What legal gun owners are really afraid of.......

You mean in comparison to making them legal?

 

How likely is the average person to be in this circumstance? Now compare that to the increased likelihood of dying from gun violence by having a gun present... No contest.

 

We have 50-75 people living with a fifteen square mile area around me. No gun deaths, no accidental shootings, no children abducted 4 safe theatres within 75 sqare miles, 10 county mounties, 12 city cops in one burg west of us, and 6 city cops the other way. We've had two B&E's (garages)since I've moved into the area.
Now for the real crime....my county is the center of some of the most meth produced in Indiana, but as the state and county have found out, they come in from Indianapolis or Louisville. There have been 5 reported incidences where home owners have run meth-makers out of old barns and out buildings, but no one was shot, just run off.(and reported, later caught)
Every home out here has at least two guns, if not more.
This disproves your statist theories. Those numbers do not apply everywhere.
My grandchildren have been down here several times over the past 5 years and none of them have gotten shot, or been allowed to handle a firearm.
Get your head out of the dark places and start using a bit of common sense.
Statistics do not apply everywhere and to everyone.
But you're not going to see that hiding behind a bunch of numbers. Toss the math away and live life a little.

 

This from the guy that insists I am too emotional...
Legislation is not about your few acres of property and what happens on them. The government of any country has a job: to look after the best intrests of the greatest number of citizens possible. Statistics relating to the average citizen are more relevent to the viability of legislation than what happens in a single random county of Indiana.
I could just as easily claim that since everyone in your county has "at least two guns", the fact that your county is the centre of meth production in Indiana (as a result of people breaking into private property and setting up makeshift labs) - I guess guns don't deter crime after all...

 

so, you support hunting teams searching out and destroying all meth labs? If that were the case, the cops would be out of a drug job. But how does that relate to my ownership?
Dude, quit hiding behind numbers........what you fail to accept that there are people who are conscientable about their guns. Your terror of firearms is appauling. I wonder, where you'll align yourself if war ever does happen on this continent. Will you take up a gun to protect your family?

 

Did I mention a single number in my last post?
Your gun ownership doesn't seem to be doing anything to reduce crime in your area, as I already made clear, and - as a gun owner - you must be aware that ONE mistake in a lifetime is all it would take for a tradgedy to occur, and we all make mistakes sometimes...

Of course there are responsible gun owners. Just like most people drink responsibly. We still have limits and controls on alcohol, even though the only person you're likely to kill through drinking is yourself (unless you get behind the wheel of a car, but we have additional regulations on cars for that...).
The point is that laws have to be passed to apply to EVERYONE - not just "the bad people" - and those laws have to be in the best interest of the MAJORITY - not every single individual.

 

Really? Ok.

Exhibit A. An interactive map that shows the number of crimes and gun usage in the United States. This map only shows the incidents that made the news. You can click on each bubble to see the incident description and then make your own mind up about what should or shouldn't have happened.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

Exhibit B.

A table from a pro self-defense book that cites self defense usages per year with guns. Since the DOJ doesn't keep statistics of these numbers, we cannot know for sure how many there are. I can tell you though that it happens a lot more than you would think. Most of the time, a shot is never fired. Note where it says there are aproximately 1.5 million, thats million with an M, to 2 million cases of self defense involving a firearm every year.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Exhibit C.

Here is the FBI crime statistics for 2011. Note the total violent crime data. 1.2 million acts of violent crime. That does not include just violent crime with a gun. I will cherry pick one piece of data: forcible rape: 83,425. Who would deny a woman the right to carry a gun to prevent forcible rape if they want one? Not me.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Exhibit D.

FBI murders committed with various firearms and other devices from 2007 to 2011. Note where it says 8583 total firearm deaths. Also notice the trend over the last five years that the number has ticked down considerably every year without fail.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Exhibit E.

Murders with various different weapons. You can look through those and see for yourself how guns compare to other weapons. Look at where it says hammers, clubs, and other such weapons. These are deadly weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Exhibit F.

Aggravated assaults in the United States along with other crime data.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Now, the one piece of information I didn't find was the number of assaults with firearms and the person living. I won't guess at the number, but if you can find the statistic, then I will comment on it.

As far as the chance of dying from a gun shot wound compared to the chance of defending yourself with one, there really isn't a question in my head. You can keep deluding yourself into thinking that guns are the problem and that getting rid of rifles, which accounted for only 323 murders in 2011 TOTAL, will solve all your personal woes.

I will add this caveat for the statistics from above, they are national numbers and are not about any one area. If you want to compare different areas, we can do that, but I don't have the time to go through every city in the United States for statics.

 

I am glad you brought up the alcohol argument. Yes, we do have restrictions on alcohol, but as a society, we don't punish people for merely having alcohol in their homes. We punish them when they commit a crime. I compare your anti self-defense argument to prohibition in the 20's and 30's. Get rid of it all and it will solve the problem! We won't have the crime or associations with these things anymore if we get rid of the focus, which in this case is the GUN!

Obviously not you, but arguments you are making have been made in the past concerning objects that are despised by a minority of the population.

 

so, you wouldn't pick up a gun to defend your family.
You already know that any application to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment turns it into a priviledge. You say we can do without it, so what other Rights would you order us surrender in order to enforce a gun ban? 4th, 5th..which one?

 

While the gun laws in the executive order may have been in effect there are a multitude of other actions within the exec order that perhaps were not. e.g. Uniform maintenance and access to criminal databases that list persons that are or should be have limited access to guns, as well as Mental Health aspects of limiting access to guns, screenings and oversight by trained professionals along with training and modelling appropriate behavioral controls within our school systems, and ensuring access to mental health benefits. Also additional trained enforcement officals within the educations system and law enforcement.

 

Seriously? That is a pretty big "what if" fear. A fear that someday when you or your children or their children die you might lose a gun? Really?

 

I guess that's what I get when I steer away from statistics.... "exhibits"...

Let's see now:
Exhibit A - Over half of these incidents appear to be solvable with a taser. In some cases, the offender ran away upon being discovered and may not even have been aware the discoverer was carrying.

Exhibit B - That link appears to be broken... Assuming the table exists (as you claim), it is a single document in a book you admit has a bias based on statistics from an unknown source.... Not exactly credible as it stands.

Exhibit C - This was actually interesting, so I did some math using the numbers provided... I calculated the average values over the 20 years of data provided and found that 43% of the crimes are "property crimes", which includes such crimes as shoplifting.
Forcible rape made up 0.3% and an average number of occurances greater than you stated... the average over 20 years is 94,248 per year. That's WITH guns available. I wonder how many times the rapist had a gun to prevent his victim from fighting? I wonder if a taser would be any less effective in stopping a rapist?

Exhibit D - Once again, using the averages of the 5 years of data provided... Guns account for an average of 67.4% of all homocides, and this does not include accidental shootings.

Exhibit E - Once again, using the averages of the 5 years of data provided, guns are over 67% and blunt objects are less than 4%... But if you really believe blunt objects are as lethal as firearms, perhaps you could carry one of those for personal protection...

Exhibit F - "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury." http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html
This is NOT a reflection of firearm usage.

"Gun Control" and "Gun Banning" are not necessarily the same thing. Do you believe that ALL individuals should have access to ALL weapons? The issue isn't WHETHER there should be gun control, it's WHERE to draw the line. Fighting ALL forms of control rather than encouraging representatives to negotiate together is the surest way of having your opinion ignored as unreasonable.

 

Really? Did you know that different countries have different levels of alcohol in standard drinks and that it is illegal in the USA to produce or import of beverages that exceed the USA's alcohol content regulations? http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov...mpliance_pubs/icp_spirits.ctt/icp_spirits.pdf

Again, "Gun Control" and "Gun Banning" are not necessarily the same thing. Limiting the type and quantity of weapons available, as well as to whom they are available, is not prohibition.

 

The one thing you fail to accept that registration is the next step to seizing guns.
You fail to accept your responsibility to protect your loved ones, leaving it up to some corrupt government entity.
They have determined you are not qualified to think for yourself.

 

How long has your car been registered? Still waiting for the black helicopters to come and seize it?

You want me to introduce a lethal object into my house that is proven to increase the likelihood of my family members dying in a messy fashion, so that I can protect them from what? Zombie apocolypse?

Who is "they"? How do you know what "they" have determined? Let me guess... Fox News told you so?

 

You better pay all of your parking tickets. Police in some areas will seize and sell your vehicle if you don't. They rely on your registration for that process.

 

If you break the law and fail to pay the penalty, the police SHOULD be enforcing... Would you want it any other way?

 

So when liberal politicians get control of Congress again and pass a bill outlawing individual ownership of guns, registration will make it very easy to confiscate every gun. That is every gun from legal owners, criminals will get to keep theirs.

 

simpletons.....told you at least once before that I don't watch tv, or listen to talk radio. So, you don't want to protect your family, Hey, I'm ok with that, but you have not right to tell me how I can protect mine. "They" are people just like you...........subjects not Citizens. You demand that the governmnet make your kids safe? Sounds more like you desire more government, not less......statists are stoopid.
The guy working on the neighbor's barn roof slipped and fell, taking two other guys with him on the long slide down...I think we should ban roofers.....................they endanger the lives around them, and can be expected to act unexpectedly.

- - - Updated - - -

...and the politicians..............

 

I didn't want to be redundant.

 

Ok, you've made a few huge assumptions there... Do you believe there are more liberals in the country than conservatives? If not, how would they take over Congress? Do you believe they could get legislation banning all gun ownership past the Supreme Court? If all guns DID get banned, and cops continue to seize weapons from criminals as they are identified, where would most criminals get more guns from since there's no legitimate weapons left to steal?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Enough said.

You mean the ones elected because they represent the will of the people? For someone who calls themselves a citizen and patriot, you sure do seem to hate Democracy... Perhaps facism is more your style? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism

 

"legitimate weapons left to steal?"
Now that's a stretch...........those two words create a paradox....
It is a sad day when you, of all people, assume that when firearms are registered with the state, that the illegally possessed firearms will magically appear out of thin air to be offered up as a sacrifice for their criminal posture.
Ask the Aussies why they still have 550,00-6,000,000 unregistered firearms still unaccounted for in their perfect world?
Right.................

 

you assume the elections are top shelf............. What don't you get about the BoR? "Shall not infringe" is lost on you...let's take away your Right to Free Speech, or your Right against warrantless searches, or your Right no to testify against yourself.
If the muslims had their way, you would not have freedom of religion..where do you draw the line?

 

Most weapons used by criminals were stolen from legitimate sources - or were straw purchases. IF all weapons were banned (which they won't be), those theft targets would no longer have weapons... Police would continue to pursue criminals and take their old guns, and the criminals would have a harder time replacing them.
Do you not believe that police seize weapons? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-seizes-154-illegal-guns-article-1.1186777

As for the Australian statistic you keep trying to make sound legitimate, it's too vague to be credible. Which is it, half a million or 6 million?