Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Sadly, those stats are from the usual suspects of anti-gun politics. If you want to have a serious debate, we can have one. But that politically inspired trash is a poor starting point for a discussion.
Firearms purchase
- Thread starter Robert Poole
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Sadly, those stats are from the usual suspects of anti-gun politics. If you want to have a serious debate, we can have one. But that politically inspired trash is a poor starting point for a discussion.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Rich,
That page quoted stats from a wide variety of sources, including the NC State Chief Medical Examiner and the National Center for Injury Control & Prevention. Are you dismissing all the stats as invalid?
Reading that groups mission statement (see link) I still don't see how reasonable people could be against them...they want to reduce gun violence. They want to do it through education, enforcement and enactment. How can that be a bad thing...unless you say the current level of gun violence is acceptable.
TJR
That page quoted stats from a wide variety of sources, including the NC State Chief Medical Examiner and the National Center for Injury Control & Prevention. Are you dismissing all the stats as invalid?
Reading that groups mission statement (see link) I still don't see how reasonable people could be against them...they want to reduce gun violence. They want to do it through education, enforcement and enactment. How can that be a bad thing...unless you say the current level of gun violence is acceptable.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg Bosin
Active Member
Mud,
I own the same Kel Tec .380 It is a very nice slim lightweight and concealable weapon. If you haven't already I would get some hollow points because of the small caliber and ballistics.
I hope I never need to use any of my handguns for self defense but I have had a complete stranger come up and beat on my car while shouting what the f@#$ is my problem. He then tried to reach inside for my throat or hair. We were in a Burger King parking lot in Portland. His car was in front of me but fortunately nobody was behind me so I slammed it in reverse and got the hell out of there. That whole thing freaked my wife and I out and that's when I decided to get some protection. Although if I had a gun then I would have done the same thing. Unfortunately I don't think some people would exercise that kind of discipline. That is where training comes in; Not just how to use the weapon, but when to use it.
I live next to a highway that has a lot of tourist traffic and I have had people come to my door in the early morning hours. I feel more comfortable knowing that I have that protection next to me in the unlikely chance I need it.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Tom, most of the sourced quotes are from organizations that are rabidly anti 2nd amendment. Political organizations with a political agenda.
Also, do you think, because a statistic comes from a government source, it's automatically legitemit?
Do you recall, a few years ago, when the CDC declared obesity an "epedemic?" They had a big press conference and put out a report stating that obesity contributed to the deaths of over 400,000 Americans each year. It was widly covered in the national media.
In the academic and statistical firestorm that ensued, when it was clear the number had been the work of a political effort, the CDC quietly published a number revising the estimate downward to 25,000 deaths. Of course, the media did not report that. Most Americans were left with the impression of the original, highly amplified and widely covered report.
There are elections to be won, advertising to be sold, and money to be made by getting you (all of us, actually) to think certain ways about certain things. The truth has little to do with any of it.
With that in mind, consider this quote from the page you referenced:
While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals or stop crimes, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenario of gun use in America in 2001, the most recent final data available, are suicide (16,869), homicide (11,617) or fatal, unintentional injury (802). Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an assailant in self-defense. (Kellerman, Journal, Trauma, 1998)
Note the minimization of the roll of defensive firearm use, with no effort to quantify it. Apparently, these folks believe that gun use can only be tallied by counting people who show up at hospitals or morgues with gunshot wounds.
Do you think that's accurate? Do you think that's academically reasonable?
Do you think they should consider the dozen or more scholarly studies that have concluded that guns are uused between 200,000 (most conservative study) and 2 million (most liberal estimate) times per year to stop a crime? Or, they can just use the study that is most widely respected by criminologists, which puts the figure at between 1 million and 1.5 million.
Spin, my man, spin. Either go to a neutral source (the raw data), or at least leave out sound bite data provided by the usual suspects.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Sorry, one more point. From the NC page link you provided:
Guns are the only U.S. product (other than tobacco) exempt from Federal Safety oversight. Toy guns and teddy bears are regulated- real guns are not. (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 2003)
Do you know why guns manufacturers are exempted from federal safety oversight?
Because the gun banners, when they couldn't get the legislation they wanted to remove lawfully owned guns from Americans, decided to try to put gun manufacturers out of business as a way of denying Americans access to guns. Never mind the illegitimicy of that as a democratic means of governence; hey, we're the government, and we sometimes need to do what the people simply don't realize is best for them.
Cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago and other woefully failed experiments in liberalism decided that the way to solve their social problems was to get rid of guns (ignoring the total failure of Washington D.C.'s prohibition). So, when a resident of one of those cities got shot with a Smith & Wesson (or Glock or Beretta or ...), the city in question would file a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, trying to hold them financially responsible for the crime. The idea was, bankrupt the gun makers with these suits. No more gun makers, no more guns.
Some legislators and lobbyists still attached to reality realized how dangerous this was, because:
a) It's an attempt to circumvent the will of the people
b) It's irrational and downright wrong to blame a legitimate, law abiding product maker for the criminal misuse of their products.
c) It's a potential precedent for a ridiculous abuse of the civil courts. Why not sue Quik Trip when someone uses their gas to conduct arson? Or Bayer when someone purposely overdoses on aspirin? Or General Motors when a drunk driver uses his Tahoe to wipe out a family on the highway?
So, it's rather laughable when an anti-2nd amendment organization decries how unfair it is that gun makers have this crazy exemption. Gun makers have this crazy exemption because of anti-2nd amendment efforts to harm legitimate, legal gun trade as a way to meet political goals.
Guns are the only U.S. product (other than tobacco) exempt from Federal Safety oversight. Toy guns and teddy bears are regulated- real guns are not. (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 2003)
Do you know why guns manufacturers are exempted from federal safety oversight?
Because the gun banners, when they couldn't get the legislation they wanted to remove lawfully owned guns from Americans, decided to try to put gun manufacturers out of business as a way of denying Americans access to guns. Never mind the illegitimicy of that as a democratic means of governence; hey, we're the government, and we sometimes need to do what the people simply don't realize is best for them.
Cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago and other woefully failed experiments in liberalism decided that the way to solve their social problems was to get rid of guns (ignoring the total failure of Washington D.C.'s prohibition). So, when a resident of one of those cities got shot with a Smith & Wesson (or Glock or Beretta or ...), the city in question would file a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, trying to hold them financially responsible for the crime. The idea was, bankrupt the gun makers with these suits. No more gun makers, no more guns.
Some legislators and lobbyists still attached to reality realized how dangerous this was, because:
a) It's an attempt to circumvent the will of the people
b) It's irrational and downright wrong to blame a legitimate, law abiding product maker for the criminal misuse of their products.
c) It's a potential precedent for a ridiculous abuse of the civil courts. Why not sue Quik Trip when someone uses their gas to conduct arson? Or Bayer when someone purposely overdoses on aspirin? Or General Motors when a drunk driver uses his Tahoe to wipe out a family on the highway?
So, it's rather laughable when an anti-2nd amendment organization decries how unfair it is that gun makers have this crazy exemption. Gun makers have this crazy exemption because of anti-2nd amendment efforts to harm legitimate, legal gun trade as a way to meet political goals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Maybe, maybe not. This doesn't take into account the 2,000,000 (that's 2 MILLION) times a year that a personal firearm is used to STOP a crime, most of which does not involve death and more of which do not involve shots fired.
Uh, yeah. It does. Quoting those flower children as a source by the NCMSCE would be akin to the DOT quoting Exxon about pollution. Sorry.
Just to back up Rich. You Go Boy.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
R Shek,
Your argument and others here smack of the "acceptable loss" mentality.
The statistics inarguably show that our country has alarming rates of suicide by gun, inadvertent gun deaths, and the like, but rather than accept those statistiscs and acknowledge the call for responsible gun ownership those that quote the statistics are villified and a large number of the dead are deemed acceptable, and in a defeatist mentality "unavoidable" to serve the greater good.
Why can't we have both? Why can't we reduce deaths due to gun violence and keep the guns. That's a bizarre way of thinking, but it seems no side wants to work with the other at all to try to make it happen. There are other industrialized nations with as many guns that don't have the same rate of gun death and violence as the US...not near the rate. So, what must we do to fix things?
Too many of the pro-gun folk, IMHO, are unwilling to admit there is a problem, and that as a gun owner they bear responsibility for solving that problem if for no other reason than to avoid further restrictions on the right they are granted Constitutionally.
TJR
Your argument and others here smack of the "acceptable loss" mentality.
The statistics inarguably show that our country has alarming rates of suicide by gun, inadvertent gun deaths, and the like, but rather than accept those statistiscs and acknowledge the call for responsible gun ownership those that quote the statistics are villified and a large number of the dead are deemed acceptable, and in a defeatist mentality "unavoidable" to serve the greater good.
Why can't we have both? Why can't we reduce deaths due to gun violence and keep the guns. That's a bizarre way of thinking, but it seems no side wants to work with the other at all to try to make it happen. There are other industrialized nations with as many guns that don't have the same rate of gun death and violence as the US...not near the rate. So, what must we do to fix things?
Too many of the pro-gun folk, IMHO, are unwilling to admit there is a problem, and that as a gun owner they bear responsibility for solving that problem if for no other reason than to avoid further restrictions on the right they are granted Constitutionally.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Is suicide by gun really quantifiable as "gun violence" ? That is a huge misnomer.
Out of the 3 categories listed as gun "violence", Suicide ranked first--by far. If people really want to kill themselves, they will...a firearm is just an easier way to do it, but if you confiscate the guns, they'll go to the next closest thing, whether it be a pair of scissors or a steak knife.
Suicide is about the will to do it, not the device with which it is done.
According to the quote, there were 29,288 deaths associated with gun violence in the ENTIRE united states. 57.5% of those deaths were from suicide. Since suicide is independent of the weapon, we can eliminate that 57.5%, and bring the death toll down to a more truthful 12,419 people--a death toll which is FAR surpassed by deaths from alcohol and even water.
Should we ban water as it is a far more heinous murderer than the "evil" gun?
Out of the 3 categories listed as gun "violence", Suicide ranked first--by far. If people really want to kill themselves, they will...a firearm is just an easier way to do it, but if you confiscate the guns, they'll go to the next closest thing, whether it be a pair of scissors or a steak knife.
Suicide is about the will to do it, not the device with which it is done.
According to the quote, there were 29,288 deaths associated with gun violence in the ENTIRE united states. 57.5% of those deaths were from suicide. Since suicide is independent of the weapon, we can eliminate that 57.5%, and bring the death toll down to a more truthful 12,419 people--a death toll which is FAR surpassed by deaths from alcohol and even water.
Should we ban water as it is a far more heinous murderer than the "evil" gun?
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Kevin L,
Whatever we characterize gun suicide as I would hope that we can all agree that when successfully carried out suicide is a permanent "solution" to a temporary problem. Success rates of suicide by gun are higher than any other method, alarmingly higher. Most suicide attempts are a cry for help. Put all this together and a responsible person would take measures to assure that those that are potentially suicidal do not have access to guns.
That's pretty much all the page linked below says...Again, I don't see the controversy:
TJR
Whatever we characterize gun suicide as I would hope that we can all agree that when successfully carried out suicide is a permanent "solution" to a temporary problem. Success rates of suicide by gun are higher than any other method, alarmingly higher. Most suicide attempts are a cry for help. Put all this together and a responsible person would take measures to assure that those that are potentially suicidal do not have access to guns.
That's pretty much all the page linked below says...Again, I don't see the controversy:
TJR
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
I'm glad I have the right to bare arms...even if I never do or use one. (which I do and have at target practice) I think most deaths due to guns are people that are just not responsible enough to have them.
That's the key now isn't it? To be responsible enough to own gun or guns.
Your responsiblity is to Know your rights concerning owning guns, Know how to be safe and secure with them (to include teachin your family members the safety of them,) and Know how to use it properly and with sound judgement.
as far as suicide deaths by gun:
Yes suicide by gun qualifies as gun violence, I think when most hear the term "gun violence," most of us think about somebody is shooting innocent people or kids accidently playing with guns and getting hurt. Those are the typical stories we hear about everyday in the news, hence the lack of responsiblity...extra safety steps missed in some way.
If a suicide death is caused by using a gun, suicide by gun~ falls more on the persons mind and his/her mental illness aka depression who is holding the gun. There is nobody to blaim but the person taking themselves out and away from their family and friends. There is nothing a family member or friend could do, if that is the will of the person that committed the choice to end their life.
This is a difficult and touchy subject for the folks here that may have lost family or friends this way, and for gun owners defending their rights too. I think if the people that committed this type of suicide didn't have the guns to use, they would just find another way to do it.
Trying to control guns is not going to stop them.
Those folks are suffering from a common mental illness....aka depression so deep that nothing can be done to help them because most of the time they refuse help or don't believe they have a problem. Geeze.... depression is a whole other thread.
That's the key now isn't it? To be responsible enough to own gun or guns.
Your responsiblity is to Know your rights concerning owning guns, Know how to be safe and secure with them (to include teachin your family members the safety of them,) and Know how to use it properly and with sound judgement.
as far as suicide deaths by gun:
Yes suicide by gun qualifies as gun violence, I think when most hear the term "gun violence," most of us think about somebody is shooting innocent people or kids accidently playing with guns and getting hurt. Those are the typical stories we hear about everyday in the news, hence the lack of responsiblity...extra safety steps missed in some way.
If a suicide death is caused by using a gun, suicide by gun~ falls more on the persons mind and his/her mental illness aka depression who is holding the gun. There is nobody to blaim but the person taking themselves out and away from their family and friends. There is nothing a family member or friend could do, if that is the will of the person that committed the choice to end their life.
This is a difficult and touchy subject for the folks here that may have lost family or friends this way, and for gun owners defending their rights too. I think if the people that committed this type of suicide didn't have the guns to use, they would just find another way to do it.
Trying to control guns is not going to stop them.
Those folks are suffering from a common mental illness....aka depression so deep that nothing can be done to help them because most of the time they refuse help or don't believe they have a problem. Geeze.... depression is a whole other thread.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
The highest success rate for suicide is jumping from tall structures. Less than a dozen people have survived leaping from the Golden Gate Bridge, of 1200+ people who have purposely thrown themselves off that structure. Greater than 99% fatality rate. The gun rate is high, but it's not that high.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
GM says:
I disagree.
We lock up guns so that those with alsheimers can't get to them and shoot themselves or someone else due to their altered mental state.
We lock up guns so that the mentally handicapped cannot get to them.
Depression is an illness. Depression can lead to thoughts of and attempts of suicide. Like any other illness there are signs of the illness, signs people have the illness, and warning signs that they might have the illness.
So, to say that nobody is to blame, or to imply that we needn't protect those that are potentially suicidal from guns, IMHO, is a cop-out.
We protect others that have mentally impairing illnesses from guns. Why not the depressed?
P.S. My grandfather committed suicide by firearm.
TJR
I disagree.
We lock up guns so that those with alsheimers can't get to them and shoot themselves or someone else due to their altered mental state.
We lock up guns so that the mentally handicapped cannot get to them.
Depression is an illness. Depression can lead to thoughts of and attempts of suicide. Like any other illness there are signs of the illness, signs people have the illness, and warning signs that they might have the illness.
So, to say that nobody is to blame, or to imply that we needn't protect those that are potentially suicidal from guns, IMHO, is a cop-out.
We protect others that have mentally impairing illnesses from guns. Why not the depressed?
P.S. My grandfather committed suicide by firearm.
TJR
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
TJR, as I said, it is a touchy subject for folks, that have lost someone to that type of death and for gun owners as well. I also said Mental illness aka depression is a whole other thread. You are taking issue with "one sentence" The statement was for folks that have had a loss due to this type of death. It is not your fault or the fault of any family members or friends that have lost someone this way.
What could you have done within the law?
I stated
I know all too well what depression is and how ones mind can be altered and affected by it. and I agree that more help should be given to family members who have a loved one suffering from this illness "depression." If the person is not willing to to recognize their illness or want help...then what? I'm not sure about the laws on mental illness/depression, in your state. Here in AZ you can't even get someone committed for their own good. It has to be proven that the person is a danger to themselves or others or the person has to want the help first, due to laws about people with mental illnesses, such as depression but, by law...and by the time any of that is discovered the suicide has happened or the attempt made or someone else gets hurt.
So how is it that it could it be anyone elses fault (within law) but the person who made the unsound decision? There is the other responsibilty for the lack of laws on mental illness/depression needing to be addressed or changed. If anything, maybe the change in those laws would have given family more say to get help for their loved ones.
Keeping people as a whole from owning guns would not change the outcome of suicide attemps or, in our case the much sadder event. There is nothing we could have done.
If anyone has family members with guns, and you know they are suffering from depression, by all means, take the guns out of the house.
Be forwarned, I did..it didn't help.
If there is one thing I know for sure, it was not my fault for lack of being responsible and within the law. and I am still proud of my right to bare arms.
What could you have done within the law?
I stated
I know all too well what depression is and how ones mind can be altered and affected by it. and I agree that more help should be given to family members who have a loved one suffering from this illness "depression." If the person is not willing to to recognize their illness or want help...then what? I'm not sure about the laws on mental illness/depression, in your state. Here in AZ you can't even get someone committed for their own good. It has to be proven that the person is a danger to themselves or others or the person has to want the help first, due to laws about people with mental illnesses, such as depression but, by law...and by the time any of that is discovered the suicide has happened or the attempt made or someone else gets hurt.
So how is it that it could it be anyone elses fault (within law) but the person who made the unsound decision? There is the other responsibilty for the lack of laws on mental illness/depression needing to be addressed or changed. If anything, maybe the change in those laws would have given family more say to get help for their loved ones.
Keeping people as a whole from owning guns would not change the outcome of suicide attemps or, in our case the much sadder event. There is nothing we could have done.
If anyone has family members with guns, and you know they are suffering from depression, by all means, take the guns out of the house.
Be forwarned, I did..it didn't help.
If there is one thing I know for sure, it was not my fault for lack of being responsible and within the law. and I am still proud of my right to bare arms.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
GM, no need to underline. I understood this to be a touchy subject, but it's not touchy to me because my grandfather killed himself. I didn't know the man. I was less than a year old when it happened.
He hung himself in a goat barn. The rafters were so close to the ground, that in order to make sure he got the job done he also shot himself in the head with a 22. He left on note on the door for his wife. It said: "Ruth, don't come in. Get Lloyd." The names are of his wife and oldest son, an grownup at the time.
Also, GM, you and others here seem to keep going back to gun ownership. You said that "keeping people as a whole from owning guns would not change that."
Again, folks (why is this so hard to understand)...I never, ever called for further legislation to limit or reduce gun ownership.
In this thread, and others, I have called for more RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Like keeping gun locked, or further limiting a guns availability if it is in a home of a severly depressed person (for example). Agin, I don't see the controversy with that.
P.S. You say you took the guns out of the home and it didn't help. Sure it did. It limited availability to a dangerous device that could harm. You did what you could. It was the responsible thing to do. Could you have lived as well with yourself if you didn't act and the guns that you didn't removed were used?
BTW...Suicide isn't only the taking of one's own life. Often the despondent and depressed perform murder/suicide or suicide-by-cop, because they simply cannot take them out themselves, alone.
TJR
He hung himself in a goat barn. The rafters were so close to the ground, that in order to make sure he got the job done he also shot himself in the head with a 22. He left on note on the door for his wife. It said: "Ruth, don't come in. Get Lloyd." The names are of his wife and oldest son, an grownup at the time.
Also, GM, you and others here seem to keep going back to gun ownership. You said that "keeping people as a whole from owning guns would not change that."
Again, folks (why is this so hard to understand)...I never, ever called for further legislation to limit or reduce gun ownership.
In this thread, and others, I have called for more RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Like keeping gun locked, or further limiting a guns availability if it is in a home of a severly depressed person (for example). Agin, I don't see the controversy with that.
P.S. You say you took the guns out of the home and it didn't help. Sure it did. It limited availability to a dangerous device that could harm. You did what you could. It was the responsible thing to do. Could you have lived as well with yourself if you didn't act and the guns that you didn't removed were used?
BTW...Suicide isn't only the taking of one's own life. Often the despondent and depressed perform murder/suicide or suicide-by-cop, because they simply cannot take them out themselves, alone.
TJR
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
Then we ARE on the same page TJR. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is the key but not always the solution. Yes, if I had not taken the guns out of the house, I would still feel was the will of that person. Her mind was weak. She ended life with a gun. Her will and choice to do so. A person in that state only thinks of ending it all and not about the people they leave behind. I just happen to recognize illness signs and acted because I cared, so being a responsible gun owner, and taking guns out of the house and locking guns up, did no good at all in this case.
To your point of calling for more responsible gun ownership and resposibilty of of people with mental illnesses such as depression, aging...etc...
My point is, no matter how responsible we are as gun owners, it does not matter, Death by guns ..will always be .... due to fluke accidents, or criminals gettnig guns...and so on.
If we as gun owners do all we can do to be responsible then what more can we do? The laws on mental illnesses, aging folks (to also include driving vehicles) and other mind altering illnesses should be controversy and even more controversy, because family or friends can't get help for the people they know with those mental struggles to get the help needed.
I call this kind of law backward laws....a mentally depressed person does have an altered mind and decision making is not sound, that is documented medically and used legally in terms for legal purposes..... yet the law says...there has to be proof they are harmful to themselves or others and can not function on their own. (split meaning*function on their own * means to be parallyzed at least 50 % of their body.)
Gun owners in general are defensive about the right to bare arms, because we know ..that we live in a time where Our Government as we know it today, tries daily to take our rights from us, not just the right to bare arms but other rights, freedom of speech, freedom to express religion and belief... just look at our society as a whole, and at what kind of people our government is creating with the laws that do not make sense.
Everyone of us needs to no no...has to constantly defend something we feel strongly about and believe in. Just look at the judicial system and stupid law suits that actually went to court. At least we still have those right, (as long as we play the game by the rules of our court systems and Government )
To your point of calling for more responsible gun ownership and resposibilty of of people with mental illnesses such as depression, aging...etc...
My point is, no matter how responsible we are as gun owners, it does not matter, Death by guns ..will always be .... due to fluke accidents, or criminals gettnig guns...and so on.
If we as gun owners do all we can do to be responsible then what more can we do? The laws on mental illnesses, aging folks (to also include driving vehicles) and other mind altering illnesses should be controversy and even more controversy, because family or friends can't get help for the people they know with those mental struggles to get the help needed.
I call this kind of law backward laws....a mentally depressed person does have an altered mind and decision making is not sound, that is documented medically and used legally in terms for legal purposes..... yet the law says...there has to be proof they are harmful to themselves or others and can not function on their own. (split meaning*function on their own * means to be parallyzed at least 50 % of their body.)
Gun owners in general are defensive about the right to bare arms, because we know ..that we live in a time where Our Government as we know it today, tries daily to take our rights from us, not just the right to bare arms but other rights, freedom of speech, freedom to express religion and belief... just look at our society as a whole, and at what kind of people our government is creating with the laws that do not make sense.
Everyone of us needs to no no...has to constantly defend something we feel strongly about and believe in. Just look at the judicial system and stupid law suits that actually went to court. At least we still have those right, (as long as we play the game by the rules of our court systems and Government )
Last edited by a moderator:
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
oopsie double post
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
I am all for responcible gun ownership. Where I draw the line is when the .gov gets involved and says what or who is responcilbe enough and who or what is not. Obviously the mentally ill should not have access to firearms. Obviously kids don't need to have any unsupervised access to firearms.
That is all common sence.
That is all common sence.
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
I agree.
