Would-be robber slain by Oak Lane druggist

[Richard G]

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/7428250.htm

Two armed robbers, against one man. Good guy won. Bad guy dead. How is that possible???

[geni]

And the next set of armed robbers will be just slightly too fast and we will be cleaning up a dead pharmacist.

Now would you mind finding out the difference between anicdote a proof please.

[CFLarsen]

What is your point?

This is "justifiable"?

Want me to drag out the statistics that far more people are killed by "friendly fire", by guns in the home?

Or do you prefer only to look at sensational night news stories?

Hey, just let me know!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What is your point?

This is "justifiable"?

Want me to drag out the statistics that far more people are killed by "friendly fire", by guns in the home?

Or do you prefer only to look at sensational night news stories?

Hey, just let me know!

I'm sure that if you ever find yourself on the wrong end of a gun......doing a statistical analysis will be your #1 priority at the moment.

A number of years ago some states made some changes in the laws regarding the prosecution of people who KILL A PHARMACIST
during a hold-up.

Some law-makers felt this getting to be an all-to-common occurence and no----they weren't killed because they tried to defend themselves with a gun.

They were just killed because thugs with guns.....just kill people sometimes even though it's not "rational" for them to do so.

Are you arguing the man shouldn't have defended himself becaause one particular set of "stats" said he shouldn't?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ralph
Are you arguing the man shouldn't have defended himself becaause one particular set of "stats" said he shouldn't?

No, I am arguing that the mere fact of having a lot of guns around increases the risk of being shot.

[Richard G]

And the next set of armed robbers will be just slightly too fast and we will be cleaning up a dead pharmacist.

:v: And there you have it. A chronic defeatists.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: What is your point?How many times has Richard posted news items like this and you haven't figured out what his point is yet? :)

This is "justifiable"?Are you asking if the shooting was justifiable? In my opinion, based on the limited information available in the story, such self defense is justifiable.

Want me to drag out the statistics that far more people are killed by "friendly fire", by guns in the home?Why bother - we've seen them all already. Also, they are not relevant to the situation in the above news item. But if you have something new, then sure, post it if you like.

Or do you prefer only to look at sensational night news stories?That's a loaded question, unbecoming of someone whose critical thinking skills I generally admire.

Regardless, I appreciate that Richard posts news items about people who have used a firearm to successfully defend themselves against the bad guys.

Hey, just let me know!Just did. And you're welcome. :D

[Richard G]

Heres another fast robber that wasn't so fast.

Would-be robber slain by intended victim
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/1203/03shooting.html

A suspected armed robber was shot and killed by his intended victim in Clayton County, police said Wednesday.

[American]

Guns are good, you convinced me. :p



My favorite story is these 3 guys who tried to rob a gun shop by grabbing the shop owner's gun. They ordered him in the bathroom and were about to execute him before they fled. Well the gun they took from him had a trick trigger mechanism (you need to squeeze the handle to fire). The dumb punk tried desperately to kill the owner, while the owner had just grabbed a gun he had hidden under the sink. He wasted the sh!theads, shot them up like Scarface.

Good riddance. That's a scene they won't show on the news, but I'd love to see it anyway.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: I am arguing that the mere fact of having a lot of guns around increases the risk of being shot.And an excellent fact it is too. I would hope that more criminals would keep that fact in mind before they try robbing people.

[Richard G]

Doh! Found another one.
CCW Holder stops robbery at ATM
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-120203-ds-suspectcreditunion.622eb8a9.html

You have to register for the story, so I'll copy it here:


05:50 PM EST on Tuesday, December 2, 2003
BY NICOLE ALLSHOUSE / 6NEWS
Just before lunchtime Tuesday a man tried to rob two people at a west Charlotte ATM. According to police, a customer was at an ATM machine at the State Employees Credit Union on Freedom Drive and was approached by a man who said he needed money. The customer told the man to 'take a hike.'

"A guy comes up and asks me for money. I tell him I don't have any. Then I go to the ATM and the man jumps in my car,” explained Reggie Blackmon, victim. “I go back to my car and ask him to leave. He shakes his pocket like he has a gun."

Blackmon then walked into the bank and called police.

While Blackmon was inside the bank, the suspect approached customer Hazel Forman. "I walked up to the ATM and a guy jumped out of a vehicle and said give me your money," Forman said.

She gave the suspect $60 and he also took her keys. Forman then followed the man to her car. "By this time I saw he didn't have gun because his jacket was open and he didn't have a shirt on underneath,” Forman said. “So I grabbed him around the neck and he wrestled around."

A witness in the parking lot said he heard Forman yelling for help. The witness, who did not want to be identified, pulled out a gun and ordered the suspect to freeze. "That didn't even faze the man much,” the witness said. “He started to walk away. He put his hand in his pocket and turned back around. That's when I shot at him. I didn't know if he was going to shoot so I shot for his leg."

The man missed. He then followed the suspect in his own vehicle until police arrived. Police said the witness will not be charged with firing his weapon because they say he was acting in self defense and as a Good Samaritan.

The robber appeared to be under the influence of a narcotic or alcohol at the time of his arrest, police said. Blackmon got his SUV back and Forman got her money and keys returned to her after the suspect was arrested.

Police warn people who use ATMs to be wary during daylight hours, not just at night.

[Richard G]

Found another one!!
Store owner fights back, shooting alleged would-be robbers
(or....One woman fights off 3 men)
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/120203_local_storerob.html

The robber carjacked someone to get to the hospital after being shot. So I guess you could say guns cause carjackings in this case.

[CFLarsen]

xouper,

Thanks for your input. You got any data? :)

Richard G,

The plural of "anecdote" is not data.

[geni]

He put his hand in his pocket and turned back around. That's when I shot at him. I didn't know if he was going to shoot so I shot for his leg.

Great and if the guy had hit with his shot we could have a dead body (ok not likly but posible).

Now when are you going to stop posting like a homeopath? (ie plenty of anicdotes but smeg all real proof). In each one of these cases there are senarios where no one uses a gun and no one gets hurt.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Richard G

Two armed robbers, against one man. Good guy won. Bad guy dead. How is that possible???
Woman and daughter murdered by ex-boyfriend (http://www.charleston.net/stories/091103/loc_11twokilled.shtml)

[BTox]

Originally posted by geni
Now when are you going to stop posting like a homeopath? (ie plenty of anicdotes but smeg all real proof). In each one of these cases there are senarios where no one uses a gun and no one gets hurt.

Difference is the homeopath's anecdotes (btw, not anicdote) are false (i.e. the person, assuming he really got better, did not recover/improve due to the remedy), whereas these are true (i.e. a good guy really did defend him/herself against a bad guy).

[xouper]

CFLarsen: The plural of "anecdote" is not data. For many questions this is true, but not when the question is "Has anyone ever successfully used a firearm in self defense?"

[geni]

Originally posted by BTox


Difference is the homeopath's anecdotes (btw, not anicdote) are false (i.e. the person, assuming he really got better, did not recover/improve due to the remedy), whereas these are true (i.e. a good guy really did defend him/herself against a bad guy).

Person survived/got better due to guns/homeopathy.

In none of these cases can you prove that if the person had not used a gun they would been killed. You can't prove that the gun was required for the person to defend themselves against the bad guy.

(Yes I know I focasing in the word due but there are people who have taken homeopathic remedies and got better)

Since a a double blind trial could be a bit difficult to do in this case I suppose we are going to have to settle for statistics.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by xouper
For many questions this is true, but not when the question is "Has anyone ever successfully used a firearm in self defense?"

Not at all, the chance of surviving an attempted robbery is much higher for people who carry guns.

The data is out there, we can't help it if people ignore it.

[geni]

Originally posted by corplinx


Not at all, the chance of surviving an attempted robbery is much higher for people who carry guns.

The data is out there, we can't help it if people ignore it.

And how are the chances of being on the end of an armed robery affected by different gun control measures? Is there any variance acording to age? How about other measeres such as bullet proof screens?(come on lets include all the data)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
For many questions this is true, but not when the question is "Has anyone ever successfully used a firearm in self defense?"

Yes, but where is the lunatic that is asking that question? I'd think someone that seriously contended that a fire arm has never been used successfully in self defense isn't exactly being realistic.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx


Not at all, the chance of surviving an attempted robbery is much higher for people who carry guns.

The data is out there, we can't help it if people ignore it.

If the question is: "Is person X less likely to be the victim of a violent attack if he is armed?" I'd guess yes, although I would be open to data suggesting otherwise.

However, the question I'm more interested in is this: "Does person X's being armed raise or lower the chance of violent injury both to himself and other innocent parties?" This seems less clear cut. I'd say raise in most cases, based on personal experience, but I would be open to data suggesting otherwise.

I'd think the point of the second question is that it would be a good idea, from a cost/benefit analysis to regulate gun ownership so that the answer for the second question would be "lower."

However, about now is when someone starts screaming about constitutional rights and so forth, which is a valid point, but not related to the factual question of whether guns make us safer.

[shanek]

Originally posted by NightG1

Woman and daughter murdered by ex-boyfriend (http://www.charleston.net/stories/091103/loc_11twokilled.shtml)

I missed the part where she was armed. Care to point that out?

Sounds to me like she took the advice of the gun control people: let the authorities handle it. And they let her down.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: The plural of "anecdote" is not data.

xouper: For many questions this is true, but not when the question is "Has anyone ever successfully used a firearm in self defense?"

Suddenly: Yes, but where is the lunatic that is asking that question? I'd think someone that seriously contended that a fire arm has never been used successfully in self defense isn't exactly being realistic.I agree. However, a related question has been asked on this forum, apparently in all seriousness, "What do you need a gun for?" It has been argued on this forum that no one needs a gun for self defense. It has also been argued (by a few), that no one should be allowed to own a gun at all. It has even been argued that it's the job of the police to protect citizens from violent crime.

I think the news items that Richard has posted address these arguments. In addition to being anecdotal, they become data points in the statistics. So in that sense, contrary to Larsen's objection, the plural of anecdote is indeed data, as are many gun related statistics. If Larsen wants to dismiss anecdotes, then he also just dismissed the statistics regarding "friendly fire" incidents in the home, since they are nothing more than a count of the anecdotes. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by xouper
If Larsen wants to dismiss anecdotes, then he also just dismissed the statistics regarding "friendly fire" incidents in the home, since they are nothing more than a count of the anecdotes. :)

Which, ironically, is the very argument they use against gun statistics they don't like (i.e., the ones that show us we're safer with guns).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by xouper
I agree. However, a related question has been asked on this forum, apparently in all seriousness, "What do you need a gun for?" It has been argued on this forum that no one needs a gun for self defense. It has also been argued (by a few), that no one should be allowed to own a gun at all. It has even been argued that it's the job of the police to protect citizens from violent crime.

I think the news items that Richard has posted address these arguments. In addition to being anecdotal, they become data points in the statistics. So in that sense, contrary to Larsen's objection, the plural of anecdote is indeed data, as are many gun related statistics. If Larsen wants to dismiss anecdotes, then he also just dismissed the statistics regarding "friendly fire" incidents in the home, since they are nothing more than a count of the anecdotes. :)
Xoup.
Can you pick the difference between dead bodies and "my gun saved me" stories. There is only one statistic I point to when I underline the tragedy that is american gun culture...The body count, dead bodies with bullet holes in them. No matter how much massaging of anecdotes is practiced by all sides in this debate, the bodies just will not go away.

[xouper]

The Fool: Can you pick the difference between dead bodies and "my gun saved me" stories.I'm not clear what your question is.

There is only one statistic I point to when I underline the tragedy that is american gun culture...The body count, dead bodies with bullet holes in them. No matter how much massaging of anecdotes is practiced by all sides in this debate, the bodies just will not go away.No denying the body count, I agree. I agree that dead bodies are tragic. But given the choice, I would rather live with the tragedy of having killed a mugger in self defense than be dead myself. As always, Your Mileage May Vary™

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
I agree. However, a related question has been asked on this forum, apparently in all seriousness, "What do you need a gun for?" It has been argued on this forum that no one needs a gun for self defense. It has also been argued (by a few), that no one should be allowed to own a gun at all. It has even been argued that it's the job of the police to protect citizens from violent crime.


I think the above "What do you need a gun for" is more along the lines of statistical uselessness rather than actual uselessness, similar to when people claim that you will never win the lottery. Its just that the tickets cost more and are measured in blood.

I have no idea why I wind up on the anti-gun side of this. Actually I'm mostly O.K. with gun ownership, even though I doubt I'd ever own one myself (but I am pretty tricky with a bow). I just find much of the pro-gun rhetoric faulty, so I point out a few things and it's off to the races...

I think the pro-gun crowd would be better off looking to the commerce clause and state constitutions rather than the second amendment, and I wish there would be a little less of the fear-mongering and macho posturing in the other analysis, but fear is a potent rhetorical tool, as is questioning bravery, etc.

I wind up allied with the anti-gun (or pro-regulation?) by default.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool

Xoup.
Can you pick the difference between dead bodies and "my gun saved me" stories. There is only one statistic I point to when I underline the tragedy that is american gun culture...The body count, dead bodies with bullet holes in them. No matter how much massaging of anecdotes is practiced by all sides in this debate, the bodies just will not go away.

Whatever you don't look at deaths attributed to car accidents in the USA in the late 50's, 60's. The body count was massive, yet I don't know of anyone who seriously suggested we ban automobiles. What was suggested is that FUTURE automobiles would be designed safer and then old ones could still be used but not produced. That sounds reasonable to me, yet people now ignore it and say "Oh no people die, let’s ban guns or put in laws that people can only own hand-guns, because obviously only law abiding citizens shoot people recklessly with automatic weapons."

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I think the above "What do you need a gun for" is more along the lines of statistical uselessness rather than actual uselessness, similar to when people claim that you will never win the lottery. Its just that the tickets cost more and are measured in blood.

I have no idea why I wind up on the anti-gun side of this. Actually I'm mostly O.K. with gun ownership, even though I doubt I'd ever own one myself (but I am pretty tricky with a bow). I just find much of the pro-gun rhetoric faulty, so I point out a few things and it's off to the races...

I think the pro-gun crowd would be better off looking to the commerce clause and state constitutions rather than the second amendment, and I wish there would be a little less of the fear-mongering and macho posturing in the other analysis, but fear is a potent rhetorical tool, as is questioning bravery, etc.

I wind up allied with the anti-gun (or pro-regulation?) by default.

Pro-regulation! I like it. That might get rid of the 'gun ban' strawman for at least five minutes.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Whatever you don't look at deaths attributed to car accidents in the USA in the late 50's, 60's. The body count was massive, yet I don't know of anyone who seriously suggested we ban automobiles. What was suggested is that FUTURE automobiles would be designed safer and then old ones could still be used but not produced. That sounds reasonable to me, yet people now ignore it and say "Oh no people die, let’s ban guns or put in laws that people can only own hand-guns, because obviously only law abiding citizens shoot people recklessly with automatic weapons."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't guns have a slightly longer useful life than an automobile? So proposing future models be safer is going to be less effective with guns, assuming the truth of the first statement.

Actually, outside of that this is what a lot of gun control people seem to want, an analogy to the car death thing. Cars are safer, drivers are better trained, and there are less drunks on the road now. Sounds great! Welcome to the gun control side. I knew you would come around!

[xouper]

Suddenly: I think the above "What do you need a gun for" is more along the lines of statistical uselessness rather than actual uselessness, similar to when people claim that you will never win the lottery. Its just that the tickets cost more and are measured in blood.I see it more like having a reserve parachute. Statistically, I should never need one, but when I do, all the statistics in the world become completely irrelevant.

[xouper]

Suddenly: I think the pro-gun crowd would be better off looking to the commerce clause and state constitutions ...I assume you haven't forgotten that I have cited the Michigan Constitution sevaral times on this forum. Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution says: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

[The Fool]

Originally posted by xouper
I'm not clear what your question is.

No denying the body count, I agree. I agree that dead bodies are tragic. But given the choice, I would rather live with the tragedy of having killed a mugger in self defense than be dead myself. As always, Your Mileage May Vary™

No, there is no denying the body count, unless you are richardG he says that all the dead people are probably baddies and he doesn't care. Thats a bit sad.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
I see it more like having a reserve parachute. Statistically, I should never need one, but when I do, all the statistics in the world become completely irrelevant.

It only seems like they do. I liken it to the same reasoning that bad texas holdem players can't seem to fold as often as they should. When they hit an unlikely hand they tend to see it as justification, never mind they are stuck like a million dollars over their lives. Their 2-7 just make a full house to beat my A-A, and that is all the justification they need.

I think it is very hard to look past the emotional factors present in the gun debate, with all the emascualtion metaphor it seems to carry within. The "what if" is a strong human emotion, that causes people to do things regardless of what is best in the long run. When that "what if" touches on a persons ability to protect him/her self against an intruder, all the rational discource and statisitical analysis isn't going to trump that viceral reaction in most people.

I understand the feeling, and I don't expect everyone to set aside the emotion. For all I know it may be proven that guns are on balance a good thing, but I doubt that both pro and anti passions would allow for a honest comparison. I look as darkly at NRA stats as I would at one from a gun control group.

I do find that the pro-gun side seems to make more fallacious arguments, so I mess with them more.

I also appreciate the "what if" drive. More specifically I like the several thousand dollars I'm ahead this year at the poker tables. It's the one place where other's poor reasoning and poor emotional control actually yields me a tangible benefit...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't guns have a slightly longer useful life than an automobile? So proposing future models be safer is going to be less effective with guns, assuming the truth of the first statement.

Actually, outside of that this is what a lot of gun control people seem to want, an analogy to the car death thing. Cars are safer, drivers are better trained, and there are less drunks on the road now. Sounds great! Welcome to the gun control side. I knew you would come around!

You are right, guns do outlast cars significantly, perhaps something still can be done like that.

I was just against people banning majority of guns because they might be used to kill people. Somehow it doesn't enter people's heads that guns would have another use for them, even if it's just using it to shoot for fun. To use a car analogy again, you might buy a Ferrari to race it on the track and not speeding recklessly on the streets.

I am all for gun control if it's reasonable. If it allows people to carry guns and buy guns they want. I'm not against licenses and cooling off periods. Maybe a combination of things, again to use a car analogy, perhaps if you only going to have a gun in your house you can have one type of license with fewer tests required for it. If you want to carry one with you, you would need to have another type of license and a limit to only hand-guns and rifles unless transporting or hunting.

I'm not a super expert on guns like some people on this thread so maybe they can enlighten us if that is possible with out banning many guns or creating loopholes in the law.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Whatever you don't look at deaths attributed to car accidents in the USA in the late 50's, 60's. The body count was massive, yet I don't know of anyone who seriously suggested we ban automobiles. What was suggested is that FUTURE automobiles would be designed safer and then old ones could still be used but not produced. That sounds reasonable to me, yet people now ignore it and say "Oh no people die, let’s ban guns or put in laws that people can only own hand-guns, because obviously only law abiding citizens shoot people recklessly with automatic weapons."


If the car accident rate was very bad in those days then you obviously had no problems introducing controls and regulations to do something about it.... You didn't run around in circles yelling "they want to ban cars" and just do nothing about it... Or claim that some founding father guaranteed your right to die in car accidents.

I'm going to start sending every person that trots out the "they want to ban guns" strawman a block of chocolate... Please PM me the postage details.

Are you suggesting that you would support stronger gun control measures for future gun owners? As long as we just ignore the current ones????

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool



Are you suggesting that you would support stronger gun control measures for future gun owners? As long as we just ignore the current ones????

No. I'm suggesting we build safer guns to lower or hopefully eliminate the accidents associated with guns.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
I assume you haven't forgotten that I have cited the Michigan Constitution sevaral times on this forum. Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution says: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Yes. I think we covered that in one of my earliest threads here, one where the ACLU filed a lawsuit against hunting restrictions.

A personal note I think you would appreciate:

I recently interviewed with my state ACLU for their only legal position, where I would have a strong hand in determining what lawsuits were pursued, etc. During the interview I said that if I were hired one of my priorities would be to make sure that our state gun rights clause (similar to yours, but including sportsman language) was being enforced. I said this would be good P.R. and also a right that maybe had been neglected. I then oddly enough had to explain why I didn't feel the same way about the second amendment, in that the weight of caselaw (and the National ACLU's position) was pretty clear w/r/t that whole militia thing. Didn;t matter though. I might as well been RichardG after that.

The response was one of those where they agreed on the surface, but I could read the eyes of two of the board members that seemed to panic. One of those moments where it became clear to me why some people hate "liberals" so much.

So I'm sticking to defending the poor and oppressed.

[xouper]

The Fool: I'm going to start sending every person that trots out the "they want to ban guns" strawman a block of chocolate... Please PM me the postage details.I'd like some chocolate. :cs::cs::cs:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by xouper
I think the news items that Richard has posted address these arguments. In addition to being anecdotal, they become data points in the statistics. So in that sense, contrary to Larsen's objection, the plural of anecdote is indeed data, as are many gun related statistics. If Larsen wants to dismiss anecdotes, then he also just dismissed the statistics regarding "friendly fire" incidents in the home, since they are nothing more than a count of the anecdotes. :)

Where did I dismiss statistics? Where are those statistics on "friendly fire" incidents? Who said anything about this being confined to the home?

Please, do not build strawmen. And please, please show your statistics.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No. I'm suggesting we build safer guns to lower or hopefully eliminate the accidents associated with guns.
fair point, I can see a lot of possibilities. The accidental shooting rates could be helped with better design... That still leaves the vast majority of dead bodies who are not dead by accident.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by xouper
I'd like some chocolate. :cs::cs::cs:

No probs Xoup, just PM me all your personal contact details...I'll also need a current credit card number and expiry date just for age verification. Exporting Chocolate to minors is a felony in Australia. No charges would be made to the card (honest).

[xouper]

CFLarsen: Where did I dismiss statistics?When you said that the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistics about "friendly fire" in the home are nothing more than a tally of the anecdotes. If you dismiss anecdotes as not being data, then what exactly are you counting? I am willing to accept the use of statistics if you are willing to admit that they are the plural of anecdote in this case. :)

Where are those statistics on "friendly fire" incidents?Why ask me when it was you who first brought it up in this thread when you said, "Want me to drag out the statistics that far more people are killed by 'friendly fire', by guns in the home?" It was your claim, not mine.

Who said anything about this being confined to the home?No one. I didn't and neither did you. Why did you think anyone had said that? What I did say, however, is that friendly fire incidents in the home have nothing to do with the news item in the opening post of this thread.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by xouper
When you said that the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistics about "friendly fire" in the home are nothing more than a tally of the anecdotes. If you dismiss anecdotes as not being data, then what exactly are you counting? I am willing to accept the use of statistics if you are willing to admit that they are the plural of anecdote in this case. :)

The plural of anecdote is never data. Data are verifiable. Anecdotes are, by definition, not.

Would you similarly accept newspaper accounts of alien abductions as "data"? Data of what? Real incidents or stories?

Originally posted by xouper
Why ask me when it was you who first brought it up in this thread when you said, "Want me to drag out the statistics that far more people are killed by 'friendly fire', by guns in the home?" It was your claim, not mine.

I was merely pointing out that we cannot rely on news stories. We have to look at data.

Originally posted by xouper
No one. I didn't and neither did you. Why did you think anyone had said that? What I did say, however, is that friendly fire incidents in the home have nothing to do with the news item in the opening post of this thread.

Could be. Richard G has yet to state what his point is by posting all these anecdotes, so we don't know his intentions. I can, however, understand why he doesn't want to look at data.

I say that a lot, don't I? "Data". "Data". "Data". "Data".

[xouper]

CFLarsen: The plural of anecdote is never data. Data are verifiable. Anecdotes are, by definition, not.Got a cite for that non-standard definition of the word "anecdote"? Regardless, are you seriously claiming that the essential facts reported in that news story are not verifiable?

I was merely pointing out that we cannot rely on news stories. We have to look at data.Would you consider the police report to be "data" in this case? If not, what kind of "data" are sufficient for use in compiling the statistics?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by xouper
Got a cite for that non-standard definition of the word "anecdote"?

I am using the definition we seem to pretty much have agreed to here on this board. I have seen the term being used for something we cannot verify.

What is your standard definition of the word?

(Agreed on? Agreed to? Which is it?)

Originally posted by xouper
Regardless, are you seriously claiming that the essential facts reported in that news story are not verifiable?

Depends on what you consider "essential" facts. Did a guy die? Sure, I have no problems with that. But we have no way of knowing if it happened as described. Do we have corroborating stories from other news agencies (and I don't mean a rewrite of Reuters bulletins)? Have we seen the police report?

Originally posted by xouper
Would you consider the police report to be "data" in this case? If not, what kind of "data" are sufficient for use in compiling the statistics?

Yes, a police report would be sufficient.

[Zep]

It just seems to me that whenever Richardm trots out these "wimpy guy with gun shoots hassling big bad guy dead, toting guns vindicated" stories that he just doesn't seem to understand that SOMEONE, someone who had RIGHTS and PRIVILEDGES under all sorts of US law, even though they were bad bad people, were denied these (God-given?) rights of proper arrest, fair trial and non-cruel-and-unusual punishment because they were SHOT DEAD before it could be dispensed.

Someone simply took the law into their own hands and killed another person. Is that fair? Be honest. What if it were YOU being shot at? What if your last thoughts in life were, "Hey! What the...! This isn't right! I didn't get to explain what happened before this guy up and shot me...".

I asked myself, would it be any fairer if the big bad guy was killed with a knife? Or a rock? Or a bazooka? My answer? No, of course not. The RESULT is the same: a person killed, without a fair trial if they were offending the law. So the issue is NOT about guns here. It's about the presumptious, precipitate and most likely unlawful taking of a human life.

So Richard, let me just ask you to be clear. In bringing us these stories, do you actually advocate the precipitate removal of a US citizen's rights by another person by force, the judgement and punishment of a US citizen by another without arrest or trial in a proper court of law, and causing injury or even the taking of a human life for potentially trivial or even mistaken reasons?

Remember, this is NOT about guns. It's about what rights you think you have.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/7428250.htm

Two armed robbers, against one man. Good guy won. Bad guy dead. How is that possible???

As I have already pointed out, the most desperate criminals, such as the types who would attack such a target, would not be able to afford a gun for a robbery if hand guns were controlled. For people who are the target of such criminals, handguns and other measures should be evaluated for the most appropriate response.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
It just seems to me that whenever Richardm

I think Richardm is not so deserving of an attack. Perhaps you meant RichardG.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
As I have already pointed out, the most desperate criminals, such as the types who would attack such a target, would not be able to afford a gun for a robbery if hand guns were controlled. For people who are the target of such criminals, handguns and other measures should be evaluated for the most appropriate response.

Hmm

1. The most desperate criminals are feeding drug habits infinitely more expensive than handguns would ever be if controlled.

2. Maybe I'm worong on this but the most depserate criminals usually have criminal records, and as such are precluded from buying hanguns in any case?

[Ed]

Originally posted by xouper
It has been argued on this forum that no one needs a gun for self defense.

Someone really said that?

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As I have already pointed out, the most desperate criminals, such as the types who would attack such a target, would not be able to afford a gun for a robbery if hand guns were controlled. For people who are the target of such criminals, handguns and other measures should be evaluated for the most appropriate response.

how do you figure that?

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


IDepends on what you consider "essential" facts. Did a guy die? Sure, I have no problems with that.

How do you know?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
How do you know?

That he died? I can't know, that's correct. But if they can't even get that right.... ;)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
It just seems to me that whenever Richardm trots out these "wimpy guy with gun shoots hassling big bad guy dead, toting guns vindicated" stories that he just doesn't seem to understand that SOMEONE, someone who had RIGHTS and PRIVILEDGES under all sorts of US law, even though they were bad bad people, were denied these (God-given?) rights of proper arrest, fair trial and non-cruel-and-unusual punishment because they were SHOT DEAD before it could be dispensed.

Someone simply took the law into their own hands and killed another person. Is that fair? Be honest. What if it were YOU being shot at? What if your last thoughts in life were, "Hey! What the...! This isn't right! I didn't get to explain what happened before this guy up and shot me...".

I asked myself, would it be any fairer if the big bad guy was killed with a knife? Or a rock? Or a bazooka? My answer? No, of course not. The RESULT is the same: a person killed, without a fair trial if they were offending the law. So the issue is NOT about guns here. It's about the presumptious, precipitate and most likely unlawful taking of a human life.

So Richard, let me just ask you to be clear. In bringing us these stories, do you actually advocate the precipitate removal of a US citizen's rights by another person by force, the judgement and punishment of a US citizen by another without arrest or trial in a proper court of law, and causing injury or even the taking of a human life for potentially trivial or even mistaken reasons?

Remember, this is NOT about guns. It's about what rights you think you have.

So what should he have done instead?....called "Dial-A-Judge
and see if someone could make a house-call.....and REAL QUICKLY PLEASE as the guy pointing the gun at me seems real agitated.....we need to discuss his rights before MY rights get terminated.

I think if you go around pointing guns & knives at people-----you forfeit some of those "rights"......even the "God-given" ones.

At least in the US anyway. I've heard Australia's different.

We have enough of of a crime problem as it is. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare that would occur if we deprive people of the right to defend themselves. (which unfortunately is happening far more than it should)......

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Can you pick the difference between dead bodies and "my gun saved me" stories. There is only one statistic I point to when I underline the tragedy that is american gun culture...The body count, dead bodies with bullet holes in them. No matter how much massaging of anecdotes is practiced by all sides in this debate, the bodies just will not go away.

This is exactly why I don't agree with you: You don't differentiate between the body of an innocent woman lying in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, and the body of a serial rapist who picked the wrong woman for a potential victim.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As I have already pointed out, the most desperate criminals, such as the types who would attack such a target, would not be able to afford a gun for a robbery if hand guns were controlled. For people who are the target of such criminals, handguns and other measures should be evaluated for the most appropriate response.

Handguns are controlled. Does this mean that criminals who aren't really desperate at all---people who shoplift chewing gum for example--are packing AK47s.

What are the REALLY desperate ones--the most dangerous & desperate of all carrying?.........Rubber band shooters because the
damn Glock was just too pricey????

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I think the above "What do you need a gun for" is more along the lines of statistical uselessness rather than actual uselessness, similar to when people claim that you will never win the lottery. Its just that the tickets cost more and are measured in blood.

Tell that to those who have prevented their own deaths or the deaths of their loved ones because they had a firearm. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them than there are lottery winners.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
No. I'm suggesting we build safer guns to lower or hopefully eliminate the accidents associated with guns.

Which is already being done.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



That he died? I can't know, that's correct. But if they can't even get that right.... ;)

Which could, of course, work either way. Filling in the blanks simply exposes biases, like a rorsach test.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
It just seems to me that whenever Richardm trots out these "wimpy guy with gun shoots hassling big bad guy dead, toting guns vindicated" stories that he just doesn't seem to understand that SOMEONE, someone who had RIGHTS and PRIVILEDGES under all sorts of US law, even though they were bad bad people, were denied these (God-given?) rights of proper arrest, fair trial and non-cruel-and-unusual punishment because they were SHOT DEAD before it could be dispensed.

When you engage in an act of violence against someone, it is NOT a violation of your rights when they act in their own defense or the defense of others. You have forfieted those rights at that time. People have an absolute right to protect themselves, and it is the perpetrator's own fault that defensive force was used against them.

You want to remove all semblance of personal responsibility from American society. Believe me, that will only make things worse than they are.

Someone simply took the law into their own hands and killed another person. Is that fair? Be honest. What if it were YOU being shot at?

I'm not very likely to be in a position of committing an act of violence against another. If I am, I deserve what I get.

Are you really saying people should just let themselves be beaten, raped, and even KILLED just so the other person can get a "fair trial"?

Geez...I don't see how, in the existance of arguments like this, Suddenly c\an say that we're the ones with the bad arguments...

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I have already pointed out, the most desperate criminals, such as the types who would attack such a target, would not be able to afford a gun for a robbery if hand guns were controlled.

Even though many of them can afford drugs now, which are much more expensive?

[geni]

Both side statisics and sources to back up your postions please!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by geni
Both side statisics and sources to back up your postions please!

What statistics do you need to see to back up the point that slavery is wrong?...

I'd consider an individuals right to defend himself as basic as his right of not being sold into slavery.

Unfortunately--we live in a society where sometimes...the most effective (and sometimes the only) way of doing this is with a handgun.

As someone allready mentioned...the stats for both sides are incomplete & inconclusive. You can't solve the very complex problem of gun related violence by comparing statistics.

Go to a gun forum and you'll see a completely different set of statistics.

It's nice to argue statistics from the safety of a computer desk.
You'll throw all the stats out the window if you find yourself faced with someone who may just try to kill you within the next 10 seconds......

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


What statistics do you need to see to back up the point that slavery is wrong?...

I'd consider an individuals right to defend himself as basic as his right of not being sold into slavery.

Unfortunately--we live in a society where sometimes...the most effective (and sometimes the only) way of doing this is with a handgun.

As someone allready mentioned...the stats for both sides are incomplete & inconclusive. You can't solve the very complex problem of gun related violence by comparing statistics.

Go to a gun forum and you'll see a completely different set of statistics.

It's nice to argue statistics from the safety of a computer desk.
You'll throw all the stats out the window if you find yourself faced with someone who may just try to kill you within the next 10 seconds......

OMG- just after you said that, a big scary villian jumped out from behind my computer! Fortunately, I had my Dad's old handgun, because nothing else would have stopped him.

I guess there's a silver lining in every cloud, because after this episode, I'm a born-again gun creduloid!

[geni]

Originally posted by Ralph


What statistics do you need to see to back up the point that slavery is wrong?...

I'd consider an individuals right to defend himself as basic as his right of not being sold into slavery.


So your postion is an abserlute. You argument only makes sence if there is no data that would change your mind. If this is the case can I suggest that you stop debating with those who like to base their postion on evidence. (you are starting to sound like homeopaths again).

[American]

Originally posted by xouper
When you said that the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistics about "friendly fire" in the home are nothing more than a tally of the anecdotes. If you dismiss anecdotes as not being data, then what exactly are you counting? I am willing to accept the use of statistics if you are willing to admit that they are the plural of anecdote in this case. :)

Why ask me when it was you who first brought it up in this thread when you said, "Want me to drag out the statistics that far more people are killed by 'friendly fire', by guns in the home?" It was your claim, not mine.

No one. I didn't and neither did you. Why did you think anyone had said that? What I did say, however, is that friendly fire incidents in the home have nothing to do with the news item in the opening post of this thread.


I'll use this as a base to go tangent, slightly.

I don't use statistics to justify carrying a gun. I use right and wrong. Shooting someone who is trying to kill or seriously injur you, your family, or even a stranger is not only right, it's your duty as a good person. It won't be fun, and you might get killed doing it. Statistics don't matter to that end. You are doing the right thing morally, which is a concept that most gun banners can't relate to.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


OMG- just after you said that, a big scary villian jumped out from behind my computer! Fortunately, I had my Dad's old handgun, because nothing else would have stopped him.

I guess there's a silver lining in every cloud, because after this episode, I'm a born-again gun creduloid!

Nobody's suggesting that assaults by armed felons is a common occurence. You seem to be suggesting that anybody that takes steps to defend himself against this is paranoid.

So why are you worried about me or the pharmacist who shot the thugs?

Are you afraid I might go postal? What are the odds of you being killed by legal gun-owner going postal???????????????

Are you afraid that the next time you get an RX filled at a pharmacy---the pharmacist's going to open up on you?????????????????????????

I think you may want to take a close look at your own level of paranoia......

[Ralph]

Originally posted by shanek


This is exactly why I don't agree with you: You don't differentiate between the body of an innocent woman lying in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, and the body of a serial rapist who picked the wrong woman for a potential victim.

I think people who place the rights of criminals above those of their intended victims are part of the problem, not the solution.

It gets back to this simplistic approach of attacking the "substance" rather than the specific individuals who use it.

I think the precious "stats" would show that Europe has less of a drunk -driver problem than the US.

Is it because European countries have banned the use of alcohol?

Or maybe it's because of all those tough laws enacted that specifically target the few who MISUSE alcohol.

Aren't there a lot of European countries that will revoke a drivers licence FOREVER -- even on a first offense.

In the US people with multiple DUIs get off with slaps on the wrist all to often. They--not the responsible drinkers--go back out & do the same thing again & again.

Use a gun in a crime----go to jail for a long time. Allow citizens to stay armed & protect themselves from thugs. If the thugs get killed......tough.

The problem of gun violence will never be solved by people who can't see the difference between as you mentioned.....a murdered & raped secretary on her way to her car after work....and a serial rapist.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ralph


I think the precious "stats" would show that Europe has less of a drunk -driver problem than the US.

Is it because European countries have banned the use of alcohol?

Or maybe it's because of all those tough laws enacted that specifically target the few who MISUSE alcohol.

Aren't there a lot of European countries that will revoke a drivers licence FOREVER -- even on a first offense.

Minor point. the reduction in drink driving is also due to it no longer being seen as socialy accepterble to drink and drive.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Tell that to those who have prevented their own deaths or the deaths of their loved ones because they had a firearm. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them than there are lottery winners.

Is this a serious point, are or you trying to give a good example of an appeal to emotion? Plus I'm not so sure about your factual assertion.

When you add up all the daily number, pick 4, and other lottery forms the number of lottery winners is higher than you think. Then we add in the instant lottery winners and it would seem that your point is highly doubtful. Keep in mind that that West Virginia has 3 very sizable casinos with thousands of slot machines technically called "lottery games," so every time one of those pays off another winner is created. Being very, very conservative 3000 people "win" the lottery at least once in this state alone every day. Likely at least twice that. Whoops! I forgot the keno games our state lotto commission beams into most every bar in the state around the clock. Couple thousand more there.

Then we get to the real problem, which is you fail to realize that my point was an analogy. Was it because you were so excited to make what you thought was a clever jab? Of course not only were you likely factually wrong, you also seemed to disregard the cost/benefit point I was making so that you could engage in the very kind of emotional / macho posturing that I spoke of one of my later posts. More specifically:

and I wish there would be a little less of the fear-mongering and macho posturing in the other analysis, but fear is a potent rhetorical tool, as is questioning bravery, etc.

Thanks for a good example of this. Right on cue.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No. I'm suggesting we build safer guns to lower or hopefully eliminate the accidents associated with guns.

Study current guns and you will find they are pretty safe. Guns go off because people pull the trigger (either intentionally or negligently) with the safety disengaged and a round in the chamber.

Some modern handguns even have so many safeties that people have them removed because they hinder the function of the gun.

Guns are already pretty safe. Look at cars again. You can fill it with seat belts, air bags, childproof locks, running daytime headlights; and some fool can still run someone over with it or drive it off a cliff.

The modern 1911 for instance has two safeties integrated into the grip itself, a manual thumb release, a loaded chamber indicator, and it cannot be fire at all with the hammer down.

If someone has a negligent discharge it is simply user negligence.

Every year you hear about some fool who shoots himself with his own gun while attempting to clean it. The first step in cleaning any gun is to "clear it". To clear it you unload any shells/catridges and lock open the chamber. This renders the gun impossible to fire. People die while cleaning firearms because they fail to clear the weapon, not because the gun is unsafe. This is darwinism.

The unfortunate part is when some fool shoots his kid in the next room accidentally. I sympathize with this. It also makes me mad when some fool leaves their kid in a hot car.

Anyhoo, the point is that guns are safe. In fact they are so safe that enthusiasts have to make them less safe in some cases to make them function well.

[Tony]

Originally posted by geni

The reduction in drink driving is also due to it no longer being seen as socialy accepterble to drink and drive.

Hmm....I don’t know about that, drunk driving is still pretty common amongst college and high school kids. Not to mention driving on other drugs as well. Hell, the pizza delivery industry is full of stoners.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


This is exactly why I don't agree with you: You don't differentiate between the body of an innocent woman lying in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, and the body of a serial rapist who picked the wrong woman for a potential victim.
And as the dead bodies pile up Shanek gets a bigger carpet to sweep them under.

You have just stated that I don't differentiate? Can you read? I am talking about deaths due to gunshot wounds....America already has the raped and strangled bodies, like all other countries....What I'm talking about is that additional pile of bodies full of bullet holes. You know the one...its the one you are getting the bigger carpet for.
Keep dancing shane, no matter how much massaging of numbers, no matter how much massaging of anecdotes...The simple fact is that your countrmen shoot each other at an alarming rate and you all seem intent on doing absolutely nothing except dreaming up excuses about why it should either be allowed to continue or, even better, it doesn't actually happen at all!

[Tricky]

From today's Houston Chronicle
Fight at birthday party leaves one man dead (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2278039).
A fight at a birthday party in southeast Houston early today left one man dead from a gunshot wound to the chest, police said.
and
Man found slain at business center (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2276355)
When his girlfriend tried to call the shop and received no answer, she became worried and drove to the shop just after midnight, where she found the man dead. He had been shot numerous times with a small-caliber weapon, police said.

from the same page
A man shot to death attempting to evade three men who robbed him and his friends at a northwest Houston apartment has been identified...

I've told you before, Richard, I can match every current good-news story with multiple current bad-news stories (usually without having to leave my home city). If you really think posting this stuff makes your case, then you are deluded.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ralph


Handguns are controlled. Does this mean that criminals who aren't really desperate at all---people who shoplift chewing gum for example--are packing AK47s.

What are the REALLY desperate ones--the most dangerous & desperate of all carrying?.........Rubber band shooters because the
damn Glock was just too pricey????

Its supply and demand Ralph...America is awash with cheap unidentified handguns. I don't know what you mean by "controlled" when you talk about handguns in America...how long would it take you to get hold of one and what would it cost you? My guess is not long and not much. Black market handguns in Australia cost a lot of money, your average looser is not going to shell out a grand and a half for a handgun to shove down his pants.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph
Are you afraid I might go postal? What are the odds of you being killed by legal gun-owner going postal?


Aw, how cute... You're trying to stage the debate on your own terms.

"Going postal," unless I'm mistaken, is the act of going insane and shooting lots of people randomly. And you're right, the odds of that are small.

However, the odds of me being shot by someone who owns a gun legally under US laws (due to whatever reason: accident, argument, mistaking me for a burglar, etc) are a lot higher than the odds of that same gun owner ever needing to shoot an intruder. Cost-benefit. In the case of deregulated guns, the cost is a lot higher than the benefit. That's why I think there's the need for regulation.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Aren't there a lot of European countries that will revoke a drivers licence FOREVER -- even on a first offense.



I don't know, are there? Why don't you do some research occasionally instead of constantly talking out of your tradesman's entrance? The quality of debate on the guns issue would be a lot better if some of you did some research occasionally.

[Zep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think Richardm is not so deserving of an attack. Perhaps you meant RichardG. True! My apologies to that person. Now to get some typing lessons...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph
So what should he have done nstead?....called "Dial-A-Judge" and see if someone could make a house-call.....and REAL QUICKLY PLEASE as the guy pointing the gun at me seems real agitated.....we need to discuss his rights before MY rights get terminated.

So you are saying that if ANYONE carries a gun and then gets agitated / annoyed / noisy / demanding around anyone else then that person AUTOMATICALLY forfeits their rights to proper legal processing?

So consider: What if they acted the same way but without being armed in any way? Would they still be liable to be shot by the victim because they were "infringing on his rights" then?

The difference here is between lethal force being used to defend personal liberties from ANY attack, and the same but from deadly attack only. Which one do you think is sufficient to use a gun in retaliation?

I think if you go around pointing guns & knives at people-----you forfeit some of those "rights"......even the "God-given" ones.

If you and I were in a restaurant and we got to arguing and I pointed my dinner knife at you, would you see that as a threat and shoot me? If not, why not?

At least in the US anyway. I've heard Australia's different.

It is still very rare for people to be confronted by people with guns here, simply because we have far, far less of them in our society. The situation is not non-existent, but so highly unlikely that it will never happen to the vast majority of our citizens ever in their lifetime.

We have enough of of a crime problem as it is. I can't even begin to imagine the nightmare that would occur if we deprive people of the right to defend themselves. (which unfortunately is happening far more than it should)......

Wouldn't a far better approach be to try and get rid of the crime (i.e. remove the cause) rather than simply adding to the carnage (i.e. exaccerbating the symptoms)?

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek
When you engage in an act of violence against someone, it is NOT a violation of your rights when they act in their own defense or the defense of others. You have forfieted those rights at that time. People have an absolute right to protect themselves, and it is the perpetrator's own fault that defensive force was used against them.

I agree with that sentiment entirely. But the operative phrase needing definition is "defensive force." There are degrees here - "defence" can include compliance, running away, threats, physical fighting back at various levels, and lastly gunplay. Unfortunately, there seems to be a giant leap in some people's minds straight to the last option as being the only option.

I mentioned on another thread that the opportunities exist to use other methods to defend yourself besides shooting, and I used the example of a cricket bat (or, indeed, a baseball bat). A golf-club is a pretty nasty weapon, even for a child or woman.

I think what worries me most is the disproportionate and possibly fatal response that gunplay is. Broken bones and bruises mend, but no-one recovers from being killed, good or bad guys. As Fool said, people end up dead with bullet-holes in them, and that is NOT a good outcome.

You want to remove all semblance of personal responsibility from American society. Believe me, that will only make things worse than they are.

I don't want to do any such thing! Please don't write my lines. I have no problem with people defending themselves, but the actions taken and the level of violence necessary should be proportionate.

I'm not very likely to be in a position of committing an act of violence against another. If I am, I deserve what I get.

I can't see you being a bad guy...

Are you really saying people should just let themselves be beaten, raped, and even KILLED just so the other person can get a "fair trial"?

No, of course not. But it is horses for courses. If a bad guy stuck a gun to my head and demanded something, I would give it to him. Even if I was armed with an Uzi submachine-gun, pistol, AK47 and assorted strangling gear, it is all useless in this case - my life is in his hands. Compliance is what is taught to all bank staff, as you know - they prefer their staff to stay alive and NOT engage in dangerous Dirty Harry gunplay.

But some unarmed guy who tries to monster me or mine in the street will be met with much fiercer resistance - probably a swift kick to the sphericals to start with.

The issue of rights comes in when it comes to apprehending these guys. The first guy will need to be chased down by professional armed police, NOT by me, even if I WAS armed. They have the right and ability to do this sort of thing. The second guy will be the guest of the nearest police officer, who I'm sure will be glad to read him his rights and run him in for the usual "assisting police with their enquiries" stuff. In both cases, my rights have been upheld, and the bad guys get theirs.

Geez...I don't see how, in the existance of arguments like this, Suddenly c\an say that we're the ones with the bad arguments...

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I agree with Suddenly. It's your mindset that says that guns are the answer, when in fact they contribute to the problem. It indicates to me that you live in fear. Of what, I'm not sure, but the impression I get is that it is not your civil rights that is the issue, really.

[Richard G]

Wouldn't a far better approach be to try and get rid of the crime (i.e. remove the cause) rather than simply adding to the carnage

When a violent criminal is shot dead in the act of attacking someone, the cause of the crime has been removed.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Richard G
When a violent criminal is shot dead in the act of attacking someone, the cause of the crime has been removed. Then they should do testing on kids to see if they are violent at a young age, and shoot the worst offenders then, thereby saving everyone a lot of time and effort raising these bastards.

Mmmmkay??

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep


Do you think there might be a small difference between waving a dinner fork at somebody and holding up a pharmacy at gunpoint????

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I don't know, are there? Why don't you do some research occasionally instead of constantly talking out of your tradesman's entrance? The quality of debate on the guns issue would be a lot better if some of you did some research occasionally.

I can always tell when I've made a valid point. Mr Manifesto gets all upset. ......you've shown your ignorance of the whole matter on many occasions..........

You no little if anything about US law.......and you know even less about the defensive use of firearms......maybe you need to do a little research..........

[Tricky]

Bad weekend for gun news in Houston
A bartender at a southwest Houston nightclub Monday night was shot and wounded by her boyfriend, who then killed himself, police said. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2281652)

And from the police blotter, buried deep within the paper: (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2281544)
Robbers kill man, wound his companion

A man was shot to death and his companion critically wounded during a robbery in southeast Houston.
Authorities identify man slain in robbery

A man shot to death during an apparent robbery as he walked in north Houston on Sunday evening has been identified...

1 killed, 1 injured during home invasion

A man was fatally shot at his Katy-area house, and another man was beaten with a baseball bat during a home invasion, officers said.
Come on, Richard. You're lagging behind. We need three more recent gun stories with happy endings for you to keep pace. Use the entire nation if you like, and I'll stick to just Texas. Get it in gear, son.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


I can always tell when I've made a valid point. Mr Manifesto gets all upset. ......you've shown your ignorance of the whole matter on many occasions..........

You no little if anything about US law.......and you know even less about the defensive use of firearms......maybe you need to do a little research..........

All I tried to do was show you a way to move forward in this debate. If you think saying the same thing over and over again will sway people to your cause, good luck to you. Let me know how you go.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


All I tried to do was show you a way to move forward in this debate. If you think saying the same thing over and over again will sway people to your cause, good luck to you. Let me know how you go.

Maybe if I say it one more time, you'll understand the point I'm trying to make and not get hung up with minor statistical issues.

Rather than just offer up criticism and vague generalities like "guns nned to be controlled" I've tried to offer some specific solutions.

There's too much focus on the gun and not enough on the gun abuser IMO.

This leads to things like the AWB which did NOTHING to reduce gun violence.

We have elitist anti-gun politicians like Dianne Feinstein who want to disarm citizens but they themselves----have CW permits.
Their solutions all seem directed at the gun--not the gun abuser.

The analogy I used with alcohol was simply to make the point that many European countries go after not the substance--but the abuser--by way of extreme tough drunk driving statutes.

I made a general statement that Europe has tougher drunk driving laws than the US. I'm reasonably certain that's a true statement and didn't feel the need to back it up by looking up the drunk driving laws of every country in Europe. I don't have time for that. You obviously do.

I have to laugh at the fact that the most predictable person on the forum......so predictable that you're boring.......accuses me of saying the same thing over & over. Pick any one of the several dozen issues that get discussed here and everybody knows exactly what you're going to say. Cloned, cookie cutter marxist crap mixed in with weasel words and canned responses.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


I made a general statement that Europe has tougher drunk driving laws than the US. I'm reasonably certain that's a true statement and didn't feel the need to back it up by looking up the drunk driving laws of every country in Europe. I don't have time for that. You obviously do.

Well, my understanding is that the drink driving laws in most parts of Europe are quite lax. In fact, you can be three times as drunk in Europe as in the US and still legally drive. And I don't believe you get fined or jailed for a first offence, just a caution.

I just can't be bothered looking up the figures right now. But you can, if you like.

See the impasse?


I have to laugh at the fact that the most predictable person on the forum......so predictable that you're boring.......accuses me of saying the same thing over & over. Pick any one of the several dozen issues that get discussed here and everybody knows exactly what you're going to say. Cloned, cookie cutter marxist crap mixed in with weasel words and canned responses.

It's not nearly as funny as the leaps of faith I see from the de facto gun lobby in this forum on a daily basis.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph
Do you think there might be a small difference between waving a dinner fork at somebody and holding up a pharmacy at gunpoint???? Nope. Both involve threatening someone else with a potentially dangerous/lethal weapon to force their way with them. Sounds like a violation of someone's rights to me!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
Nope. Both involve threatening someone else with a potentially dangerous/lethal weapon to force their way with them. Sounds like a violation of someone's rights to me!


I think I'd prefer to face an agitated dinner companion with a butter knife to having a gun pointed in my face by someone with the habit of robbing pharmacies...........

You're really not serious are you???...............

[Tricky]

More news from my city:
Two dead after family surprises intruder. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2286792)

A Sugar Land mother and son were fatally shot and two other family members wounded after they returned to their upscale home Wednesday night and surprised an intruder, police said.
***
"It's so sad a whole family (was shot)," said Campbell, who doesn't know the victims. "It just occurred to me (that) it could have easily been us -- if it was just random and they didn't know the people who did this. "
What in the world makes people think that having guns easily available in this country is going to make this kind of crime go away? Do you want to pull your pistol every time you enter your home?

Had this been England, the burgler would have probably fled, because he didn't have a gun.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that guns are a big part of the problem. There are bad people everywhere. Here they are bad and deadly, much more so than in other places where guns are tightly regulated.
------
Oh yeah. Should also mention...
Woman driving on Gulf Freeway shot. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2287905)
She doesn't know who shot her or where the bullet came from," HPD Sgt. Al Giraldo said.
-----
So when are Richard and all the other pro-gun folks going to match me story-for-story? They pick out the occasional good-news story (one of which I also noted) and refuse to acknowledge all of the really horrible gun-related news.

Pull your heads out of the sand, gentlemen, and look at what's happening around you. Then tell me again how our plethoria of guns is such a great thing for America.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph

I think I'd prefer to face an agitated dinner companion with a butter knife to having a gun pointed in my face by someone with the habit of robbing pharmacies...........

You're really not serious are you???............... I AM serious if the guy with the fork (not butter-knife - I said fork) in his face thinks he is being threatened enough to consider pulling a gun and shooting his "assailant" dead. Would you like to be stabbed with a fork? I'll bet it wouldn't be pretty or nice. So at what point would you consider it would be "OK" to shoot such an assailant? When would such a threat be big enough to shoot?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
I AM serious if the guy with the fork (not butter-knife - I said fork) in his face thinks he is being threatened enough to consider pulling a gun and shooting his "assailant" dead. Would you like to be stabbed with a fork? I'll bet it wouldn't be pretty or nice. So at what point would you consider it would be "OK" to shoot such an assailant? When would such a threat be big enough to shoot?

Well--I think you're right Zep. I wouldn't want to be stabbed with a fork. If my dinner companion waved his forked in my face---I'd probably have to shoot him.

You raise some interesting questions though.

What about a spoon? Can you shoot a man who threatens you with a spoon?

I can make a case for a fork being a deadly weapon but I'm not so sure about a spoon. Especially something like a soup spoon which isn't pointy at all. Well--the eating end isn't pointy.

Of course if you turn it around that changes things. Now it IS kind of pointy. In prison movies they kill people all the time with sharpened spoons.

Of course if it was a REALLY BIG spoon.....it could be used as a club and might also be called a deadly weapon.

I guess I wouldn't shoot someone with a soupspoon. If at was a gravy ladle though I probably would. If he turned the spoon around so the pointy end was facing me....I'd probably have to shoot him then too.

I don't even want to get into the issue of the butterknife..................

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Tricky
More news from my city:
Two dead after family surprises intruder. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2286792)


What in the world makes people think that having guns easily available in this country is going to make this kind of crime go away? Do you want to pull your pistol every time you enter your home?

Had this been England, the burgler would have probably fled, because he didn't have a gun.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that guns are a big part of the problem. There are bad people everywhere. Here they are bad and deadly, much more so than in other places where guns are tightly regulated.
------
Oh yeah. Should also mention...
Woman driving on Gulf Freeway shot. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2287905)

-----
So when are Richard and all the other pro-gun folks going to match me story-for-story? They pick out the occasional good-news story (one of which I also noted) and refuse to acknowledge all of the really horrible gun-related news.

Pull your heads out of the sand, gentlemen, and look at what's happening around you. Then tell me again how our plethoria of guns is such a great thing for America.

That is indeed a tragedy. What measures do you suggest could have been taken that would've insured the intruder didn't have a gun.

Had one of the family members been armed--they may have had a chance.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph

Well--I think you're right Zep. I wouldn't want to be stabbed with a fork. If my dinner companion waved his forked in my face---I'd probably have to shoot him.

You raise some interesting questions though.

What about a spoon? Can you shoot a man who threatens you with a spoon?

I can make a case for a fork being a deadly weapon but I'm not so sure about a spoon. Especially something like a soup spoon which isn't pointy at all. Well--the eating end isn't pointy.

Of course if you turn it around that changes things. Now it IS kind of pointy. In prison movies they kill people all the time with sharpened spoons.

Of course if it was a REALLY BIG spoon.....it could be used as a club and might also be called a deadly weapon.

I guess I wouldn't shoot someone with a soupspoon. If at was a gravy ladle though I probably would. If he turned the spoon around so the pointy end was facing me....I'd probably have to shoot him then too.

I don't even want to get into the issue of the butterknife.................. I'm glad you can laugh at it, because it means you think that assault with table and kitchenware is amusing / trivial / survivable, and that an armed response would be quite silly and (for want of a better word) overkill. Having to carry a weapon and draw it to defend yourself in such a situation would be the stuff of light comedy relief. You do agree this is the case, don't you?

If so, let's expand your thinking, shall we?

What about a small sharp knife, like a steak-knife, penknife, or perhaps...a box-cutter...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ralph
That is indeed a tragedy. What measures do you suggest could have been taken that would've insured the intruder didn't have a gun.
I favor a gradual reduction in the availability of handguns (and possibly some other types, though I admit I am not an expert) through extremely stringent background checks, stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, and limits on the numbers of handguns that can be sold. This can be done. It is done in other countries. The US has a peculiar history that makes it difficult, but the stories I keep posting show that universal gun availabilty is (overall) bad for the US.

Originally posted by Ralph
Had one of the family members been armed--they may have had a chance.
Yes, they might have been able to kill the robber. But had the robber been unarmed, then most likely nobody would have died. I consider that a superior outcome.

So many in the US think that we must have guns because criminals will always be able to get guns. I do not believe that is true, and other very free societies, like Japan and much of Europe, have provided evidence for my belief.

The hard part is trying to overcome this "all guns are good" mentality which is fostered by the NRA.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm glad you can laugh at it, because it means you think that assault with table and kitchenware is amusing / trivial / survivable, and that an armed response would be quite silly and (for want of a better word) overkill. Having to carry a weapon and draw it to defend yourself in such a situation would be the stuff of light comedy relief. You do agree this is the case, don't you?

If so, let's expand your thinking, shall we?

What about a small sharp knife, like a steak-knife, penknife, or perhaps...a box-cutter...

Zep--When I have dinner with somebody--it's not usually with a stranger or an armed felon. It's certainly possible I could be sitting down with a friend, disagree about something, and he starts "talking with his hands" Pointing--making gestures to emphasize a point--and because it's dinner time, maybe there's a piece of cuttlery in hand.

You seem to be suggesting that I might confuse this with a serious threat on my life and shoot him. You seem to be suggesting that someone would see an agitated dinner companion in the same light he'd see an armed stick-up man.

I'm sorry but I feel like I'm engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

You argue that criminals are all weak & stupid.

You argue that a 73 year old man should be able to disarm someone far younger & stronger than he is.

You argue that criminals should behave in logical,predictable ways.

You argue that I should be concerned about the rights of someone who's threatening to kill me & my family.

Are there ANY circumstances where you feel the use of a gun is justified??

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Tricky

I favor a gradual reduction in the availability of handguns (and possibly some other types, though I admit I am not an expert) through extremely stringent background checks, stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, and limits on the numbers of handguns that can be sold. This can be done. It is done in other countries. The US has a peculiar history that makes it difficult, but the stories I keep posting show that universal gun availabilty is (overall) bad for the US.


Yes, they might have been able to kill the robber. But had the robber been unarmed, then most likely nobody would have died. I consider that a superior outcome.

So many in the US think that we must have guns because criminals will always be able to get guns. I do not believe that is true, and other very free societies, like Japan and much of Europe, have provided evidence for my belief.

The hard part is trying to overcome this "all guns are good" mentality which is fostered by the NRA.

How much more stringent should we make the background checks then they allready are. I have a feeling the guy who slaughtered 4 people didn't apply for a permit at the local police station.

I think you'll also find most pro-gun people are very much in favor of enforcing existing laws.....at least those that actually do something to keep people who misuse guns off the streets.


I think your approach is too focused on the gun and not enough on the individual. The problem is violent crime--not guns. There's a lot of underlying factors here....and I don't think you can expect the same results in Chicago or LA that you see in Copenhagen or Sydney. I'm not convinced you can physically get the guns out of the hands of criminals without causing some serious problems.

Like heroin--against which bans and restrictions have been useless-guns are easy to conceal-plentiful-and in demand.
In addition--they pretty much last forever. Getting rid of them is easier said then done.

I don't know if anything could've saved those peoples lives.

I can think of one possible scenario though.

The anti-gun voices around here seem to feel Richard's paranoid but what if it was his house the intruder had picked?

Richard and his wife are both armed and probably well trained.
They walk in---bad guy draws his weapon a split second before Richard and his wife draw theirs. Bad guy fires 3 shots at Richard and he's killed but by this time--Richards wife is beginning to fire at him. Bad guy takes 4 rounds and is killed.

Instead of 4 dead and a murderer still on the loose....you now have only one dead and the murderers career is over.

Until the authorities can give me a reasonable guarantee they can protect me ..........I prefer to maintain my right to defend myself from people like this.