NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

you made a statement that was factually proven wrong...but instead of conceding a point you try to promote your supposition and conjecture as fact to negate the latter. Sorry, but your opinion fails in the face of historical fact.

 

So late into this thread, I'm not sure anyone's even going to read this comment, but here it goes...

I don't think guns are really so much about defending oneself as they are about people being able to defend other people. That's why important people walk around with armed bodyguards. Those bodyguards cannot prevent an assassination, but what they can do is shoot the criminal dead. Is this a form of "defense"? You betcha. Not only does it create a deterrent but it would also prevent the criminal from striking again.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

So I proved the bias of your first source, now you skip to some generalized factoid spanning a century and other countries that does NOT deal directly with the current subject at hand, which is that in the USA you have the right to a weapon if you are a law abiding citizen and meet state requirements/regulations. In my lifetime there has been NO general "confiscation" law, and folk who purchased certain assault weapons prior to a ban by the Congress were allowed to keep such providing they had a proof of ownership/purchase.

Noir implies otherwise....he's wrong. He proves, however, that unless you live in a high crime area, the chances of you needing a gun are EXTREMELY low....which contradicts the paranoia driven NRA propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

That's absurd....as clearly the notion of "default body guard" for your neighbor is nowhere near the NRA propaganda parroted by it's pundits.

 

Yes, but if I'm in a crowd of people, and a bad apple tries anything, there might be someone else in the crowd who could pull out a gun.

Assuming it's not in a "Gun Free Zone" of course.

 

How do you think they kept peace in the Wild West?
In the midst of a town, no criminal would dare try anything. It was always outside the town on the desolate trails that travelers had to be wary.

 

So you're throwing out silliness for the sake of argument? Sorry, but I'm not interested in following you further.

- - - Updated - - -

Not quite: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/7/23/1112703/-De-mythologizing-the-Wild-West-gun-laws-were-actually-stricter-then-than-now

 

About that article: They did not need to carry guns in the town because the town was very small, and the sheriff or one of his deputies was likely to be around at a moment's notice (such as if there was scream). Guns were still allowed outside the town though.

 

Stop trying to fabricate excuses or substitute your supposition and conjecture for historical fact. It is what it is....a mythology debunked by historical fact. You were wrong. You can't minimize or discredit it, and it matters not whether you accept it. If you've got nothing else, I'd say we're done.

 

Ok, but just remember I was not the one who walked away from the debate.

 

Translation: JoakimFlorence is just cranking for an argument, but essentially cannot admit error on any level. Into the IA bin with him/her.

 

The Daily Kos is not a credible source to establish historical fact. No offense but you are wrong. Do more research - find a better source.

 

"So I proved the bias of your first source, now you skip to some generalized factoid spanning a century and other countries that does NOT deal directly with the current subject at hand, which is that in the USA you have the right to a weapon if you are a law abiding citizen and meet state requirements/regulations. In my lifetime there has been NO general "confiscation" law, and folk who purchased certain assault weapons prior to a ban by the Congress were allowed to keep such providing they had a proof of ownership/purchase.

Noir implies otherwise....he's wrong. He proves, however, that unless you live in a high crime area, the chances of you needing a gun are EXTREMELY low....which contradicts the paranoia driven NRA propaganda." ferret

I did not cite the biased Daily Kos. I cited the Atlantic Monthly quoting an academic expert,

 

Pass all the anti gun laws they can "if it saves just one life." Even though there are many cases where guns were used to "save just one (or several) life."
Yes, by far the majority of law abiding gun owners will never have to use their guns against criminals, just as most law enforcement officers will not have to use theirs, but that's a good thing. But some will in fact, at some point, have to. Since no one knows who will need one, I can't wrap my head around why anyone would want to belittle the fact that justified defensive gun uses do happen.

 

Because they have an agenda to control the populace for their own purposes.
Socialists are control freaks and put down artists by nature.
It comes from having an inferiority complex since childhood.

 

So do we just sacrifice those who did need a gun In self defense just so you liberals can be happy that law abiding citizens are disarmed?

Why do liberals want to keep people from protecting themselves from criminals that have guns? Why do liberals believe criminals will abide by their laws?

Do they not see what's going on in their beloved gun free zones? Gun free zones are the target of mass murders and are some of the most dangerous cities in the country. Yet somehow through all of that FAIL the anti gun liberals see success?

Success for whom? I think we all know that answer as it pertains to a liberal voting block.

 

If you can logically and factually disprove the information and source material that the Daily Kos provides in my link, then you may have a case. If not, then you're just blowing smoke to try and cover the fact that you can't support your contentions.

 

(1.) You cannot logically or factually disprove the content of the link to the Daily Kos. (2.) I didn't doubt the credentials of your Atlantic Monthly article, I merely pointed out that it was, "... .... some generalized factoid spanning a century and other countries that does NOT deal directly with the current subject at hand, which is that in the USA you have the right to a weapon if you are a law abiding citizen and meet state requirements/regulations. In my lifetime there has been NO general "confiscation" law, and folk who purchased certain assault weapons prior to a ban by the Congress were allowed to keep such providing they had a proof of ownership/purchase."


Those are the FACTS this thread is dealing with.

- - - Updated - - -

Since to date there have been no "anti-gun laws" that ban ALL weapons or confiscates legally purchased weapons from law abiding citizens, your screed here is essentially irrelevant.

 

The odds of needing a fire extinguisher is infinitesimal so they should be banned.

 

Your opinion, supposition and conjecture are no substitute for valid, documented historical fact. To date, none of your like minded compadres have disproved the summation of the OP.

- - - Updated - - -

Since no law has been proposed to deny a law abiding citizen the right to purchase a weapon according to State and Federal law, your screed is irrelevant and based in error.

 

The Daily Kos is a biased source. Find one that is not.

 

Oh, and the Atlantic Monthly is not a discredited biased source.

You should read the book they relied on.

 

How about just some common sense? It does not appear that the alarmists use any.

I doubt I will ever need to use my gun and hope I never have to but would be caught shortchanged without it if I needed it and didn't have it.

 

Oh, come on! You can't really expect that from a committed gun grabber.

 

I did revise it a bit but like the following video, you never know when you will need one. Susan Hupp points out why it is good for citizens to be armed and was the impetus for the decades long effort to allow citizens to defend themselves.

[video=youtube_share;W9eCrs_MXxo]http://youtu.be/W9eCrs_MXxo[/video]

 

Ayuh,.... I sure hope not,....

Livin' up here in the Kingdom of Cuomo, the Progressive capital of the planet, I'm always on the lookout for fire extinguishers where ever I go,....

I doubt I'll need one to put out a fire, but they make a Great alternative weapon to take out a thug if necessary,.....