It is well known and, quite frankly, self-evident that one’s vicinity to a gun increases the likely hood that one will be shot.
Fact: In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
So. I can’t figure out how this works.
If you love your family, or course, you want to protect them. Statistically speaking, keeping a gun in the home will triple the chances one of your family will be shot.
And since the chances of ever needing a gun to protect your life (unless you live in a war zone) are infinitesimal, the only other justification is to protect property.
Doesn’t that mean gun owners are putting protection of personal property ahead of the lives of family, friends and neighbors?
Lets be honest. In the face of these simple facts, you’ve got to be dangerously uninformed or paranoid to keep a hand gun in your home.
I’ve posted some more thoroughly documented facts below for consideration.
Self Defense
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—
- 1.3 unintentional deaths
- 4.6 criminal homicides
- 37 suicides
In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.
- Of these, 8,503 (one half) were committed with handguns.
- Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)
The Second Amendment
No gun control law has ever been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds. Such laws include federal bans on machine guns and semiautomatic assault weapons as well as local community bans on the sale and possession of handguns.
Every federal Court of Appeals that has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment has held that it protects the right of states to maintain a militia, not an individual right to own a gun.
- In 1981 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “possession of a handgun by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms.”
- In 1976 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted “the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states.”29
#1 by jdberger - May 27th, 2008 at 10:53
Cliff? Could you please restate the question?
I think that I understand the first part, and if so, the answer would be, Yes, the aged, infirm and disabled should be allowed to carry handguns, assuming that they aren’t otherwise disqualified under GCA ‘68. In this case, a handgun is a “force multiplier” for them.
I don’t understand the second part of the question.
#2 by Bob S. - May 27th, 2008 at 11:04
Cliff,
Actually, I’m advocating all citizens carry handguns. In the gun banners own words, if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?
So what level of predatory violence is acceptable to you Cliff? 0.01% of the people being assaulted, raped or mugged? 0.5%?
When do we say enough is enough and no predatory violence is enough?
One of my favorite quotes (as you can imagine)
Would villains be so willing to rape, rob or assault if they might get hurt by their victims instead? No, results from the states that have loosened concealed carry laws show that predatory violence decreases when gun control laws are decreased.
But the converse is not true, I have posted earlier, there are no studies that show the effectiveness of gun control laws.
I notice you still aren’t owning up to the Kellerman study, Did you knowingly post data that was flawed?
#3 by Cliff Lyon - May 27th, 2008 at 13:29
Wow Bob,
Thanks for your honesty; “I’m advocating all citizens carry handguns.” A more diplomatic person would say, thank you for your opinion.
Not me. I thank you for your honesty and for the confirmation that you are in fact not worth having a discussion with because your are completely insane and criminally stupid.
The saddest part about the human condition is that there really is no God, because if there were, she would have warned you about getting shorted in the brain department.
And then, you would have known that your intellect is well below average and thus you should ignore yourself less your mind-numbing stupidity gets you in trouble (which I imagine it has on a regular basis, for which reason you remain anonymous.
I’m sort of glad the NRA can count on people like you to remind the rest of us what idiots I’m being generous) you and your NRA friends really are.
I just feel sorry for the next guy who makes the mistake of asking you for the time. He’ll likely end up with a bullet the fleshy part of the thigh (assuming people of your sub-human intellect can’t shoot too good either).
#4 by jdberger - May 27th, 2008 at 13:49
What’s your objection to Bob’s proposal, Cliff?
I mean, when you’re done hyperventilating - please elucidate.
Really, Cliff - with this level of anger you are displaying, don’t you think that you should divest yourself of your guns? You really don’t sound like the most stable of individuals.
#5 by Utah Mom - May 27th, 2008 at 14:03
This story makes ya wanna move, don’t it?
Dealer Offers Free Gun With Car Purchase
POSTED: 9:26 pm CDT May 20, 2008
UPDATED: 10:30 pm CDT May 20, 2008
BUTLER, Mo. — A local car dealer is holding a controversial promotion involving guns.
Max Motors in Butler is offering anyone who buys a car the choice of $250 in gas or a free semi-automatic handgun.
“Like I say, it’s a choice — protection or gas,” said Walter Moore with Max Motors.
Moore said he came up with the gas or guns promotion.
“We got high gas prices, theft, carjackings, innocent people getting hurt,” Moore told KMBC’s Chris Nagus.
So far, the handgun is a more popular choice.
“Right now were running 80 percent toward the gun,” Moore said.
“Love guns, we all need to have guns,” said Jerry Hertzog, who was buying a new truck. “Guns or gas or fuel, I’ll take the gun anytime.”
But the idea isn’t popular with everyone. One viewer told KMBC that he believes the promotion is dangerous.
“I don’t understand what’s the bad idea. Telling people they have a right to protect themselves,” Moore said.
Moore said most of his customers already own weapons.
“I get in a vehicle to bid a trade, there are guns in the seats, guns in the back windows. Everybody has a gun — there’s no backlash,” Moore said.
Moore said the dealership will hand the customer a certificate to get the gun, but you must pass a background check.
The local police chief said he is OK with the promotion as long as the weapons aren’t handed out at the dealership.
#6 by jdberger - May 27th, 2008 at 14:05
Here’s something funny… with all the nutty aspersions that Cliff (and some of the other antis) cast upon us gun owners -
that we’d shoot someone for asking the time, are on a hair trigger, are mentally unstable, care nothing for human life, are degenerate rednecks, etc…
-they feel awfully safe insulting us.
Clearly, you realize that the opposite is true.
#7 by jdberger - May 27th, 2008 at 14:44
You bet, Utah Mom… Butler, Missouri looks to be a DANGEROUS town….
Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forcible Rape 0 0 0 1 0 0
Robbery 1 0 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 24 33 10 7 5 0
Vewwwy scawwy…..
Let’s compare that to SLC….
Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 18 11 17 15 10 8
Forcible Rape 121 109 79 92 72 95
Robbery 481 478 503 465 417 507
Aggravated Assault 546 635 695 756 784 884
And just for fun, how about a comparison to my neck of the woods - where guns are highly restricted (State handgun card, 10 day wait, no “saturday night specials”, “Safe gun” list, no gunshow sales, no person to person sales, no gunstores in city limits, no “assault weapons”, lots of “peace activists”).
Oakland, California
Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 84 108 109 83 93 145
Forcible Rape 295 249 268 262 306 306
Robbery 2,125 2,452 2,474 2,190 2,672 3534
Aggravated Assault 2,826 2,852 2,762 2,616 2,621 3614
Yup.
Hooray for gun control!!
Sorry about the editing.
#8 by Bob S. - May 27th, 2008 at 15:52
Cliff,
Insult me all you want, it doesn’t matter. I give your opinion of me exactly what it is worth…a minute of humor. I find that when the anti-freedom crowd can’t refute a argument they attack the person. So far you are right on track. Every time you go for the insults, I know that you are out of arguments.
Just to be a little mean; when you say
Is that because you aren’t being honest? You wanted Alan Korwin to support his numbers, can you support the Kellerman study? Nope, and you won’t even admit whether or not you know it was flawed when you used it.
What’s wrong with wanting everyone to carry a handgun? Note the phrasing I’m only advocating it; not requiring it, not making it a law. It’s a personal choice.
I note you aren’t refuting the crime rates or the fact that crime happens everywhere. I note that you never answered the question about defending yourself or your family.
Do you have a sign in front of your home stating your principled stand of no firearms? Or do you have firearms in the home?
How about a nice day glow orange bumper sticker “Owner doesn’t believe in guns or violence”?
Concealed Carry is legal in 48 states and has been for years, care to support your assumption (of course you know what they say about assumptions) of violence by gun owners and carriers?
#9 by Bob S. - May 27th, 2008 at 16:07
Utah Mom,
I would discuss the reasonableness of offering a means of self-defense as an incentive, but I’m respecting your desire not to debate me.
Please let me know if this has changed.
#10 by Bob S. - May 28th, 2008 at 15:36
Cliff,
Read any good news lately? I did, found the following article…..maybe I’m not criminally insane after all.
The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
Let’s see how best to summarize this — a legally armed citizen stopped a murder. Maybe if we had more legally armed citizens, the murderers would be a little more reluctant to act.