Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/28/2006 3:53:46 PM EST
Hey all, I figured I'd just post this email conversation I've been having with a liberal fellow I know. Let me know if I'm flawed in my arguing anywhere. His comments are highlighted with the > characters.


> Ah yes! Self defense. Okay, find me current stories of individuals
> defending themselves with guns.

I have defended myself with a firearm, but since I did not discharge the
weapon does this count? Most of my "carrying" a firearm takes place when
I go camping. I don't know about you, but I don't particularly care to
wrestle with a mountain lion, black bear, or wild boar. Black bears
especially because they will take a human as legitimate prey, whereas the
mountain lion and wild boar tend to just be defensive of their "neck of
the woods," especially during the birthing season.

As for people successfully defending themselves with firearms, how many
examples do you need in order for firearms ownership to become a
legitimate practice? I will start digging up examples of firearms owners
successfully defending themselves. More to follow.

> Many studies suggest that a gun in the home is much more likely to
> result in a gun death in that same home than it is to be used to defend
> against a criminal. (And no, I don't buy the argument that criminals are
> less likely to invade the home because they suspect the homeowner may
> own a gun.)

See, this is where I run into a problem with the statistics. Sure, some
statistics may show that a firearm being present may not be a deterrent.
Some might show that it is. Here's my big beef:

Let's relate the right to keep and bear arms to the implied right to
privacy. You seem to believe that in general, if firearms were much more
restricted (except for government entities), society would be safer, and
therefor the restriction of arms a legitimate cause. You can produce as
many studies and statistics as you like to support that claim.

So how do you feel about giving up your right to privacy, Tom? Surely
even now, you know full well the battles taking place to fold back some of
our privacy in the name of protection. In some sense, our right to
privacy is in fact harming the welfare of citizenry by not allowing law
enforcement to peek into everyone's dirty laundry. If we eliminated
privacy, surely the crime rate would decrease, so let's do it!

I tell you what; as a compromise, I'll give up my guns, if you give up
your right to privacy.

> /You know a gun never killed nobody, you can ask anyone
> People get shot by people, people with guns/

I love Queen... great band. Freddy Mercury was surely one of the greatest
voices in rock, and I will always regret never seeing him perform live.

As for what he said: he also could have said "You know a penis never
raped anybody, you can ask anyone, People get raped by people, people with
penises. Boy, now I'm starting to sound like someone from the Womyn's
Center.

Behold the mighty harm of the penises... just like the guns.

> Have you considered that gun ownership may be a symptom of "a people
> problem."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, gun ownership is a symptom of
a people problem. A portion of people in our society are problems, and
that's why I own guns.

> The sort of incident I'm looking for is someone who let's say comes into
> a school with a bunch of knives and kills several students.

Well, I'll have to dig some up, but unfortunately just this month, one
student fatally stabbed another in Florida.

<http://www.wesh.com/news/10113529/detail.html>

Here's what it really all comes down to. Firearms, like many other
"dangerous" objects, can be owned and operated in a manner that does not
violate our laws or endanger our society. I, as well as every other gun
ower I know, are living testaments to that fact.

Taking away or restricting things because they MIGHT be used for criminal
purposes is simply authoritarianism on behalf of a government. We can all
cry "FIRE!" in a movie theater and deprive others of life, liberty, and
property without the due course of law, and much like unlawful use of
firearms, we have laws that deal with our criminal action by doing so.
Just because our right to speech can be used criminally in the production
of speech that deprives others of their life, liberty, or property, this
does not mean that we need to walk around with electronic devices that we
speak into to filter out any potentially dangerous phrases.

Our right to produce criminally dangerous phrases is our right as free
men. It is also our right to suffer the consequences of our criminal
actions.

Cheers,
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 5:15:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2006 5:21:23 AM EST by brothermike]
Americas 1st. Freedom publishes 5 or 6 articles taken from all across the country every month about current examples of people defending not only themselves but also others from criminals that intend to harm them, It's called Armed Citizen. Spend the 25 bucks for an NRA membership and choose Americas First Freedom as your subscription, then you can send him the articles every month.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 10:14:57 AM EST
I have an NRA membership... thanks for reminding me about these articles.

I don't have any of my past issues handy, could you possibly scan a few months worth and email them over to me? It would be appreciated.

Thanks
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 10:53:36 AM EST
Will do, it might take me a day or two. I managed to dig up about 7 months worth.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 12:55:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 3:16:02 AM EST
height=8
Many studies suggest that a gun in the home is much more likely to
> result in a gun death in that same home than it is to be used to defend
> against a criminal. (And no, I don't buy the argument that criminals are
> less likely to invade the home because they suspect the homeowner may
> own a gun.)


Ah, yes. The extremely flawed "Kellerman study", conducted by Dr. Arthur Kellerman in the mid '80s in Seattle, Washington. I won't go into all of the reasons about how badly the "study" is flawed, but this is a common tactic used by the antis. It basically states that a gun in the home is 43% more likely to kill or wound a loved one than it is to kill or wound an intruder. One main flaw of the study is that it doesn't take into account DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. A wife defending herself and her children from an angry or deranged husband could be made to look like she shot a "loved one" instead of an intruder. This is merely one reason why the study is flawed.

Find and buy the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by Professor John Lott. Here is a person who started out as a screaming, left wing, liberal, commie, professor at the university of Chicago. He originally set out to prove what Dr. Kellerman was saying was true. As the facts started piling up he became very amazed at what he saw. Guns are used over a million times each year to defend lives in this counrty, most of the time without a shot being fired. He actually became a convert to the Second amendment cause.
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 9:08:33 AM EST
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx


This archive contains “Armed Citizen” entries from the present back to 1958. The database is searchable by key word and state and results are displayed in chronological order according to the month of publication in the American Rifleman.


308 records just for "NY".

Shok
Top Top