strongly that the second ammendment is of the highest importance to guaranteeing our freedoms… including religion, who employ these same tactics in making their arguments, but I hope and pray they refrain from doing so and remain objective in presenting their arguments such that rational and concise discussion can ensue.

Call it mincing words, but if we keep changing the premise of the discussion without announcing clearly that we are doing so, it serves to build a case upon unfounded claims.
 
I found 3 more stories you mentioned, the google search confirms the one in Indianna, the Myrtle Beach one links only directly back to your post, the third one doesnt come up anywhere so far. I’ve got to go to work so will dig in deeper tonight.
 
sidbrown said:
Horror stories like this are occurring everyday and the push by people here to have every student carry a loaded gun to school will only lead to more horror stories like this.
Click to expand...
According to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 13 “children” are killed each day with guns. At the same time, guns PREVENT 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes EVERY DAY with the gun having to be fired LESS THAN 1% of the time.

If you think that sacrificing 1,100 lives in order to save 13 is the way that we should go, then you are being penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
 
sidbrown said:
4.7 million dog bites per year in the USA alone indicates that people need to fear these vicious dogs. Similarly with guns. If you want to emphasize this business about well=handled, who is going to determine whether guns or dogs are well handled. In most cases of dog bites, the wone simply can say that the bite was an accident and the dog is well handled. So the phrase well handled does not offer any consolation to the millions of people who have been bitten by the vicious animals.
Click to expand...
Your kidding. Right? Your arguements don’t make any sense. So, I’ll withold any response.
ATB
 
Sir_Knight said:
According to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 13 “children” are killed each day with guns. At the same time, guns PREVENT 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes EVERY DAY with the gun having to be fired LESS THAN 1% of the time.

If you think that sacrificing 1,100 lives in order to save 13 is the way that we should go, then you are being penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and since most of those “children” turn out to be inner-city gangbangers who have chosen a life of adult criminal behavior, actual child deaths and injuries are lower than that.

But, all the rapes and murders and violent crimes that are prevented each day with guns still stands, and may not be prevented if guns were taken away. To sacrifice thousands for the sake of a few is insane.
 
It seems some anti gun people thinks it is morally superior for a woman to be raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than to use a firearm in self defense. These are the same ‘beta’ males and females that would prefer to “not get involved.” Accordingly, I chose to defend myself. If you chose not to, than don’t. I will make NO effort to force my opinion on you. Why is the anti gun crowd ALWAYS trying to force their opinion on me? What right do you have to prevent me from defending myself and my family? If you are too afraid to have a gun around than don’t have one. If you are afraid that your kids will be accidently harmed by your gun, than work on your parenting skills. To be clear, you have nothing to fear from law abiding gun owners. One of these days, perhaps I will share the “Whistle” story with you.

One more thing…the CDC National Vital Statistics report (July 24, 2000) states that the number of accidental gun deaths among children (not gangbanbers) is 1.3 per day.

It boils down to this. If you don’t like guns, DON’T OWN ONE!!!
 
sidbrown said:
People in college are old enough to vote and old enough to serve in the US Armed forces. If they are old enought to serve in the US Armed Forces, it means that the United States of America thinks that they are old enough to carry weapons responsibly.
Regardless of that, I still do not think it is a good idea for every student to carry a loaded weapon to class. As I mentioned, there is always the possibility of the student getting angry at the teacher for some reason or another and at the spur of the moment, he could draw his weapon and kill several innocent people. This is more likely to happen if you are going to have loaded revolvers for every student on campus.
Click to expand...
Please examine the logic of your assertion. First consider the probability that a student who had no previous incident with the law would all of a sudden get the urge to kill a teacher. Then of that group how many would not be able to kill the teacher with any other tool except a gun and of that group how many would be carrying guns and of that group how many would not be carrying around a gun if the campus rules prevented carrying. Stack all of these probabilities up and you have a very unlikely situation. One far outweighed by the bennefits of students being armed to stop the much more likely campus shooting committed by a non law abiding citizen.
 
sidbrown said:
Yeah. Hold them accountable, while an innocent person lies on his deathbed, suffering horribly from these terrible wounds inflicted by either guns or dogs. They made a small mistake, so why punish them with anything more than a few weeks of community service?
Click to expand...
This advocacy is precisely why, in my opinion, gun related crimes are even more greatly reduced. These minimally impactful sentances serve in no way as a true deterent to those of the criminal mentality. All the more reason to ensure the rights of the lawful citizenry to keep and bear arms are not infringed upon, in addition to our founding fathers wishes when they penned the second amendment.
 
royal_archer said:
Please examine the logic of your assertion. First consider the probability that a student who had no previous incident with the law would all of a sudden get the urge to kill a teacher. Then of that group how many would not be able to kill the teacher with any other tool except a gun and of that group how many would be carrying guns and of that group how many would not be carrying around a gun if the campus rules prevented carrying. Stack all of these probabilities up and you have a very unlikely situation. One far outweighed by the bennefits of students being armed to stop the much more likely campus shooting committed by a non law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...
Even a low probability of something like that happening is frightening enough. Consider the low probability of winning the lottery or a bingo game. Yet it happens all the time. For one death to occur, is one death too many. Try to tell the weeping wife and children of the teacher shot to death in the classroom, that it was not very probable that this would happen. My guess is that they will not be consoled by your argument, but they will have to live out their lives in terrible sorrow and in terrible need.
 
sidbrown said:
Even a low probability of something like that happening is frightening enough. Consider the low probability of winning the lottery or a bingo game. Yet it happens all the time. For one death to occur, is one death too many. Try to tell the weeping wife and children of the teacher shot to death in the classroom, that it was not very probable that this would happen. My guess is that they will not be consoled by your argument, but they will have to live out their lives in terrible sorrow and in terrible need.
Click to expand...
I’m not out to make light of any death or harm whatsoever, but the logic that there are greater odds and greater numbers of lives to be saved via the one approach versus the lower probability and lower number of lives lost via the other is a pretty compelling argument worthy of consideration.

To put it in perspective, I doubt the families of the deenseless innocents slain would be consoled much by your argument that at least we didnt “minimally” risk the life of the one…

One death is always one too many, but to leave higher numbers of lives unprotected in higher probability circumstances, in exclusive favor of the single and less likely loss, truly appears to be an illogical approach. Christ himself gave his one life, so that many could be saved, far be it from me to make light of the sorrows of his mother whom I happen to love very much, yet I know that she, and he, feel the cost was well worth the return.
 
JoLapiana said:
If you are afraid that your kids will be accidently harmed by your gun, than work on your parenting skills.
Click to expand...
Amen! They ought to try being better parents instead of telling those who are already responsible how to behave.
 
sidbrown said:
Even a low probability of something like that happening is frightening enough. Consider the low probability of winning the lottery or a bingo game. Yet it happens all the time. For one death to occur, is one death too many. Try to tell the weeping wife and children of the teacher shot to death in the classroom, that it was not very probable that this would happen. My guess is that they will not be consoled by your argument, but they will have to live out their lives in terrible sorrow and in terrible need.
Click to expand...
At what point do you rule it out as paranoia? Lets face it we live every day with many more imminent risks and don’t think twice about it. If something such as this with such a remote possibility is even crossing your mind, how can you ever even walk out your front door.

Also, I don’t understand your desire to promote a policy that would actually put more people in harms way.
 
How is giving people a means of self-defense putting them in harms way?
 
Why would they be nervous? I carry a gun daily. I have folks around me that are also armed. None of us are nervous about it. I feel LESS nervous knowing that I am armed and that my fellow co-workers are armed.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Why would they be nervous? I carry a gun daily. I have folks around me that are also armed. None of us are nervous about it. I feel LESS nervous knowing that I am armed and that my fellow co-workers are armed.
Click to expand...
Carrying a concealed weapon is comforting, not comfortable. This naive world needs more men like you!
 
sidbrown said:
They would be nervous, becasue they have not completed their homework assignments and they are unprepared for upcoming examinations.
Click to expand...
All of them? Maybe they need to do their homework. 🤷

Do you have any serious reasons that law abiding adults should not be able to defend themselves?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top