Justifiable Homicide and defensive use of guns.

Meaning that those who have successfully used a firearm for their own defense, must be dismissed and ultimately sacrificed in the name of trying to keep suicidal individuals from killing themselves through the use of firearms.

 

How many homicides are prevented by people merely having a gun or criminals merely fearing they might?

I know, theres no way to know. Its greater than none and less than all, and beyond that is impossible to determine. However, just because we can't determine the precise number isn't a reason to ignore the dynamic. Guns do prevent some crime. There's just no objective way to prove they prevent more than they enable or vis versa.

 

As Americans we very willing to help these people, but the reality is they don't want help and really get nasty when it is offered.

As such we need to write them off.

 

Total BS, defensive uses greatly exceeds criminal uses' of firearms.

Your are either totally clueless about the subject, or a hardcore GCA promoting the party line.

 

Your opinion matters not when it comes to reality, many humans are animals, they deserve either a shot to stop their criminal behavior, or once imprisoned a IV in the arm so they can be put to sleep, like the rabid dogs they are.

 

Most homicidal maniacs are not deterred by anything.

 

Once again, for each justifiable homicide there are 35 criminal homicides and 50 suicides.

 

In Canada and Scandinavia, even killers are incarcerated under humane conditions.

Moreover, at least 99% of population are not killers.

People with disabilities must be helped by Society.

 

Then firearm-related restrictions will ultimately do nothing to prevent the loss of life.

 

As was stated the first time around in this discussion, the above is nothing more than stating that the number of lives that would be lost as a result of implementing significant, far-reaching firearm-related restrictions, would be considered tiny in comparison and a worthwhile sacrifice to make in the name of trying to protect others from themselves. It is acknowledgement that the endeavor would lead to others being murdered, while trying to claim the number of murders would simply not be that much compared to the number of suicides that would hypothetically be prevented.

The entire presentation is nothing more than arguing that the able-bodied and minded must be sacrificed for the benefit of those that are not. Such is blatantly obvious in the presentation, comparing the number of lives lost to suicides, to the number of lives saved by the legal use of privately owned firearms.

For one who repeatedly go on about humane treatment and how all lives have value that should be preserved, there is a reckless abandonment and careless disregard of such notions when it comes to those who hold differing political ideas that run counter on the part of yourself.

 

Were their victims treated humanely?

Then firearm-related restrictions have played no part in the end results, and are not needed, as the public at large is simply not the type that would utilize firearms for the purpose of harming others.

Even those who have no interest in either being helped, or otherwise helping themselves?

 

Sure they are, a shot to the head or center of mass is a great deterrent.

And that is a good reason to allow the law abiding to possess firearms.

 

Once again that is a total lie.



= homicide + accident + suicide1 = self defense2

Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one!*


270 Million
Approx. # of civilian firearms in America3

200,000
Times a year women use a gun to defend against SEXUAL ABUSE4

3/5
polled felons say they won’t mess with an armed victim5

* Based upon Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year (see source #2). A similar study in 1994 under President Clinton (Source) found this number to be 1.5 million, which would result in guns being used over 47x more often to defend a life than to take one.

1. 2010 CDC Report. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
   [PDF MIRROR]
2. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995): http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
   [PDF MIRROR]
3. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
   [PDF MIRROR]
4. Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185
   [PDF MIRROR]
5. U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
   [PDF MIRROR]

 

Nope, they like everyone else in the U.S. are on their own.

 

They could prevent the loss of about 20,000 lives in USA per year.

 

No one is being sacrificed. All people must pay taxes and obey some restrictions for the benefit of Society.

 

Of course killers were not humane. But Canada and Scandinavia are Humane Societies. USA is as brutal as worst criminals.

 

People with disabilities must be helped by Society. Almost all people suffering disabilities want to be helped.

 

This is demonstrably false

 

Could. Meaning it is being admitted that the above is nothing more than a hypothesis and guesswork, devoid of anything relating to or otherwise resembling fact. Thus meaning it is a gamble with a significant risk of no positive payoff or benefit for the investment that can never be recouped if it fails.

 

Then ultimately what is the legitimate reason on the part of yourself for the comparison that is being presented? Why are the number of defensive firearm uses being compared to the number of suicides committed with firearms, unless the purpose for such is to build the case that the number of defensive firearm uses is too minute to warrant continued legal firearms ownership by the public?

 

Ultimately for what legitimate purpose?

 

As a person need not kill someone to use a gun in self-defense, this number has absolutely no meaning to a reasoned, thinking person.

 

Incorrect, people should not be programmed to believe just because they have a disability they must be helped, they should be educated to be able to help themselves as much as possible and lower their burden on those who are not disabled.

They also should be required to do something meaningful lowering their burden on society, for example if they can communicate on the net, they can also work at jobs like technical support, medical transcription and many other keyboard jobs, versus sitting on their butts with their hand out expecting it to be filled with dollars.

Here in the U.S. we have had thousands of strong willed men and women, who have been injured in wars who wanted no handouts what so ever, as to them that was taken as a weakness, over time supporters convinced them to become part of a disabled community and reluctantly accept support, which many but not enough did.

Sadly our society has become weak and anyone with a disability real, self inflicted or perceived expects to be taken care of, which is just not possible considering the burden that places in society in general.

Wanting to be helped is rare, wanting to be totally supported is very common.

The plug on that concept needs to be pulled and those who are disabled, who can do something beneficial within their limits of disability, should be required to do such, as part of their leaching off of our society, or if they are unwilling to do so, be cast aside and receive zero benefits paid for by those who are not disabled and busting their ba** to make a decent living. .

 

How many people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days with machetes.