The myth of the "vulnerable" gun free zone

I don't think you know how to read and apply stats to any given subject.

How do you know that restricting guns will lower the murder rate? Do you have a crystal ball? It hasn't worked anywhere else.

Our murder rate is dropping rapidly while gun sales are going through the roof, where is your grand logic fit into that one?

 

Bowerbird,

I'm glad you live in Australia - I really am. I live in the United States Of America - the greatest country on earth. A large part of what made the United States Of America the greatest country on earth is OUR Constitution - of which our Second Amendment is an itergal part. It has a well known "shall not be infringed" part, so I can carry arms deemed suitable for defence of myself, my family, my property, my state and MY country. How you take care of yourself in Australia is up to you. I have seen charts such as the one you posted that "claim" every place on earth is "safer" than the USA because they have fewer gun deaths. To be honest the ones I've seen are not credible. I'm sure many places have fewer gun deaths - that doesn't mean I want to live there. Perhaps you would want to live in Angola if you saw an appropriate chart that demonstrated "gun safety" that was to your liking.

The chart you posted "excludes Estonia and Mexico" - why? Many countries have NO right to own a firearm - are they all safe? I have honestly seen such charts that I found to be laughable. Some are just NOT believable. What about countries with MORE gun ownership than the USA? Are they always more dangerous?

If you are really pro-life you would be FAR MORE concerned about abortions than gun control in the USA. Also 6 million Jews, 40 million Russians, 60 million Chinese, at least 150,000 Rwandans, and so many more that have been victims of crime perpetrated by THEIR OWN governments. Sensless violence is just that - sensless violence. Do not try and strip me of my Constitutional rights - not here. Feel free to change Australia all you wish.

 

And how are you so sure that more guns means the murder rate decreases??
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

I never said more guns decrease the murder rate, I pointed out that there are more guns owned in America than ever and the murder rate is falling dramaticly. I claim that guns have very little to nothing to do with the murder rate. The link you provided is opinionated and has no logical backing. What you fail to see is gun control has proven ineffectual in any country that has done it, so why even attempt it here?

 

Yes and when hemlines went up in the sixties murder rates went through the roof

Correlation does not imply causation

 

Can you ever make one statement that proves your cause?

 

But a lack of correlation disproves causation.

If there is no correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of homicide, then gun ownership isn't likely to be the cause or a contributing factor to homicide rates. This thought is further reinforced by the decrease in homicide coupled with the increase in gun ownership. If gun ownership actually contributed to homicide rates then the homicide rates would have increased as gun ownership increased. We have to conclude that gun ownership is either irrelevant to homicide rates, or increased gun ownership leads to decreased homicide rates.

 

If it were a simple linear association I might agree but I doubt this is so simple

 

I don't remember if your quote (directly beneath this statement) in this thread inspired my response or not. When I was writing the previous response you've quoted, I had the thought in my mind (much more detailed than your post below) that you referenced a potential reduction in suicide by firearms could be achieved through your hopes for government gun (the People) control, ban, confiscation etc. Perhaps I was thinking of another author or post. Nonetheless, the suicide reference in my post was not intended as misdirection. Just curious your deleted post this thread did it contain a reference to reducing American suicide by firearm? Could you have written that in another thread, really thought it was one of your posted quotes.

There are justifiable (lawful) outcomes that end with death; I'm for allowing people to keep themselves from suffering murder, rape, physical beatings, and robbery et al. even if it meant the aggressor/attacker would be repelled or killed by defensive gunfire.

Are these the victims (reference your graph) of criminal violence or are these the criminal perpetrators that were killed/injured while an intended victim defended him or herself from their violence or something else entirely? Just curious why exclude Mexico?

When successful implemented, lethal force by definition ends in death. More importantly and especially, I support that last and final option when the death is, that of an undeterred criminally ill-intentioned self-centered homicidal thug with a bent for bodily harm as an appetizer, in defense of an innocent's life and/or the right not to be battered.

I believe in the "For Whom the Bell Tolls" philosophy. However, all things being equal I would rather it be the free citizen mourning the criminal's abrupt passing culminated in his career-ending move/choice.

 

already moving the goal post.........

 

You have confused so many responses of mine that I am unsure of your point (other than a suspicion of deliberate obfuscation)

Choose a point and post with clarity please

 

I am so sorry you're struggling to interpret my posts, here I thought your non-response to a number of my posts in this thread were simply a concession to my point(s).

I did ask (your referenced graph/chart) some questions (quote box below) in my last post, could you bring yourself to answer?

Pretty sure you posted that American suicides by firearms would be reduced if firearms were not available. Interesting you didn't answer that question.

Btw I do suspect that your statement regarding suicide with a firearm to be true. AND if drugs, bridges, structures, balconies, ropes, bed sheets, knives, cars, nails, razors, fire, plastic bags etc. were banned the use of these in suicides would be reduced as well. The problem is that any item chosen may have a beneficial use and even a very common beneficial use. My point is a human being may make use of any one of these items in his or her act and that very specific person, absent an accident or negligence, specifically decides if it will be used for good or evil.

See my point, or are you the triangle and I'm the circle again?

 

Not to mention a FAR lower population count and no bordering countries to act as conduits for the import of illegal weapons. The Australian comparison is idiotic at best.

 

EXACTLY why more guns does not mean more gun violence. In fact Australia has millions of guns in its households, they are just not legally owned guns.

 

[video=youtube_share;zB1lpHCMTbg]http://youtu.be/zB1lpHCMTbg[/video]

 

Hitler whipped up Germany in the same manner about the Jews. First ostracize, then destroy. Pretty simple, actually. Divide the nation further for no more than an emotion. Whip up false fear, demanding from us that you have no right to demand. Turn gunowners into the new Jew, or go further back to the good old days of witch hunting.

 

Neat video.

I do see some parallels, like demonizing/dehumanizing the unborn, the wealthy, big business, the small business person, those with conservative morals/values/principles/constitutional rule of law mindset and the faithful Bible-clinging, constitution-loving, peaceful gun-toting American. These are now the newly transformed America's enemy.

No one on earth knows the future but some (teachers/theologians/preachers) who authoritatively study the Bible and prophesy have claimed that America is a non-player in the final event. It would appear that Israel has had much better friends than our current elitist. Looking at who has presently been cast as enemies of those in power, it would certainly seem to fit the belief that America's greatness will be spent long(?) before that battle.

America's conception was the grandest of individual human rights/liberty political designs, easy to understand the rest of the world's desire that She fall, still it is sad that Her demise is sought and embraced by so many of Her own citizens. Summer citizens.

 

[video=youtube;B5ELyG9V1SY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY[/video]

Interesting facts shared above. Nicely done video. 7 minutes



[video=youtube;TUB6zdgSzio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUB6zdgSzio&NR=1&feature=endscreen[/video]

Former Secret Service Agent shares his perspective on "People" control. 4:29 min.



[video=youtube;KztkvfeyO80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80&NR=1&feature=endscreen[/video]

Interesting montague of news reports, Piers Morgan, a former governor, rock star and other celebs and advocates 9:48 min.

 

It's all but about moot...................
so far the BoR Advocates 2
anti rights folks 0

http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/294469-gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress.html

 

No it wouldn't because it would walk all over the rights of the people that do follow the law. There is so much more to the ability to own guns than just simply being able to shoot someone if they break in on you. Personally, I enjoy just going out to the firing range and shooting a few hundred rounds.... I was raised in the country and have shot since I was like 3 years old. Its kind of a tradition.
This is also not to mention that some kids actually find the sport of shooting something that they are good at and its yet another way to keep them off the streets and out of trouble. Not everyone is good at football or baseball...
Its funny, because at all the CCW classes when newbies come in that have not shot alot when they finish the qualifying they all leave with a huge smile on thier face. Its just something about shooting that makes a lot of people enjoy it.
The bans that you speak of would do nothing to save lives in a country that already has millions of guns on the streets. As has been said in the past... Guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people. If they want it to happen it will happen.
This country isn't stuck on needing more laws to control guns.... Its in the shape its in because it needs more citizens that actually will take responsibility for what they do... Ones that are moral, and ones that don't want everything given to them becuase they feel they are owed it.
I don't know how many times you have been to the US, but obviously you haven't truely seen the problem here if you think a law against owning a gun is going to solve the overall problem.

 

And if you could still HAVE that but reduce your firearm injury rate?

Are you then willing to accept a childhood death toll higher than that of 25 other countries combined? You current childhood death toll is higher than any country without an active war (excepting South Africa)

Yeah and people enjoy driving at 150 K an hour and driving drunk and............

Does that mean we should let those things happen and accept a higher mortality and injury rate?

Not talking about banning guns - talking about making people take responsibility

Oh! Absolutely and if you have a gun you should have responsibility for that gun which means locking it up when you are not using it and ensuring that it will not be used to harm another except in self defence (and even that I, personally have an issue with but - hey! I am not the one living there)

 

Is meddling in the affairs of other people like a national pastime in Australia or something? I mean really...

 

I am willing to accept any downsides to firearms possession if it ensures the survival of the free state. Ultimately, that is why the 2nd Amendment exists, and it's a good thing it does.

 

Ok lot to reply to so I'll try to keep it separate....

First: I think we currently have what I have been explaining... As for reducing our gun related rates... That has nothing to do with the type of guns that are avaliable to the citizens and everything to do with the citizens and their morals.... We are a country that is slowly loosing citizens that think moral choices matter. Has NOTHING to do with guns....

As for accepting childhood death rates... Sorry to say but I personally think that when its your time to go, its your time to go.... No amount of law can change that.

As for people driving fast and driving drunk.... No one said they should do so... No one seems to mind the car companies making a car that is still capable of running 150k, or that allows drunk drivers to get behind the wheel... There isn't a law that regulates that. Why? Because it would be just another way our government would be wiping our noses... People have to choose not to do wrong because it is the right thing to do...

As far as you not talking about banning guns.... Yes I feel like you and other anti gun people are talking about banning guns. It doesn't happen all at once, but neither did Rome and look what that turned into.

As for your last statement.... I agree that gun ownership is one of the greatest responsibilities of our citizens. Do I want a government checking to see if I'm locking my guns up? To say the least.... They better stay out of my house.....
As for harming another in self defense.... If they are putting my family in danger..... I'd kill them in a heartbeat and sleep like a baby, even if I had to pay the price. Just the way I am and if thats wrong, I dont want to be right.

 

Well, at least we confine it to annoying Americans on the internet

- - - Updated - - -

Including the death of one of your children?