OK. I will re-phrase it so that YOU will understand it.
Assuming that you are right, in a “gun-free” zone there will likely be NOBODY on-site to stop a lunatic – your only hope is to run or hide (which, in many cases, you cannot run without passing the shooter) and wait for the police to show up. On the other hand, an attempted mass-shooting where there is a chance of having somebody carrying a gun means that there is at least a chance of somebody being able to stop the maniac.
By the way, do you have ANY proof of your claims? The shootings that I remember recently were: schools (maybe security has a gun, but nobody else is allowed), movie theater (gun-free zone according to the sign), military bases (strangely enough, gun-free except for the few security guards), and a democratic convention (technically not gun-free, but, knowing who is attending, it might as well be). Please present PROOF.
I think the gun “debate” is mostly about two kinds of people refusing to recognize each others’ feelings and priorities. The capital punishment debate (again being generous by calling it a “debate”, rather than two groups talking past each other) is very similar.
Some folks literally can’t conceive of anything worse than the end of their existence, and believe other people must feel the same, no matter how much they may deny it. They say things like “any sane person would rather give up their wallet to a mugger than risk being shot, or risk some innocent bystander being shot.” They are unconvinced when presented with any opposing view, because they are literally incapable of accepting that their biologically predetermined fears aren’t the very definition of sanity. It’s the way they are wired.
Other people have great difficulty restraining visceral feelings of repugnance and contempt when confronted with such viewpoints. They say things like “Why should I care if I die? I’m going to die, and it’s inevitable, and I’ve already planned for it, like any sane person has. What’s the big deal? Why would any sane person want to preserve life at any cost?” Again, these people see their own fatalistic acceptance of reality as the definition of sanity - it’s the way they are wired.
Whenever these two types of people try to talk, they almost can’t help insulting each other. Person2 can’t help thinking Person1 is a puling coward, and Person1 can’t help thinking Person2 is either a complete idiot or a grandstanding fool making a false show of machismo.
Those are the two types of people I hear the most in these “debates”. I think it’s interesting to note, though, that in stress situations more than two types of wired-in responses exist. Some people freeze when confronted, some scream, some counterattack instantly, some faint, some attempt to impose rationality on the irrational. Some people will do anything to preserve their lives - including hiding behind their own loved ones - and others will spit in the eye of death and die laughing. Having this wide spectrum of reactions is almost certainly a survival trait for the human species, although not necessarily for any particular individual.
I think the original Red Dawn is about as close as we get to “PROOF” for these theories. Gun toting heroes around ever corner, ready to stop every crime? More people die in crimes of passion or stupid mistakes at home with their gun than avert crimes.
Gaaaa. I JUST POSTED THIS STUFF. But, here it is AGAIN…
The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.
And…
He later went on to acknowledge that, “Mr. Lott’s research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.”
And…
The majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or wounding an attacker. Government surveys indicate 108,000 to 23 million DGUs per year, while private surveys indicate 764,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year.
So, the absolute WORST thing that you can say about concealed carry is that it does not increase crime. It may or may not decrease crime, depending on the data set, assumptions, etc. Unless you assume that there are millions of crimes of passion involving guns.
I have researched some of this stuff. I check statistics. You say stuff without any research at all.
If you wish to reply to this, please at least have a link to statistics or something, please.
Also you’ve ignored my point. I have no research to point at but I highly doubt crimes averted by civilians carrying a handgun out numbers accidental deaths by private firearms. Guns are a part of our heritage but need regulation. We aren’t responsible enough gun owners without them.
No, I just highlighted your point for you. You said: “I have no research.” That looks like the point. You also said: “I highly doubt.” Sorry, but I highly doubt that you even realize how foolish you look having such a strong opinion without having any facts to back you up.
A quick google search:
In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
Not the most recent, but current figures should not be too far off.
And, from my earlier post (quoted from Wikipedia):
The majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or wounding an attacker. Government surveys indicate 108,000 to 23 million DGUs per year, while private surveys indicate 764,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year.
Not only are they outnumbered, but they are outnumbered at least by 178-to-1, and possibly as high as 37,953-to-1. How does your foot taste?
Wow, it seems to me that we already HAVE plenty of regulations. Background checks. If you want to carry concealed, fingerprints too. Often, waiting periods. Certain types are restricted. Saying that guns should be regulated is like saying that wheels should be round or that water should be wet.
By the way, did you know that murders are down by almost 50% over the last couple of decades or so? No? I wonder why that was not on the news?
So, what part of declining homicide worries you so much that we have to do something?
Given the option to be shot at, or to be swung at with a melee weapon, I’ll take the melee weapon every time.
Why, you ask? Although it’s true that melee weapons can be just as deadly as guns, they’re still a hell of a lot easier to dodge or block than bullets. That and range - running away from a gun while lacking cover doesn’t do much, but so long as you can match or beat the speed of a melee pursuer, you’re safe.
If (for some reason) someone is trying to kill me, I’m going to want to make it as difficult and time consuming as possible for them to do so - that way I can have the best possible odds of escaping from them or disabling them somehow. Letting people have guns works directly against my interests.
Funny that no one has brought up Patricia Maisch, the grandma who stopped the Giffords gunman in Tucson. After she got the gun away from the shooter, someone else hit him over the head with a chair, and then a couple of others wrestled him to the ground.
That’s probably the most well-known and recent example of a gunman being stopped without a gun. Having a gun is not a requirement to protect yourself or a large group.
This is not crimes averted. Your defensive gun definition is kept broad enough to likely involve military use.
I mean in the HEADING from the Wikipedia, whom you quote wrt DGU’s, is this:
“Defensive gun use (DGU) is the use of a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. The frequency of defensive firearms incidents, and their effectiveness in providing safety and reducing crime is a controversial issue in gun politics and criminology.[1]:64 Different authors and studies employ different criteria for what constitutes a defensive gun use which leads to controversy in comparing statistical results. Perceptions of the number of DGUs dominate discussions over gun rights, gun control, and concealed carry laws.”
I can recall zero cases in the news where armed civilians helped stave off a Burrito Bandit.
Well, you can always catch a friend’s elbow in the face in a brawl or whatever, but the upside is that you tend to not die from such accidents - it typically takes a concerted effort and repeated blows to kill like that.
I love the loaded-yet-unclear terminology of “defensive” here as well.
A machinegun is a “defensive” weapon, in that you set it up in one spot (ideally fortified) and use it to fend off attackers. “Defensive” hand grenades are packed full of more explosives and have a much larger kill radius than offensive ones - they’re “defensive” because they’re intended to be used from behind cover (because that extra large radius can kill you as well otherwise).
Yet neither of these are things we want to equip civilians with for “home defense”. (Defense from what, I ask? Invading Russian Paratroopers?) But of course, “defensive gun usage” sounds so very reasonable on the surface. The flaw, of course, is in failing to realize that the world is not a battlefield and citizens are not under constant siege from waves of attackers.
Sorry, but that was not MY definition. That was the definition of studies, and reported on Wikipedia. If you think that you can do any better, I welcome you to try.
And if you think that serious studies include “military use” then keep on believing that. You must think that Wikipedia is the tool of the NRA…
Have you actually LOOKED? And what do you mean by “burrito bandit?” If you are refering to a crime where nobody was going to get hurt, that is NOT a case to use a firearm. If you truly think so, please do the world a favor and never buy your own gun.
I also like the quote you gave at the end. That is the REASON that there is such a variety (around an order of magnitude) in the defensive use of guns.
Please feel free to post again if you think that you can come up with anything that will survive even a rudimentary logical analysis.
This is a discussion about some peoples need to carry a firearm while they eat a fast-food burrito in order to defend them selves from the vast horde of people assaulting burrito eaters in Texas.
