Its incidents like these
 

that prompted texas to pass concealed handgun license laws. This should be make it clear that anyone who really wants to kill someone will not be stopped by gun control laws. The BEST AND ONLY defense in this situation is to be armed yourself. If it was easier for law abiding citizens to carry for their defense, there might be only one person dead........the original criminal.

Three Dead, Two Injured in Shooting at Denny's in California

A gunman opened fire inside a crowded Denny's restaurant during lunch hour Wednesday, killing two people and wounding two before taking his own life, police said.

"There could have been 30 or 40 people inside. As the shootings occurred, people were fleeing the restaurant, hiding in bathrooms," Cmdr. Jeff Norton said.

Police Chief Joe Cortez said authorities have not found any connection between the gunman and the victims, and it does not appear he had a grudge against Denny's or its employees.

He said the man, armed with a semiautomatic handgun and a revolver, began shooting within a few steps of the restaurant's front door.

"The witnesses described him as coming in with a dazed look on his face, then they said he started shooting," Cortez said.

Authorities were trying determine whether the gunman had a history of mental illness or whether there were drugs or alcohol in his system, Cortez said.

"We are shocked and saddened by this tragic accident," the restaurant chain said in a statement. "This appears to be a random act of violence."

Or we could have had more die in the crossfire.

Maybe we can prevent school shootings by arming all the kids too?

Maybe if it were harder to get guns, stories like these wouldn't happen. . .

did we really need ANOTHER thread in which to debate gun control?

And did it really need to be in General? Why isn't it in Politics where it belongs?

both of these "accidental" shootings were caused by irresponsible people and should be prosecuted as crimes.

Yeah, obviously. My point is that if irresponsible people didn't have guns they wouldn't have the chance to be irresponsible with them.

I'm not out to ban guns, but I'm tired of the old "beat the government" or "be the frikkin' Rambo hero and save the day by plugging the bad guy" arguments. The former is impossible and the latter almost never happens.

The problem is, how do you keep them from the irresponsible people without keeping them from the responsible people?

Gun ban. :thumbsup:

Gun control is set up to prevent irresponsibble peope from having guns. Proper gunc ontrol should be able to screen for history of mental illness, arrest record, if they watch "Die Hard" every Christmas, and one should be monitored indifinately.

You should have to pass a psych evaluation before getting a gun.

I say we just KILL all the irresponsible people.

But then again I have been known to have a bad idea or two.

Good idea. Look how well it worked here:

Link

yeah, gun bans have really kept guns out of DC and chicago, havent they? :rolleyes:

because I didn't necessarily aim at politics and politicians?

You did a really great job of reading my post. :rolleyes:

It's already hard for those that want to obey the law to get a gun. What would help keep stories like this from happening is for people to stop pointing at guns and yelling EVIL and start taking a healthy interest in their own self defense.

When is the last time you heard of someone going in to a gun show to start a massacre?

Will, most states that require a license already have these requirements, except for a full blown psych eval, but then if you did that then half the cops would fail.
Federal law mandates that NO FELONS can carry a gun in public. All the states that I'm aware of prevent people who have had ANY sort of psych issue in the last 5 years from carrying. Do you think we should ask people if they watch die hard every xmas on their registration? As far as monitored indefinitely, all licenses require a renewal, except for Indiana which is very close to passing a life time license, however, any of the aforementioned issues happening causes a revocation of the license.

gun bans and gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes

It is? Oh. Silly me. I didn't think getting off the couch and driving to a gun show was particularly hard.

And how exactly would that prevent accidental shootings? Would the kid that was accidentally shot be able to dive out of the way and shoot back?


I've never heard of anyone starting a massacre in a milk factory either. That doesn't mean milk prevents crime. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen.

Then don't give them guns. It's unstable cops that make the bigest mistakes.
You're saying that felons are less inclined or determined than others to commit crimes? Are you aware of the statistics on felons committing crimes? Yes, the Die Hard thing was an obvious joke, but the psych eval is absolutely serious. Do you want the bipolar guy fighting depression and having suicidal thoughts next door to your family with a Desert Eagle? How about the cop with serious anger issues and alcoholism protecting your family?

Unless its a private owner doing the sale, ALL commercial sales still require a background check.

How do we stop accidental pool drownings? or not looking both ways when crossing the street? Take some fricking personal responsibility!!!!! what do accidental shootings have to do with an idiot shooting up a dennys anyway?

but you hear of post office shootings, school shootings, church shootings, and restaraunt shootings....why? because idiots think that if you put up a 'no guns' sign, people will think 'damn, I better not go in there or i'll be breaking the law!!!' :rolleyes:

In all the states that i'm aware of the laws there, if you are on psychotic related meds, you can't be licensed. so how well did that law work?

Less than 1% of people in the US with a professionally diagnosed mental illness are on any kind of medication. That leaves over 99% of people with a professionally diagnosed mental illness free to go grab their favorite gun at the local, 100% legal gun shop. The law doesn't work because it was written by people who have no idea what they're doing.

That there is about the most correct thing you've stated when it comes to our conversations. ok, maybe not, but that struck me as profoundly accurate.

OK. So 1) you proved my point. I can buy it from a private owner. and 2) you proved my point again. We're talking about law abiding people here. It's rather unlikely that they're not going to pass a background check. So it's STILL easy.



Nothing, but then this shooting doesn't have much with CCW laws either. He came in. He'd have gotten the first guy for sure because I don't know of a whole lot of gun owners who are psychics and could have sensed that he would shoot. He'd probably get the second guy too since his gun's already out and targeting while the citizen Rambos are busy pulling their guns. The fact that he's shooting two guns at once means while he's killing the first two, he's also wounding the other two. The third guy that died was the gunman because he shot himself. So, the citizen Rambos would have accomplished precisely dick. And in fact they might have killed or wounded a few more people in the confusion.



Well great. Like I said, let's arm EVERYone! Let's give the kids guns too! We could even give girls pink guns with glitter on 'em so they'd be more likely to carry 'em. We can't have defenseless kids can we?

I think preventing gun related deaths by giving more people guns is the best idea I've ever heard. Where do I sign up?

I think it's about time somebody invented pistols with knife and fork adaptations on the end.

You just can't relax for a second in the modern world.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9352/m9pistol1ay.jpg

If they PASS a background check, why is there an issue?

So instead of allowing people the ability to defend themselves, or others, we'll just put up with the many deaths that a criminal will cause until our neighborhood police get done with their coffee and donuts and decide to come and arrest him? Do me a favor, stay out of my neighborhood.


I love the last ditch 'lets protect the kids' attempt. Nobody is talking about letting juveniles arm themselves, however, if people took some responsibility and actually TAUGHT their kids how to respect the use of a gun and be responsible about it instead of the 'guns are evil' crap, we might have less violence out there.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albu...0752.sized.jpg

milk factory=workplace=workplace shooting. maybe you've heard of them.
they happen because lawyers advise employers that their liability costs go down by banning guns from the workplace....until the disgruntled employee comes in to blast the place KNOWING that nobody in there will be armed and he can kill with relative immunity until the cops show up.

Here's another question,

If a handgun is appropriate for police to use as a self defense tool, why is it not appropriate for the average citizen? I don't see any dead cops in this dennys, looks like the cops weren't the target.

If running red lights is appropriate for police to do as a way to get somewhere fast, why is it not appropriate for the average citizen?

Not to be too insulting to your 'comparison', but thats just plain stupid. It should be OBVIOUS, why they run redlights, and heres the important part, WHEN RESPONDING TO A DISTRESS CALL!!!!

thats probably the best case of apples and oranges that i've heard yet though. good one. :crazy:

Filtherton's point is that it is the responsibility of police officers to protect and serve, and it is in that responsibility that they are given the legal authority to run lights AND wear a gun as a self defence 'tool'. Let me put it to you this way...how often would a police officer need a gun for self defence versus you or me? I've not once in my life required a gun for self defence, have you ever needed it? Now compare that figure to how often a police officer is in danger. You decide.

And please, if you want to show the fault in someones argument, do so. Don't call them or what they've written 'stupid'.

First off, how about "one response, one post?" It's kinda dumb to have to go through 3 replies to quote out what we need.

YOU are the one who said it's HARD for law abiding citizens to get a gun. I called bullshit on that. It is NOT hard. If I want a gun, I can have one 7 days from now, totally legally. The hardest part would be earning the money for it. Don't try to turn it around into something that it never was.



so 1) you think the cops are going to linger over donuts before they respond to a crime. I deal with cops almost every day. I've met good cops, and I've met total asshole cops. Not ONE of them would delay an emergency call to finish their meal. Let's not be needlessly insulting to the cops shall we?

2) You have never bothered to respond to the crossfire issue. If a bunch of "defenders" pull their guns and start shooting, someone's likely to get shot that doesn't need to be shot.

3) Where the hell do you live? I dunno about you but murder per capita where I've lived isn't nearly what you're implying. You're acting like we live in a warzone. I routinely go into some of the worst neighborhoods, and I've NEVER been in a situation where a gun would be helpful. It's disingenuous to artificially inflate the crime problem in order to justify your desire to have a gun.

My whole point in all these arguments is not to ban guns. It's to get you gun enthusiasts to stop using bullshit arguments to support your side.

You're the one who keeps saying "gee, look at this shooting. If ONLY the crowd had all been armed to the teeth! None of this would've happened!"

The logical conclusion to that is that in all the school shootings, if ONLY the kids had guns, there wouldn't have been a slaughter. Ergo, let's arm kids.

None of us are saying guns are evil. You're the one putting that crap in our mouths. We're saying your arguments in support of your desire to have guns are bullshit. And that's exactly what they are. Boil it all down, and you just WANT a gun. Nothing wrong with that, but be honest about it instead of inventing all these reasons that don't even make sense.

school also=workplace=workplace shooting. Arm the children.

I have drawn a gun in self defense, but I will refrain from calling your argument stupid; instead, I will call it what it is: Dangerously naive.

In a legitimate health emergency, it is. I didn't say it was LEGAL, but if a family member of mine were bleeding profusely, and I were driving them to a hospital at two in the morning on a deserted road, it would be appropriate not to sit for two minutes at a red light. In fact, it would be "cerebrally impaired" to do so.

And please don't resort to the "Why didn't you call an ambulance" fallacy. (For the same reason the Denny's shooter wasn't in a mental facility.)

The courts have struck down the argument that it is the polices responsibility to protect the individual citizen, therefore the responsibility falls to me to protect myself and my family. I also have used a firearm in self defense.

In what way?
I never said "protect the individual citizen", I said protect and serve, as in to protect and serve society. The responsibility to protect the 'individual citizen' is irrelevent, to responsilibity to protect the whole populace of the US falls to the whole executive branch when it enforces laws that the judicial branch interprets and the legislative branch creates.

The bottom line is that a police officer walking the beat is put into dangerous situations more often than the average citizen, AND, by vocation, seeks to aprehend criminals. The police officer seeks out criminals, so he is around danger more. Unless a citizen seek out criminals (vigilantism is illegal, btw), he or she is not in as much danger as a police officer.

Wait wait wait, so you're saying that pointing out that the police get special priviliges is stupid? Well, i don't know, i think perhaps that you should be apologizing to all of us for even bringing it up in the first place.

Nope, in practice the police can actually run nearly any red light that they want. In any case, if you're trying to imply that when it comes to gun ownership if a family member of yours was bleeding profusely you'd be willing to break the law with your gun(this is all about gun ownership after all) than you don't really sound like a lawful, repsonsible gun owner to me.

I will respectfully decline to answer that question in all but the vaguest of terms.

I was able to convince a person attempting to commit a felony on me that it would be a bad idea. Without firing the weapon.

That essentially describes the circumstances both times.

If I interpret the above correctly, if my life is only endangered once a year, my safety is irrelevant, compared to the risks encountered much more frequently by police.

Does that sum up your point?

(Must ... keep ... sarcasm... under ...wraps...) Uhhh, I think the fact that police and other emergency personnel are allowed to run red lights is known by everyone, and was actually the basis for this part of the discussion.

No, your argument is silly, or if I'm being charitable, a straw man. The comparison was made to running red lights, and that is the subject to which I was referring.

Yeesh. You said "I will refrain from calling your argument stupid; instead, I will call it what it is: Dangerously naive." How is my argument niave? I don't care to know the circumstances of your nonviolent gun battle.
Your safety isn't the issue. Aparently, everyone getting a gun and defending their right to own a gun is. I don't particularly care if you have a gun or not, so long as you don't shoot at me, but if you're going to make the argument I'm going to argue back.

If you're life is in danger, do what you can with the means you have to get yourslef out of danger. Does that mean you have the right to have a gun? Pfft, who cares? Does that mean you need a gun? Not really.

I was in danger today. I got cut off on the highway by a guy who would have oblitterated my Audi had I not done some serious breaking. Would a gun have saved me? Probably not. A few years back, a guy tried to mug me. He pulled a knife and I simply handed him the cash from my wallet. Could I have shot him? I suppose, but all that would have proven is that $50 is worth a man's life. I could have beaten him toi a pulp, too, but I didn't. I can't think of any realistic situations off the top of my head that absolutely require a firearm.

Do you think that it's within the realm of reality that the situation you described earlier could have been defused without a gun?

To address the police vs. you thing:

A police officer is trained, given a gun, and told uphold the law.
You go out and buy a gun because you think you or your family is in danger from something or someone.

There is a noticable difference between these two situations, and I'm going to explain it.

There are dangerous people in our society. Sometimes these dangerous people break the law. In breaking the law, these people are now criminals. Police men and women are trained and given a legal right to persue, investigate, arrest, and process criminals. In their job, they encounter dangerous people SO often that it makes sense for them to need to defend themselves from criminals with a gun. They put themselves into danger in order to safeguard our society.

You are a citizen. You are not responsible for the well being of anyone but yourself. You are not a police man or woman. If you were to buy a gun and try to go out and stop criminals, you would be a vigilante. Let's face it, you're not Batman, and you would really piss off the police. You are not in dangerous situations every day. You COULD run into one of the dangerous members of society, but the odds of that are slim (like the slim odds of winning a lottery). "But Will, do you really want me to play the odds with my family's safety?!" You already are. Odds play a role in how you defend your family. You are not taking steps to defend yourself from a monkey attack, because it is not likely to happen. You don't take steps to protect your family from flesh eating bacteria because you're not likely to get it. You don't take steps to protect yourself from cell phone radiation because the information about how dangerous it is isn't proven. You don't buy a gun to defend your family or yourself from an attack that's not likely to happen.

You've read through the various posts I've put on here where a handgun was used for self defense by non-police. I have luckily never been in a dire enough situation where a handgun would have made the difference between my life and my death, but there have been a few instances where I would have been more relieved to have had one with me, just in case.

The police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect you. NONE. They are law enforcement, not crime prevention.

Total BS. the citizen is in more danger because THEY are targets for predators. cops do not get robbed everyday, the average citizen does. Take a look at ALL the murders around any city, what kind of person is killed more? cops or the average citizen? When was the last serial cop killer compared to the last serial killer who preyed on non-police?

My safety isn't the issue? tell me will, if my safety is irrelevant, is your daughters?

Again, I'm amazed and dumbfounded that you have so little respect for life, especially your own. How many times would you have to be robbed and your family denied the things they need, like food, shelter, and security before you understand that YOU are responsible for yourself? I, for one, am tired of the 'billy bad ass' attitude that people have and THINK that they could just kick the ass of any skinny little runt with a knife or a gun. If the neigborhood animal decided to shoot you afterwards, would you feel differently about having a gun? probably not since you feel your life isn't worth saving.

talk about denial of reality. crime doesn't happen, its only a figment of your imagination. You've obviously stuck your head in the sand. It's that or what I'm really hearing you say is that YOUR life is more important than mine, marvs, or anyone elses so you would rather have us be victimized, criminalized, and murdered instead of the exremely improbably chance that you'll get shot with a random bullet from one of our guns. Way to show that religious compassion. :thumbsup: :rolleyes:

Just for my own curiosity:

dksuddeth, (#edit# or anyone else, since he's not online right now) I'd like to know what time it takes for you to (from a relaxed, eating your meal in a restaurant position) pull your gun, take aim and fire on a moving (60yr old tramp) target.

I'm not going to bother responding to all your post because this sums it up nicely. He never said crime doesn't happen. Neither did anyone else. But because your arguments are BS and you know it, you're trying to make it look like we're saying stupid shit that we're not actually saying. Distract, obfuscate, misdirect. Get the audience to look at the (fake, completely made up) bright shiny argument, and they won't notice that your arguments are full of holes.

Not that i've ever done it, but I have seen a few videos on the net as well as read some stories and I can tell you that those of us who are truly interested in our families well being, we are always on some sort of alert status. You train yourself to be when you have crime all around you. Incidents like THIS should show all of us that crime is too random not to, but I see that there are those of us with the attitude that theres no need to worry about the randomness. The 'It doesn't happen here' probably sat in the minds of most of those that were killed by 'randomness'.

It would take me about 3 seconds to go from relaxed to alert red. But, you must also remember that I've trained with firearms. I don't just have one sitting in the closet 'just in case'.

then don't, because thats exactly how I see your arguments also.

I've briefly mentioned this before but, it seems that when we read the exact same article we come to polar opposite conclusions.

Maybe it's genetic?

..and for the record, I couldn't care less how you choose to arm yourself, just as long you keep it sub-intercontinental. :thumbsup:

3rd dennys shooting in 3 days

So when is the bandwagon to start banning dennys?

The average citizen does not get robbed every day. That's just silly. I should also mention that non police outnumber police by a very substantial margin. If you were to run a fair comparison, you'd find that, BY PERCENTAGE, more police are killed than civilians. That's it.
I wasn't talking to you. Also, whenever we have discussions abot this, I make tha rgument about the statistics of various ways you are in danger. Then you misunderstand the point and get angry. Let me make this abundently clear: I'm not going to repeat myself.
Did I kick the guys ass? No. I gave him my wallet. Therefore, your acertion that I am the "Billy the Kid" type is unfounded and completly incorrect. As for respect for life, I said that $50 isn't worth me taking a man's life. Had you been in my situation, it seems (by your attitude in the posts) that you could very well have pulled a gun on the theif. I proved that was completly unnecessary because once he had the $50, he ran off. What is a "neighborhood animal", and why would it/he/she want to shoot me? If some person in my neighborhood were to want to shoot me (which is absurd because I know everyone in my neighhborhood, but whatever), he would need to take one of make 3 ways to get onto my property, all of which have security lighting. Once he loses the element of surprise, I have enough time to get myself, my wife and my daughter into the basement and into my bomb shelter. If he has a gun that can shoot into my bomb shelter, he deserves the kill. Of course, I've never had anyone come onto my property illegally, let alone with a gun to try and kill me, so it's really moot until that happens.
Crime does happen. Reread that so you uinderstand. Crime happens, but a gun won't make me any safer. As a matter of fact, buying a gun would make me less safe, espically if I followed the NRA rules for storing a gun. Because you are so convinced that guns help people, you'll never understand me. One of us has been indoctrinated.

As soon as you wrote "Way to show that religious compassion." you lost your argument. Once you leave the realm of the facts presented and the opinions about them and strike out at the other person, you've lost. This discusssion OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with religion, but you decided to bring it up to make your side seem more correct.

according to the 1994 FBI report '“Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, police were twice as likely to be killed with their own weapon.

robberies, rapes, murders....they happen every day. you choose to break it down to a percentage validation claim to support your argument that only law enforcement should have guns which really means that those civilian victims lives dont mean that much to you. I do not misunderstand your POINT, the only thing I misunderstand is that you are comfortable with the odds in your families favor of never being a victim. The one time you are wrong though could prove disastrous. I hope that works out for you. My family is worth more than that to me though.

I didn't say 'billy the kid', I said 'billy bad ass'. If you were 'billy the kid', you'd have shot him.

Yes, I would have pulled my gun and told him to back off and leave. I don't make alot and $50 dollars feeds my family, thats more important to me than someone who wants to steal it from me.

read up on the case of Hale Demar vs. willow grove illinois. Willow Grove passed a handgun ban in the 80s. Willow Grove is a nice little subdivision which has SOME crime, but nothing major. One nite, Hales house was broken in to, some stuff stolen including his SUV. The next nite, the same thief came back, opened the door with keys he had stolen the nite before and proceeded to rob the place. Hale then shot the thief with his handgun. Willow Grove tried to prosecute him for defending his home and children. The thief was NOT from his neighborhood.

All the while, the bad guys have free reign to take whatever they want.

and its been you. A gun CAN, notice i said CAN, improve the odds in your favor. Not sure how it would make you LESS safe. Whether you're assaulted by bat, gun, or knife and you are unarmed, you are at the assaulters mercy. The NRA rules for storing a gun are BS, in my opinion, and are there only to placate the brady bunch and their groupies. Because you are so convinced that guns will only make you less safe, you will not understand me.

I refer to a previous post by you where you claim your 'faith' would prevent you from taking a life. I can only assume that you would rather die at the hands of a murderer than to take his life. Tell me I'm wrong.

Note: here you say you have a firearm to protect your family; your family is worht a ton to you and you have a gun to protect it.

We all live with dangerous odds every day. The aforementioned almost car crash made me a statistic. I'm more likely to be involved in an auto accedent than be robbed or have my home invaded. Do I carry a gun in my car? Of course not.
Um, who cares? My point is that, despite the fact that my $50 could have bought food or medicine or whatever, I made the dicision that $50 isn't worth me trying to hit someone or shoot someone. I see life as being precious, no matter how one chooses to live it. If someone is a nobel peace prize winner, great! Thast person's life is no more or less important that someone who is so poor they have to rob people just to eat.
This is dangerous. Where do you draw the line? $40? $30? $5? How much is this vagrent's life worth to you?
You said "If the neigborhood animal decided to shoot you", which communicates that this person (or animal) is from my neightborhood. I answered your question. My situation applies no matter where the person is from. House invasions while the family is home durring the day are more trare than lightning strikes, so I won't even address that. If someone comes towards my house at night, the lights will turn on automatically, and not only will he lose the opportunity to surprise me, but I will know there is movement out there. The mear fact that the light turned on is a deturent. ALSO, my windows and drapes are closed at night, so he really wouldn't know where we all were in the house. Usually we're all in the master beedroom, which has direct access to the basement, and thus the bomb shelter. I have security doors which are locked at night, therefore he would have to come in throight the window. This situation becomes less and less dangerous for me and my family. Eventually, I just have to say, "I am more likely to be a lottery winner than have this situation happen, so planning for it by putting a VERY dangerous weapon in my house seems unnecessary."
You seriously underestimate police officers.
A gun could make me less safe because guns are weapons that can kill you and I have a 2 year old girl. Yes, I can take the necessary safe guards to ensure she can't get the gun, but why would I want to gamble with my daughter's life? So what if the odds of her getting the gun out of a locked drawer or safe are 1,000,000 to 1? You can't gamble with your family's safety!
I'm a pacifist, so yes. That doesn't mean I wouldn't take measures to defend myself in a given situation. If someone tries to hit me, I try to block. If someone shoots at me, I take cover. If someone shoots at my daughter, I get between the shooter and my daughter. I do take responsibility for the lives of my family, make no mistake. I simply refuse to become what I hate: a killer.

Will that gun protect you from a car crash? obviously not, but it COULD protect you from/during a carjacking.

IF, and thats a big IF, I can spare money easily, i'll give it to them, however, not all criminals will just take what you give them and leave IF they think you have more. I read news stories every day how people are shot first then robbed, or robbed and then shot to prevent witnesses, or robbed and shot because the robber didn't get enough. You may think me selfish when I say this, but so be it, my life is more important than the guy/girl who's trying to rob me/shoot me, because without me, my family suffers.

You'd be wrong, hopefully not dead wrong.

again, wrong.
fine, but does that give you the right to force those odds on me?

Fact: Tell that to 18,209 murder victims, 497,950 robbery victims, and 96,122 rape victims that the police could not help.
Fact: The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.' Well, except for politicians that receive taxpayer-financed
bodyguards.
Fact: There are not enough police to protect everyone. Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time.
• This is on-duty police. This includes desk clerks, command sergeants, etc. –
far fewer than 150,000 cops are cruising your neighborhood.
• There are approximately 271,933,702 people living in the United States.
• Thus there is only one on-duty cop for every 1,813 citizens!
Fact: Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
Fact: The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
Fact: 95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.Do I really? I don't doubt that most every cop out there WANTS to protect everyone. It's that feasibly they cannot.

you already do, you've said this yourself.

take this with every bit of sarcasm you can imagine, but i'll bet your daughter will be proud to know that her father died NOT being a killer....as she grows up without one.

Luke 22:36 - He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Had I shot at the guy, he wouldn't have cut me off.
IF you open your wallet and obviously grab all the cash you have...they won't think I have more. What if they want my watch? Fine, take it. Shoes? Sure, whatever. I don't carry anything on my person that's so valueable that I will threaten his or her life.
[QUOTE=dksuddeth]You'd be wrong, hopefully not dead wrong.
Show me I'm wrong.
Prove I'm wrong, don't just write "wrong".
No one's forcing odds on anyone. The odds exist. It's that simple. How much does a gun cost versus a security door?

I'm glad you brought that up. I'm a part of our society, and so are you. They are responsible for me and you and the rest of society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth Fact: There are not enough police to protect everyone. Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time. • This is on-duty police. This includes desk clerks, command sergeants, etc. – far fewer than 150,000 cops are cruising your neighborhood. • There are approximately 271,933,702 people living in the United States. • Thus there is only one on-duty cop for every 1,813 citizens! Fact: Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Fact: The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour. Fact: 95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.

So? You said: "All the while, the bad guys have free reign to take whatever they want." That means that cops do nothing. Did you know that sometimes criminals end up in jail? Did you know that the 150,000 police officers on duty don't all have their thumbs up their asses? 'Bad guys' do not have free reign. BESIDES, if someone is in my house taking crap, I don't care. Sio long as my wife and daughter are safe, nothing else matters. I can go without a TV or a computer. Even with a gun, is it a good idea to posture in a home invasion scenereo? What if you miss and he returns fire? What if he fires first and hits you? What if a stray bullet hits a member of your family? Your best bet is to do what you can to keep the home invader away from your family.
OMG! You have said that you are willing to take steps to protect your family from danger, odds me damned. Now I say the same thing in order to turn your argument around on you, and you don't get it? Do home invaders pose a risk? Yes, but a negligable one. Do guns in homes pose a risk? Yes, but a negligable one. Do you understand?
I don't know what kind of adult my daughter will grow up to be, but I hope she would respect that fact that I made the ultimate sacrafice without any serious regrets.
If I can't justify the killing to myself, then it's an unjustified killing; murder. 'Thou shalt not murder' is pretty straight forward.

If you're going off the bible for your directions about killing: the bible also says that it's okay to murder for reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night.

or he could have run you off the road in fear of his life. a ridiculous example.

and in some cases STILL hasn't stopped the murder afterwards.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/homeinvasion.htm
an interesting read.

Home invasions occur a number of ways. Criminals are starting to specialize in home invasions as well. Some imitate police and act like they are executing search warrants. Others cut phone lines, which also disable alarms. A gun can cost around $150. How much is the security system, doors, bars on windows, motion detectors?

it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community what part of that did you miss?

not ALL home invaders are interested in just robbery. A sizable percentage have much more serious crimes on their mind. If you train, you don't miss and if you DO miss, most of the time the invaders will flee upon hearing someone other than themselves shoot. On the chance that you have one of the more fearless kind on your hands, Like this darwin award nominee who states "he was a big boy and that 'I think I could take 'em,'" when told he could have been shot, have alot of ammo.

yes, I understand that you'll put the odds in favor of the home invader not doing anything to you/your family instead of the odds in your favor should they try.

If you've actually read/studied the bible and the teachings of christ, you'd know that your life is a gift from god and to not honor/protect that gift is an affront to god. You are seriously misinterpeting 'thou shalt not murder' to also mean 'thou shalt not defend thy life'. in your mind, is there any justified killing? would killing dahmer or gacy, before they had a chance to harm as many as they did, be justified? hitler? stalin? the BTK killer? how about mcveigh?

My intent was to put fourth a ridiculous example. Of course it IS comparable to the hypothetical situations we've been shooting back and fourth. If someone is intentionally trying to cut me off, then he is using a 3000 pouund weapon against me, giving me the right to defend myself and my family with whatever means necessary, right? I mean "my life is more important than the guy/girl who's trying to" cut me off, right? Why not pull a gun and try do defend my family? Well because it's obviously extreemly dangerous. If he has a car and I'm shooting at him, he very well could try to run me off the road. AIf I open fire on a home invader, he very well could pull a gun and shoot me. Despite the obvious sillieness of my example, there are comparisons to be drawn.
Yes, my way of simply giving the robber what he wants doesn't have a 100% success rate. Neither does pulling a gun, though.
I'll read it as soon as I finish posting.
Security doors start at about $50 and can go as high as $1000, just like a gun. But why, baed on your logic, would ou have only one gun? What if you're in thre bathroom when a robber strikes? Odds are your gun is in a den, living room, bedroom, etc., not the bathroom. If you buy several guns for several locations in the house, how is that different than buying one security door for each door?
I missed the part where it said anything about the responsibility of citizens, as the ruling was about police officers alone. It implied no lagal responsibility to citizens.
A sizable percentage? What size would that be?
And what is your response to that? It's not safe to not have a gun, but it's also not safe to have a gun? How do you reconcile that?
I'e studied the teachings of many religious figures, including Jesus Christ. My father is a Pastor, actually. We all know that an interpretation can't be argued with because we don't know who's right, therefore arguing over different perspectives of the bible and God's word is a big fat waste of time. Let's leave it at that.

Stopping people with the intent to hurt or kill is good. Killing people is not.

I have to apologize here. I was unaware that your example was someone 'purposefully' trying to cut you off. Knowing that, my answer would be IF you can feasibly get away and be safe, do so, just like people who carry guns for self defense. IF you can get away without firing, do so.

but, in my opinion, having a gun increases my survival rate more than if i'm unarmed.

At the moment, I only have one gun. I carry it on me inside the house so it's everywhere that I go. I'd have two, but the wife refuses to deal with one so I see no need to have an extra just lying around. When my stepson gets to an age I feel he's responsible enough, I'll train him and get him his own.

which means that law enforcement is not responsible for your protection, you are. I don't want you to misunderstand or misconstrue this ruling. Police are NOT responsible for your safety as an individual, only to the public in general, therefore if you call the police and are then killed before they get there, they are not liable. YOU are the ultimate responsibility for your safety.

A sizable percentage? What size would that be? I don't have an accurate percentage because the FBI and most law enforcement are still categorizing home invasions as burglaries/robberies. By frequenting the few pro-gun sites that I do, I read at least 1-5 violent home invasions (on average) on a weekly basis and authorities say this is slowly increasing. You'll read more on this in that link I posted earlier.

reconcile what? that the odds of your families survival is higher against a home invasion if you have a gun? thats pretty easy to reconcile.

interpretations can cause confusion, i'll agree.

nobody wants to kill people when they defend themselves.....ok, maybe some do. I'm not one of them. I don't want to kill, or even shoot, anyone and I sincerely hope that I never have to. But if there is ever a time when I'm forced into a situation of kill or be killed......better them than me. I love my family and wish to spend as much time with them as I can.

I understand what you're saying. I may not agree, but I understand.
If there was a sumation of my point in this big old discussion, it would be that while a gun could protect you, it also is very dangerous. Also, the idea that you would need to kill someone frightens me. 'Justifiable homocide' is a dangerous term. I'm not convinced that a gun can protect my family, and owning a gun is dangerous even when appropriate steps are taken to hide it or keep it locked away.
Understood. I'm starting to think that me using my family and you using your family is comparing apples and oranges. My wife and I are of one mind about violence and guns, and you and your family are of another opinion. I suspect the reason a gun would be inneffective in my house has just as much to do with our unwillingness to fire as it has with statistics and household defence measures.
I understand that, but the ruling does not limit the ability of the police, so it's simply an issue of legal liability. If a cop is driving by my house and sees the front door kicked in, I suspect that he will pull over, call for backup, and investigate.
I read the link, and it was a very good source of information. To me 1-5 home invasions a day seems kinda small.
(forgive my math, I'm pretty sure these are close)
Odds of being the victim of a violent home invasion : maybe 13,500,000 to 1
Odds of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1
Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1
Odds of being considered possessed by Satan: 7,000 to 1
Odds of finding out your child is a genius: 250 to 1 (Willravel crosses fingers)
Odds of writing a New York Times best seller: 220 to 1.
http://funny2.com/odds.htm
Reconcile the odds that having a gun in the home will lead to accedental injury or death versus the odds of successfully deterring a violent crimninal invading your home.
Thank you. I'd be more than glad to have a seperate conversation with you in philosophy about the teachings of the bible.
I know that you are a responsible gun owner. I never expect that you would derive pleasure from shooting at someone, or that you would seek out a confrontation. I know that only in the absolutely last resort fire your gun. My only concern is that people less responsible than yourself are a greater danger to society when they have a gun.

That may be and my wife doesn't help the issue much. She is a pacifist in that she doesn't believe that ANY life should be taken, yet in the same breath will tell you that anyone who tried to harm her kids would face death at her hands....and then she'll admit to being a hypocrite but thats how it is. She thinks I should feel the same way but then is glad that I at least have the capability of defending them, even though she doesn't agree with it...drives me :crazy:

again, I don't doubt that 99% of the police out there WANT to be able to, its just a sad fact that they can't protect everyone all the time. You have to be responsible for your/family safety/lives.

On my street, where the worst crime is generally a car being broke in to, has just ventured in to the robbery assault category. An elderly woman who lives on the far side of the street was followed from her place of work, knocked down in the driveway, and had her purse stolen. Luckily, she ended up with nothing but some scrapes and bruises but it could have been much worse. This lady now has my cell phone number and she is to call me if she sees anything suspicious or unnerving to her. crime has an ugly way of escalating in areas and I feel its just a matter of time before one or two home invasions happen in my neighborhood.

Seeing how I am the only one that carries it, except the two months I was working out of state, I'm confident enough that accidents won't happen. Now all I have to worry about is something happening while I'm not there. :|

No thank you. my head hurts enough at the end of the day just debating what I do now. :lol: maybe in the future though.

that should be everyones concern. Through the years many measures have been taken to do as much as possible to prevent that from happening. Nothing is foolproof though. I don't see how tighter gun control laws will work when DC, chicago, new jersey, and california have some of the strictest around, yet have some of the highest crime rates. Let those people, who have no violent criminal records, have the ability to defend themselves using the current laws in place.

Lol. Our wives would get along famously.
But having a gun isn't the only way to take responsibility for your/family safety/lives. Providing defensive measures, such as security doors, bars on windows, security systems, etc., are excelent ways to preotect your family without having a gun.
A neighborhood watch system is an EXCELENT way to prevent and deter crime. I know how nosey my neighbors are, and I am a member of our neighborhood watch program. I'm very sorry that woman was victimized, but elderly people could have difficulties firing a gun. She might have been better off with an aerosol or tazer.
Well, you are a responsible gun owner. Many people do not carry in their homes, so the gun is in a drawer, safe, hidden, etc. We are talking about the average gun owner.
Sure. I understand.
And in congruence with that, make sure the gun control people know what the hell their doing. I suspect that if the NRA were to take part in helping to draft gun control laws, they might be more effective. Unfortulatally, the NRA seems to think that gun control is a bad idea. It's a shame that we waste such a great possibility because of a few narrow minded old gun nuts.

I think that 'gun control' should consist of a background check only.
You will never be able to completely stop all illegal and straw purchases, but punish enough of the ones that do, severely, and you can certainly contain it.

Gun bans will never work without doing a nationwide sweep like new orleans after katrina and even then it would have to be done numerous times. That will never fly though. you'd get that uprising then.

the assault weapons/automatic weapons issue....this is going to sound crazy to you but I think that it should be completely lawful for people to own them....lots of them. I picture gang bangers afraid of doing drive by shootings knowing that they could potentially have the crap shot out of them by the angry people trying to put a stop to the killing in the streets.

ok, thats a fantasy of mine, I don't really wish for people to shoot wildly in the streets.

Back to the dennys shooting of yesterday
 

I'm trying to find a news link for this, but what i'm hearing is that Harold Hatley, 73, left his seat and confronted the gunman letting others flee to safety. The gunman shot Mr. Hatley 5 times, then turned the gun on someone else. RIP Mr. Hatley, your heroism should be honored.

Of course you can. Are there tracable bar codes on every gun? If not, then make a system that makes EVERYONE along the chain of sale from manufacturer to middle man to criminal responsible for a crime. That should clean things up very quickly. If those who sell guns want to avoid prosecution, THEY will solve the problem.
I'm leaving the gun ban thing alone.
:eek:

Well, whatever the solution, we need to work towards the common goal of disarming criminals. I think we can all agree on that. Whether you or I have a gun is personal choice, but it's very important to remove weapons as powerful as guns from the criminal element.

It's not justifiable to make ALL parties involved liable. Theres no justice in holding Smith and Wesson responsible because a grandfather bought his 21 year old grandson a 9 mm and then the grandson has it stolen only to see the gun turn up in a crime 5 years down the road.

If, for whatever reason, I get caught up in something and my gun is taken after i've been killed, why should the gun dealer or manufacturer be held responsible? That doesn't make any sense.

Do you not read your own posts? If a cop can have his gun taken away from him and get shot with it, a civilian certainly can. That's how it would make you LESS safe.

But then you also mentioned that in the $50 situation you'd pull your gun, which frankly is a pretty stupid move. You pull a gun that close to someone and you're BEGGING them to take it away from you. I'm starting to really wonder if you ever actually have been in a self defense situation. Those of us who have know that posturing with weapons is stupid, and would never try it.

Total bullshit. back in my retail days, I've been threatened by a shoplifter with a knife. I disarmed him, then held him till the cops got there. I was not at his mercy, he was at mine. Just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they know how to use it, or even to keep possession of it. And I'm damn lucky that the shoplifter was an idiot, because a REAL knife fighter would never have pulled it out and waved it menacingly at me, giving me the chance I needed to take the damn thing. A REAL knife fighter would've stabbed me without EVER showing me the knife. Which is why you are proving my point with every post you make. If you're attacked by someone with a weapon, and they actually KNOW how to use it, you are not going to have time to pull your gun, take the safety off, aim, and fire. You'll already be stabbed 5 times. And if he has a gun, he has the drop on you. He's already got his out and aimed before you pull yours. You lose. Period. The gun is NOT going to help you unless he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. And as I've proven, you don't always need a weapon yourself when you're up against someone like that.


Well I dunno about him, but my faith doesn't stop me from killing anyone, and if someone's trying to kill me, he'd better be successful or he's going to die. Yet I still don't carry a gun. Why? Because in all my years I've NEVER needed one. I don't even shoot them recreationally. And I don't have time to train well enough with them to be effective with them. I'd rather rely on my intelligence (don't go in the bad neighborhoods if I don't have to, avoid potential crime situations in the first place) and martial arts skills for my survival.

And I also call total and utter bullshit on your premise that arming everyone makes everyone safe. You having a gun does not make me safe at ALL. Especially after reading your discussions on how you would use the gun in various situations.

forget it, shakran. you're a murder statistic looking for an opportunity. good luck with that.

Because they have the power to stop the flow of guns to the black market. Moreso than any police or military, in fact. Let me put it this way, we hold cigarette companies responsible for their products, so why not firearms? In fact, why not tobacco, alcohol, and firearms? You continue to say that you have to take the necessary steps to protect your family. This is one such step. Yes, it's nopt perfect, but the idea is tto improve the situation. IF a gun control system can make a serious positive difference in the world, then police will need less arms, and we will have descalation instead of escalation. Descalation is the key to lasting peace and safety. A world wiuth less weapons is more safe, right?

You're better than this, dksuddeth. I know it.

Board rage..... My strongest objection against the average citizen lawfully carrying a concealed hand gun, in public, is that emotions rise, sometimes suddenly and uncontrollably. The words spoken in anger, can be retrieved with
a sincere apology. The shot fired in anger is not so easily retrieved.

It seems to me that when you talk to people, the ones who carry guns are more likely to say that they have been in situations where they needed it than those who didn't. Kind of like those who like to fight get into fights.

I was mugged once while delivering pizzas. They called up, sent me to an empty apartment and when I was walking out a guy walked towards me said "my friend is in the van behind you and has a rifle pointed at you" Would a gun have helped? Probably not. If someone tells you that their friend (who you cannot see because he's behind you) has a rifle pointed at you, you need to act like its true. There would be no possible way to draw a weapon and kill both of them before they could kill you.

He was probably bluffing because what are the chances that two people are prepared to commit murder over an unspecified amount of money between $20-200? Stranget things have happened though. There would have been one way to find out and in the end one of us would have been dead.

therein lies your mistake host. you believe that ALL people, once angered, have no control over their own actions. Thats simply not true. I get angry all the time but I don't lose control and start throwing things or hitting things. Likewise, I don't automatically go for a gun when I lose my temper. MOST of us gun owners are not the rednecks and hicks with small penises that anti gun nuts paint us as.

The one very key thing you are forgetting will, is the determination and ingenuity of an american. We are, for the most part, a do it yourself kind of people. At least when it actually comes down to it. People will either want a gun to commit a crime easily or want a gun to defend themselves the best that they can. With that determination, you'd have people making guns out of their own machine shops. No, it would not be assembly line speed and style, nor would it be the same quality, but it would still be a gun.

And this person DID NOT RESIST, and still got shot....just because.


are cops this insane in minnesota? Why do those in power and authority continue to tell the sheeple to not resist and take your chances you'll still live instead of fighting for your life?

What makes you think it would have gone different if he had a gun?

Tell me, once someone has a gun out and pointed at you, what good is your gun (even if it's stashed in your pants)? Do you think you can draw, aim, and fire before they get a shot off?

Not resisting IS the best thing to do. In most cases, if you comply it's over in a few seconds and they are out of there. Unless you walk around with your gun in hand pointed at everyone as they walk by, they have the element of surprise and their gun is pointed at you before you know it. I know, it works in the movies but this is real life.

Alot of people think that, but most of your criminals aren't that prepared.

watch this video. The bad guy walks in and has his weapon drawn already.

http://www.wimp.com/robbershot/

Sure, that is totally the same as a mugging that took place on a street where the robber is at point blank range. :crazy:

Also, that man was an asshat for opening up right there. First he uses a co-worker as cover then keeps shooting with a toddler right there. How close did he come to shooting the toddler?

How many shots did he fire? It didn't look like he shot the robber, where did the other bullets end up? I for one would like to get shot by an errant bullet because some jackass decided to play Diehard over protecting someone else's money.

well I see you're observation skills leave something to be desired.

The bad guy walked in with his gun out. The camera angle makes the child look closer than it really is, he was at least 3 feet away from the toddler. He used the coworker for cover to draw only, the coworker knew this and expected him to do this.

He fired 3 shots, all 3 hit. 1 was a through and through, which he has remedied by using a lower grain load now. This is someone I'd like having around to watch my back.

I say again, the bad guy already had his gun out, there is no telling whether he would have shot all 4 AFTER he got the money or not.

As an aside, the clerk/shooter is an NRA certified CCW instructor. After the shooting, the mother of the toddler signed up for one of his courses and obtained a CCW.

This was an incident that happened in OCT of 05 in ohio. The 'perp' was a college student just about ready to graduate, it was his first conviction ever, and now he's sitting in prison for 9 years.

If you think those are in any way compareble situations it's your observation skills that need work.

How nice for him to change his ammunition after someone could have gotten hurt because he played Rambo.

Good for him that nobody else got hurt and that lady wasn't pissed. I would have freaked out on that guy for escalating the situation like that.

http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/20...403bullet.html
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=355118

well, everything is subjective and best interpreted by those who have to deal with it.

How would you have felt if he HADN'T done anything and all 4 of them ended up dead? He saved their lives when they could have all ended up dead. dead is permanent, not shooting COULD have been a mistake he would have only been able to make once.

I also wanted to add, it's been said by many gun owners/carriers that I know that you shouldn't pull it if you don't intend to shoot, why shouldn't we maintain that standard when it concerns bad guys? should we just sit on our thumbs and think 'if i'm real still, maybe he'll just go away'?

I'm curious, in your two shootings of random injuries that you cited, was it ever determined that the gunfire came from a law abiding citizen licensed to carry? or from people that weren't carrying legally anyway and were in the process of committing crimes?


edit: found my answers. In the county of Los Angeles, with a population of over 8.5 million, only 400 private citizens have a license to carry a handgun. So the odds are pretty damn high that she wasn't hit by a licensed owner anyway. I see that the second one is in wisconsin. Since Concealed carry there isn't legal anyway, only open carry is (and in any major city is going to get you arrested for disturbing the peace regardless), odds are that that shot came from a criminal as well. So what relevance do those two shootings have when it concerns licensed and trained citizens obeying the law?

I agree there. It's useless just to show it. If you pull it, shoot instantly and don't miss.

-edit-
I may have misinterpreted your response, my response was concerning defensive purposes only. For a bad guy, it makes sense to have the gun drawn during the robbery. That way people will take you more serious. A LOT of armed robberies take place every day. The overwhelming majority end with nobody being shot. Based on the statistics, its safe to say that in almost all situations, if you follow orders and don't try to be a hero, nobody will get hurt.

Of course, if you have data showing the number of armed robberies, along wtih the number of shootings that was broken down between victims that complied and those who didn't, I've love to see it.

What difference does it make? A CCW permit is worth as much as traffic school when it comes to training and experience required to earn it.

The point is when you start shooting you put everyone within range at risk. Even people sitting in their homes are at risk. Your right to protect yourself does not include allowing you to hit a bystander with an errant bullet.

Care to back that up? I see people openly carry all the time in Phoenix. I prefer open carry because it makes a statement. Concealed carry should never be legal. People on the street have a right to know if the guy next to them is packing. Business owners should also have the right to not allow weapons of any kind in their stores and concealed carry gives someone the opportunity to sneak in with a gun.

that may be, but i like being alive and would rather not pin my hopes of staying alive on the odds against someone who's already committing a violent crime.

I've never looked that up personally, in fact, not sure i've read that anywhere. i'll see what i can find. the only foreseeable issue might be in classification. I don't think law enforcement adds a subcategory of homicide related to robbery. but we'll see.


What difference does it make? Do you think the criminals give a damn whether they hit an innocent bystander? I assure you that law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry DO give a damn. THATS why they (they as in most, not all) go to the range regularly and a hell of a lot more than some cops do. less than 1% of all shootings by legally licensed carriers EVER hit an innocent bystander. compare that to how many are hit by criminals.


Open carry is perfectly acceptable by most everyone in arizona, thats why my wife and I will be moving there after her kids graduate high school in a few years.

Open carry in any rural area of wisconsin will hardly go noticed, however, if you carry in any heavily populated area, you WILL attract the attention of law enforcement and if someone freaks out and dials 911 about 'man with a gun', you'll get cited for disorderly conduct. I've read too many stories of people getting harrassed for doing something that is perfectly within the law(open carry) because some freaked out anti-gun person doesn't want it to be legal. Believe me, I'd much prefer open carry in all 50 states myself. It just isn't going to happen with all the people who hate/fear guns.

I posted this story a couple of days ago. Sadly, this man died today.

Yeah, if he had had a gun maybe they would have shot him while he was trying to pull it out.

and maybe he could have shot the bad guy, or at least scared him away. half a chance is better than no chance at all.

What proof do you have that he would have a better chance to survive if he has a gun? And please don't say "common sense", because there seems to be a very definate divide in what is or is not common sense in this thread.

We don't know enought about the situation to make judgment calls like "if if had a gun he would have survived". We don't know that. What if the theif was a well trained gun expert, and the man who was robbed was only a novice? We simply don't know....so it's all speculation, which does none of us any good.

his corpse should be enough proof. he's dead now, he MIGHT NOT be if he had a gun.

again, half a chance is better than no chance. he might still have died, but he might have lived also. As it stands, he's just dead.

He might have survived without a gun. There were a thousand times a thousand variables at play in the scenereo that led up to this man's death, and pretending like we know having a gun might have effected the outcome is silly without some fundamental understanding of both the situation above, and general situations involving armed robberies. You can't just claim a statistic and therefore it's true. I could just as easily have said, " he would have had even less a chance to live had he been armed", and without proof, it would have been just as true as your statement. I'm from Missouri, show me the proof.
The victim might have lived if the robber with the gun was on heroin, so we should legalize heroin!!!

Edit: I'm an anti gun, hippie from California, and you are a gun loving guy from Texas...are we walking cliches?

Will, he is dead. He did NOT survive without a gun.

whats not to understand about the situation above will. he's dead. he was unarmed. If he was armed, he might still be dead...MIGHT, but he might now be alive.

how is less of a chance to live when you're dead?

thats irrelevant, although if the robber was high, he might have missed. I'll grant you that.

about a hundred years ago, you guys were gunslinging gold panners. what happened? :lol:

Well, like I said, we are talking about statistics here. The odds are that I would have responded now, but I could have read the post and decided to check back later to see if Filtherton reposts. I might not have tripped on my rug when I walked in the door from work today. I did trip, but there are odds that I might not have tripped. If you believe in time streams, all things that can happen do happen, but we'll leave that alone for the purpous of this conversation.
If the victim was made of steel, the he have survived. If the man with a gun had a stroke, the victim might have survived. Having a gun is just another variable, no more important than the next. It does not validate or invalidate your ascertion that the situation above shows that guns can protect people.
As usual we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which the outcome of the story above might have been changed by our variables. The man is dead, saying "if he had a gun..." is moot. He didn't have a gun. Before the moment of death, there were many different variables that could have effected the outcome, be the variable the victim having a gun or the robber being hit by lightning.
It's no more or less relevent than having a gun. The man obviously didn't have a gun, and he died. What I am saying is that putting those two facts together - the victim dying, and the victim not having a gun - does not prove your point; the point that guns save people.
The 60s I suppose. I'm not sure why the 60s created such a fundamental change here in hippyland, but not there in Texas. Maybe it's because we in California are closer to Vietnam, geographically.

A meaningless point. Last week I covered a story where an old man died after being accidentally run over by a car. He didn't have a gun either, but the outcome wouldn't have changed if he DID have one. Just because the guy, without a gun, died does not mean the gun would have helped him one iota.




The gold ran out ;)

They were already being held at gunpoint. Pulling a gun out while being held at gunpoint by someone who is already planning on killing you has a very high probability of ensuring that you die sooner. Unless of course, the guy who got shot also had a hypothetical premonition to go along with his hypothetical gun and pulled his first. Unfortunately for the victim, american law doesn't allow for preemptive strikes.