On 2010-06-16 00:53, MagicSanta wrote:
As a well known liberal I will say that NRA leadership has said in years past that they felt that anyone should be able to purchase any weapon the military has.

Let us look at the CDC numbers from 2002 or that is what it says (you know us libs, we alter some things) and what I think.
In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the US:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: This tells me one thing...gun owners ain't real mentally stable, quit shooting yourselves! It's messy.

11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: Let's face it, some of 'em had it coming.

762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
Santa: Oops! I say that will make a good article every month, some of 'em have to be funny.

and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Santa: There! Finally....that number is pretty low. Hmmm...seems that the need for a shooting for protection column is less needed than a shooting for accident.

Again remembering that I am such a hard corp liberal that I have an Al Gore tattoo made with organic ink, in fact I said no needles, I had 'em use bamboo shoots. The number you use for protection is skewed and don't make a lot of sense. I learned that most people who claimed to have went to Woodstock for the concert in 1969, you know, the real one, didn't go to the concert. There are more ex SEALs running around than there have ever been SEALs. And gun folks claim that they used guns to protect themselves even if they did not.

Sure if someone is attacking you then by all means use a gun if you have one and god bless you but the actual numbers of reported to police use of a gun for protection don't match up. Let's face it, virtually all violent crime is street crime and that means the use of a gun is out in public and would also mean it was concealed. Again, guns or yelling "get out of here ya liberals cuz I have a gun and will use it for other than suicide if need be!" doesn't really count now does it? Nor does the belief that if a gang doesn't beat down your door and rob you at gun point because they just 'know' you have a gun doesn't count either....except to those making claims they use guns for protection. The same can be said but from an opposite perspective for those who accidentally discharge a gun and didn't hit anyone. They are not likely to rat themselves out. So much for the numbers.

Hey, if you want to keep a gun in your house even with the knowledge that you are more likely to shoot yourself then go for it. Just practice a bit more, I mean in 1.5 supposed 'protection' events and you only shot 300 successfully? That is pretty bad.

In collecting some numbers I found a cute article about a cab driver who was in the NRA magazine column as protecting themself. Turns out she did shoot the robber and injured him, unloading her gun, a revolver. The robber then smacked her upside the head and took the gun, placed it to her neck, and pulled the trigger a number of times. Seems her shooting all her rounds is what saved her life because had there been a round in there she'd not have made the magazine.

Well, I'm off to drink tea and send out post cards made of hemp about global warming. Word.

On 2010-06-14 16:51, Dreadnought wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-06-14 13:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
(though, if my house were broken into by a couple of guys who "only" had knives, I'd still rather have a gun).

Not to be picky but the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bit skewed. Technically, a knife or any edge weapon could be the better weapon of choice in a gun vs knife confrontation.

Experts in the art of shooting, an not just someone who scores in the upper 97% on a qualification range, have proven that when confronted with an assailant with a knife, it takes approximately 15 feet of reactionary distance for an expert to draw his side arm and get a shot off should that person armed with the edge weapon attack.

Should that person with the edged weapon be a person accustomed to using an edge weapon, i.e. someone from a knife culture like Mexico, South or Central America or the Far East then the dude with the gun needs 21 feet of reactionary time to clear leather and get the shot off.

Should the guy with the gun aleady have his gun drawn and the assailant attacks, the gunman needs 18-20 feet of reactionary feet to raise and fire.

If the person is not an expert with a gun the reactionary time is much greater. This, along with the fact that body armor is not designed to stop an edge weapon, is why law enforcement officers who are confronted with an assailant with an edged weapon will often shoot to kill after one quick command to drop the knife. The optimum 21 feet is not a lot of distance as it can be covered in a second or less depending on the assailant. If confronted with an assailant armed with an edged weapon, then the person with the gun needs to have the decisive advantage in order to get the drop. Also an edged weapon can be anything that can cut, slice or puncture. I once worked a homicide where a person was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen, neck and groin with a #2 pencil.

Peace and Godspeed

On 2010-06-16 02:38, stoneunhinged wrote:
Destiny, it sounds like the current gun regulation in Germany is similar to Germany's.

On 2010-06-16 11:56, Destiny wrote:
By the way, Carrie - do you get your insight into the criminal mind from some factual source - or are you relying on your own legendary powers of perception?

On 2010-06-16 01:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-06-14 16:51, Dreadnought wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-06-14 13:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
(though, if my house were broken into by a couple of guys who "only" had knives, I'd still rather have a gun).

Not to be picky but the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bit skewed. Technically, a knife or any edge weapon could be the better weapon of choice in a gun vs knife confrontation.

Experts in the art of shooting, an not just someone who scores in the upper 97% on a qualification range, have proven that when confronted with an assailant with a knife, it takes approximately 15 feet of reactionary distance for an expert to draw his side arm and get a shot off should that person armed with the edge weapon attack.

Should that person with the edged weapon be a person accustomed to using an edge weapon, i.e. someone from a knife culture like Mexico, South or Central America or the Far East then the dude with the gun needs 21 feet of reactionary time to clear leather and get the shot off.

Should the guy with the gun aleady have his gun drawn and the assailant attacks, the gunman needs 18-20 feet of reactionary feet to raise and fire.

If the person is not an expert with a gun the reactionary time is much greater. This, along with the fact that body armor is not designed to stop an edge weapon, is why law enforcement officers who are confronted with an assailant with an edged weapon will often shoot to kill after one quick command to drop the knife. The optimum 21 feet is not a lot of distance as it can be covered in a second or less depending on the assailant. If confronted with an assailant armed with an edged weapon, then the person with the gun needs to have the decisive advantage in order to get the drop. Also an edged weapon can be anything that can cut, slice or puncture. I once worked a homicide where a person was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen, neck and groin with a #2 pencil.

Peace and Godspeed

Thanks Dread...interesting and illuminating.

On 2010-06-16 14:24, Dreadnought wrote:
Be careful of your surroundings, keep proper distance between you and the car in front of you.

On 2010-06-16 14:24, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The shotgun doesn't fit under my pillow.