JOR_EL
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2001
- Messages
- 242
- Tractor
- JD4700 HST w/mods. SUPERBABY
(prompted by the recent "Gun Show Bill" thread)
This is really a cut/paste of several posts, so guess what? It is LONG.
It is the result of my sharing the "Lawyers, Doctors, or guns" post with another group. here is the TBN link, for those who missed-it:
http://www.tractorbynet.com/cgi-bin...f&Number=66723&page=&view=&sb=&vc=1#Post66723
I'm adding these to the TBN "gun"-collection, because I think the comments of "poster#3" (in particular)will be appreciated by some TBN-ers.
I began the thread (as "poster#1") , with the post linked-to above, which summed-up like this .."Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.":
[[poster#2 wrote]]
Ok. But how many people have their lives saved, defects corrected, and/or lives extended in a meaningful and benficial way by guns each year?
Only a handful compared to the number of people killed each year. For doctors the deaths are greatly outnumbered by those helped.
And since you asked, IMHO ...
I am for gun ownership. I am also for gun control. Gun owners do not need arsenals of working weapons or working weapons designed for killing people. Gun owners need guns to preserve cultural traditions and sustenance methods (these are why hunting guns should be protected) and sport (this is not a valid reason for hunting, but there is a lot of sport shooting that is not hunting). Obviously the military and law enforcement should have guns. Importing guns should be illegal. Gun laws should be written in ways that prevent manufacturers from making small design changes to dodge the intent of the law. Kits for modifying legal guns to behave in illegal ways should be banned. Gun sales should only be legal in licensed venues (not gun shows or between citizens). Current weapons could be grandfathered, but repair and ownership change should not be allowed. Collectors should not be allowed to keep guns in working order.
[[poster#3 wrote]]
Before we get started: This post insults no one, flames no one, derides no one, so afford me the same respect, if you respond to it. I know this is off topic. But I feel that some misinformation has been posted and needs balancing. This will be my only post, I will not post any rebuttals. I will not be responsible for this thread growing beyond three posts. If it does, it will be someone else making it grow. Ignore it if you don’t like it. It’s just data.
As someone who has owned many handguns as a collector/target shooter/hunter/family protector, I can say I have never pointed a gun at anyone, nor have I shot anyone. I keep the firearms in my home well secured from improper use, or access by my kids, or by intruders. Why would you want to prevent me from owning a firearm? By the way, I currently do not own anything but a muzzle loading black powder rifle for deer hunting. So my statements are not SELF-defensive, per say, but more or less just informational.
> Ok. But how many people have their lives saved, defects corrected,
> and/or lives extended in a meaningful and beneficial way by guns
> each year?
You forgot the statistic about the defensive use of firearms between 1 and 2 million times a year, in the US. That statistic does not imply that the gun was fired, but simply that having the gun available prevented a crime of violence. Usually, just the sight of a firearm is enough to deter even the most determined assailant. That's a pretty significant statistic, IMO.
There are times when a firearm is the only viable defense against assault. Just ask a police officer. I would go so far as to say that a civilian (in the US) is just as likely to need (the availability of) deadly force in his lifetime as the average cop, the vast majority of whom never draw their weapons in self defense.
If someone breaks into your home, and you are confronted by an intruder armed with a baseball bat, what will you use to defend yourself? You really need to honestly consider your answer. How about an intruder with a chain? A knife? A big rock? An intruder who is 6' 5" and on PCP? Or even an intruder who is 5' 5" and on PCP?
It could be rapist. It could be just a robbery (many end in homicide these days). It could be a the ex-boyfriend of the girl you're dating. It could be someone you accidentally cut off in traffic. It could just be a nut-case, or a drunk in a bar. How about that customer who thinks you cheated him? How about that anti-abortion fanatic who has targeted you, because you are a Doctor/Nurse at a clinic? (I am Pro-Life, and that includes even the life of Doctors and Nurses who work in clinics) But it can and does happen many thousands of times per year (in the US), though I don't have the statistics.
Would you use pepper spray? I saw a drunk get thoroughly maced in the face and eyes, and his only reaction was to wave his arm in front of his face, take another swing at the bar tender, get maced again, take another swing, and walk out, with no sign of pain. I was sitting right next to him when the trouble started (27 years ago, in Cheyenne Wyo., at the Cheyenne Electric Co. night club). He was so drunk, he couldn't even talk, but he was violent. The bartender was lucky he didn't have a knife and an attitude to go with it.
Would you call the police? Of course you would, but what do you do to entertain your new guest for the 30 minutes it takes before they arrive?
Would you want to defend yourself with a gun that didn't stop him? I doubt it. That is WHY guns are designed to 'kill', or more precisely, to incapacitate an attacker and halt an assault. Sometimes that is the only effective method of defending yourself and family. However, just displaying a firearm is usually enough, but sometimes it is not.
How would you have felt if you were at ground-zero at the L. A. riots? Being there unarmed would, to me, have been a terrifying experience. Being there armed, you would at least have had a chance, if the crowed had turned it's eyes on you.
The simple fact is that, if you don't have a firearm, there is nothing you can do in those situations that will protect you. Nothing. If you use a bat to defend against a bat, you will lose. Same goes for a knife. Simply put, you have to have the advantage to win, and a firearm is the only tool that will give you that advantage, in most assault situations. A firearm is the only tool that makes a potential rape victim the equal to her attacker. Nothing else will, even pepper spray or stun devices.
You may not like guns, and that's fine. Are guns a source of accidental deaths each year? Of course, but so are cars, boats, curtain cords, knives, and even toilets (infants drown in them). And of course, Doctors. But all these have there legitimate purpose, even though they can be lethal if abused, etc. Same with firearms. But there is no justification for depriving someone of the only effective means of self defense available to them.
As firearms are the only effective defense against someone with a knife, chain, bat, or simply someone who is enraged, eliminating every single firearm from the world, will not leave you able to effectively defend yourself against what is left. You would need to eliminate violence altogether, before I would agree that firearms would no longer be necessary.
The new program, Project Exile, which targets gun possession by those for whom it is illegal, has had great results in reducing firearm related crime in my town. It does not impact those who are no threat to anyone. Only those who are. That is the way gun control should be done. Target the problem, don't punish everyone for the misdeeds of some.
Sure, there is a lot of abuse that can and should be prevented. But not at the expense of the young lady, facing a rapist in her home at night. She has the right to defend herself, and that right should not be infringed.
[[poster#4 wrote:]]
> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times
> more dangerous than gun owners.
How many people have been treated by these physicians?
I think that would be a better comparison.
[[Larry wrote]]
If that's a "better comparison", then let's talk apples and apples.
(I.e., "service" rather than harm done-to-innocents.)
The 3rd post in this thread has expressed VERY WELL the point that was entirely-ignored in the 2nd, ...the gun's real life role in self/family protection. (the same role that is also so-conveniently ignored by the press!)
While many keep saying that guns are "ok" for hunting and sport, they often omit any acknowledgement of the most IMPORTANT element of ownership, the "stopping" of a threat. And yes (duh!) "stopping" sometimes means "killing" (the very thing we are constantly reminded that guns are "designed-to-do')!! What good would they be if they weren't?
Fortunately (or-not, depending on how you look at criminals) the "killing" is often not-necessary, as the 3rd-poster has pointed out.
This PRIMARY role of "the gun", has been well-documented over-the-years in a monthly column titled "The Armed Citizen", in The National Rifleman magazine, published by (you guessed it!) the NRA.
The article consists of a collection of incidents where a gun was used in this role of protection, and a great many of them do NOT result in death, but DO result in the prevention of a crime (which itself MIGHT HAVE resulted in one-or-more deaths), and/or the apprehension of the "perp".
Shooting targets or game are legal/legitimate uses, ...but that's not why The 2nd Amendment is there.
If anyone's "dumping" of personal responsibility (so popular in our society) includes a total reliance on the police department to protect them and their loved ones, ...they are out-of-touch with reality.
The police will be there to "fill-out-the report", ...AFTER the fact, .., more than 9 times out of 10.
If they "solve" the crime, they count it as a "win". This may help future-victims (of the same perp) but it doesn't do a thing for you (or your family)!!
Larry [ What's this big, round, paper-looking thing? (shake, ..shake) hey, ..what's that 'buzzing' sound?]
This is really a cut/paste of several posts, so guess what? It is LONG.
It is the result of my sharing the "Lawyers, Doctors, or guns" post with another group. here is the TBN link, for those who missed-it:
http://www.tractorbynet.com/cgi-bin...f&Number=66723&page=&view=&sb=&vc=1#Post66723
I'm adding these to the TBN "gun"-collection, because I think the comments of "poster#3" (in particular)will be appreciated by some TBN-ers.
I began the thread (as "poster#1") , with the post linked-to above, which summed-up like this .."Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.":
[[poster#2 wrote]]
Ok. But how many people have their lives saved, defects corrected, and/or lives extended in a meaningful and benficial way by guns each year?
Only a handful compared to the number of people killed each year. For doctors the deaths are greatly outnumbered by those helped.
And since you asked, IMHO ...
I am for gun ownership. I am also for gun control. Gun owners do not need arsenals of working weapons or working weapons designed for killing people. Gun owners need guns to preserve cultural traditions and sustenance methods (these are why hunting guns should be protected) and sport (this is not a valid reason for hunting, but there is a lot of sport shooting that is not hunting). Obviously the military and law enforcement should have guns. Importing guns should be illegal. Gun laws should be written in ways that prevent manufacturers from making small design changes to dodge the intent of the law. Kits for modifying legal guns to behave in illegal ways should be banned. Gun sales should only be legal in licensed venues (not gun shows or between citizens). Current weapons could be grandfathered, but repair and ownership change should not be allowed. Collectors should not be allowed to keep guns in working order.
[[poster#3 wrote]]
Before we get started: This post insults no one, flames no one, derides no one, so afford me the same respect, if you respond to it. I know this is off topic. But I feel that some misinformation has been posted and needs balancing. This will be my only post, I will not post any rebuttals. I will not be responsible for this thread growing beyond three posts. If it does, it will be someone else making it grow. Ignore it if you don’t like it. It’s just data.
As someone who has owned many handguns as a collector/target shooter/hunter/family protector, I can say I have never pointed a gun at anyone, nor have I shot anyone. I keep the firearms in my home well secured from improper use, or access by my kids, or by intruders. Why would you want to prevent me from owning a firearm? By the way, I currently do not own anything but a muzzle loading black powder rifle for deer hunting. So my statements are not SELF-defensive, per say, but more or less just informational.
> Ok. But how many people have their lives saved, defects corrected,
> and/or lives extended in a meaningful and beneficial way by guns
> each year?
You forgot the statistic about the defensive use of firearms between 1 and 2 million times a year, in the US. That statistic does not imply that the gun was fired, but simply that having the gun available prevented a crime of violence. Usually, just the sight of a firearm is enough to deter even the most determined assailant. That's a pretty significant statistic, IMO.
There are times when a firearm is the only viable defense against assault. Just ask a police officer. I would go so far as to say that a civilian (in the US) is just as likely to need (the availability of) deadly force in his lifetime as the average cop, the vast majority of whom never draw their weapons in self defense.
If someone breaks into your home, and you are confronted by an intruder armed with a baseball bat, what will you use to defend yourself? You really need to honestly consider your answer. How about an intruder with a chain? A knife? A big rock? An intruder who is 6' 5" and on PCP? Or even an intruder who is 5' 5" and on PCP?
It could be rapist. It could be just a robbery (many end in homicide these days). It could be a the ex-boyfriend of the girl you're dating. It could be someone you accidentally cut off in traffic. It could just be a nut-case, or a drunk in a bar. How about that customer who thinks you cheated him? How about that anti-abortion fanatic who has targeted you, because you are a Doctor/Nurse at a clinic? (I am Pro-Life, and that includes even the life of Doctors and Nurses who work in clinics) But it can and does happen many thousands of times per year (in the US), though I don't have the statistics.
Would you use pepper spray? I saw a drunk get thoroughly maced in the face and eyes, and his only reaction was to wave his arm in front of his face, take another swing at the bar tender, get maced again, take another swing, and walk out, with no sign of pain. I was sitting right next to him when the trouble started (27 years ago, in Cheyenne Wyo., at the Cheyenne Electric Co. night club). He was so drunk, he couldn't even talk, but he was violent. The bartender was lucky he didn't have a knife and an attitude to go with it.
Would you call the police? Of course you would, but what do you do to entertain your new guest for the 30 minutes it takes before they arrive?
Would you want to defend yourself with a gun that didn't stop him? I doubt it. That is WHY guns are designed to 'kill', or more precisely, to incapacitate an attacker and halt an assault. Sometimes that is the only effective method of defending yourself and family. However, just displaying a firearm is usually enough, but sometimes it is not.
How would you have felt if you were at ground-zero at the L. A. riots? Being there unarmed would, to me, have been a terrifying experience. Being there armed, you would at least have had a chance, if the crowed had turned it's eyes on you.
The simple fact is that, if you don't have a firearm, there is nothing you can do in those situations that will protect you. Nothing. If you use a bat to defend against a bat, you will lose. Same goes for a knife. Simply put, you have to have the advantage to win, and a firearm is the only tool that will give you that advantage, in most assault situations. A firearm is the only tool that makes a potential rape victim the equal to her attacker. Nothing else will, even pepper spray or stun devices.
You may not like guns, and that's fine. Are guns a source of accidental deaths each year? Of course, but so are cars, boats, curtain cords, knives, and even toilets (infants drown in them). And of course, Doctors. But all these have there legitimate purpose, even though they can be lethal if abused, etc. Same with firearms. But there is no justification for depriving someone of the only effective means of self defense available to them.
As firearms are the only effective defense against someone with a knife, chain, bat, or simply someone who is enraged, eliminating every single firearm from the world, will not leave you able to effectively defend yourself against what is left. You would need to eliminate violence altogether, before I would agree that firearms would no longer be necessary.
The new program, Project Exile, which targets gun possession by those for whom it is illegal, has had great results in reducing firearm related crime in my town. It does not impact those who are no threat to anyone. Only those who are. That is the way gun control should be done. Target the problem, don't punish everyone for the misdeeds of some.
Sure, there is a lot of abuse that can and should be prevented. But not at the expense of the young lady, facing a rapist in her home at night. She has the right to defend herself, and that right should not be infringed.
[[poster#4 wrote:]]
> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times
> more dangerous than gun owners.
How many people have been treated by these physicians?
I think that would be a better comparison.
[[Larry wrote]]
If that's a "better comparison", then let's talk apples and apples.
(I.e., "service" rather than harm done-to-innocents.)
The 3rd post in this thread has expressed VERY WELL the point that was entirely-ignored in the 2nd, ...the gun's real life role in self/family protection. (the same role that is also so-conveniently ignored by the press!)
While many keep saying that guns are "ok" for hunting and sport, they often omit any acknowledgement of the most IMPORTANT element of ownership, the "stopping" of a threat. And yes (duh!) "stopping" sometimes means "killing" (the very thing we are constantly reminded that guns are "designed-to-do')!! What good would they be if they weren't?
Fortunately (or-not, depending on how you look at criminals) the "killing" is often not-necessary, as the 3rd-poster has pointed out.
This PRIMARY role of "the gun", has been well-documented over-the-years in a monthly column titled "The Armed Citizen", in The National Rifleman magazine, published by (you guessed it!) the NRA.
The article consists of a collection of incidents where a gun was used in this role of protection, and a great many of them do NOT result in death, but DO result in the prevention of a crime (which itself MIGHT HAVE resulted in one-or-more deaths), and/or the apprehension of the "perp".
Shooting targets or game are legal/legitimate uses, ...but that's not why The 2nd Amendment is there.
If anyone's "dumping" of personal responsibility (so popular in our society) includes a total reliance on the police department to protect them and their loved ones, ...they are out-of-touch with reality.
The police will be there to "fill-out-the report", ...AFTER the fact, .., more than 9 times out of 10.
If they "solve" the crime, they count it as a "win". This may help future-victims (of the same perp) but it doesn't do a thing for you (or your family)!!
Larry [ What's this big, round, paper-looking thing? (shake, ..shake) hey, ..what's that 'buzzing' sound?]