Contrary to the liberal bias, academic analysis reveals society benefits from firearms in the hands of responsible citizens.
The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases, the court recognizes the right to bare arms is an individual right. Our founding fathers understood this individual right as the same as all rights protected in the Bill of Rights. Samuel Adams said in the Massachusetts convention that “the Constitution never be construed to prevent people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Additionally, John Adams said, “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” Additionally, the author of the second Amendment James Madison wrote in an article published on January 29, 1788, extolling the advantage of protecting the right to bear arms, lauding a broad based militia, and scorning governments that do not trust people with arms.
Statistics show that most criminals commit crimes with the intention of getting away with it. Justice Department studies of convicted felons reveal that over 80% would try to find out if a potential victim is armed. Further that 74% of burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot; while 40% did not commit specific crimes for fear that the victim was armed. Additionally, 57% of convicted felons feared being shot by citizens’ more than feared shot by police.
It would seem clear that guns are as valuable for civilians as they are to police officers, and for the same reasons. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Of the 2.5-million self-defense cases, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
The Department of Justice found that the majority of prisoners had owned a handgun prior to imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminal’s handguns were obtained from legal sources. Additionally, 82% of felons said that they would have no trouble obtaining a firearm when they were released.
The facts are compelling; states with right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime rates than other states. States with permissive gun control laws have shown 6 to 80 times less violent crimes than states with restrictive gun control laws. With a national average sentence served for murder of 7.7 years, and for rape 4.6 years, and in California 5.5, and 3.5 respectively, it is no wonder there is a lack of psychological deterrent.
Every academic scholar and criminologist who has switched his or her view of the gun control issue has moved away from the pro-control position. This suggests how heavily weighted the evidence is dispelling gun control advocacy once people look at the evidence.
Quite simply, the preponderance of statistical evidence contradicts the notion that more gun control laws will reduce crime. If they could, we would have a simple solution to the problem. But they do not, and thus we do not. Believing that gun control will reduce crime is only wishful thinking.
---------------------------- "I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies."
Hydragoat, it would be nice if you would specify which part of the argument you are referring to with your analogy. Also, if you are trying to compare gun control to mouse traps and guns to mice, your argument is flawed. Guns obviously can be used for good, or at least neutral purposes- ie. provide dinner for a hunter, shield off an aggressive invador, etc. I don't know of any desirable mice (except the kind you buy at the pet store). And if there were nice mice, we wouldn't want to kill them off with the bad ones. In the case of gun control, the bad ones will obtain their guns regardless of state controls. Let's give the good mice a chance to defend themselves. I'm often weary of the use of statistics in arguments because they're often misused. But in this case, they're not!
Originally posted by MarkDark15: Hydragoat, it would be nice if you would specify which part of the argument you are referring to with your analogy. Also, if you are trying to compare gun control to mouse traps and guns to mice, your argument is flawed. Guns obviously can be used for good, or at least neutral purposes- ie. provide dinner for a hunter, shield off an aggressive invador, etc. I don't know of any desirable mice (except the kind you buy at the pet store). And if there were nice mice, we wouldn't want to kill them off with the bad ones. In the case of gun control, the bad ones will obtain their guns regardless of state controls. Let's give the good mice a chance to defend themselves. I'm often weary of the use of statistics in arguments because they're often misused. But in this case, they're not!
Hydrogoat was making a simple point, that you can easily twist facts and stats around to support any viewpoint.
He used facts (where there are mice and roaches, there are exterminators and mouse traps) and twisted them around to support the absurd (exterminators and mouse traps cause roaches and mice).
Hydrogoat was making a simple point, that you can easily twist facts and stats around to support any viewpoint.
He used facts (where there are mice and roaches, there are exterminators and mouse traps) and twisted them around to support the absurd (exterminators and mouse traps cause roaches and mice).
Very flawed. The fact is where you had guns available to the average good citizen and took them away, you now have criminals that overpower the good citizens. That does not mean that the guns caused or started the crimes (guns are inanimate objects)people did. Only when you stop the criminals do you stop crime.
If I misspelled any words please forgive me. Pinto is off today getting his nails done.
Mike D
I hate violence! I hate it so much I am willing to kill anyone who tries to use it against me. -- Mike Waidelich
Hydrogoat was making a simple point, that you can easily twist facts and stats around to support any viewpoint.
He used facts (where there are mice and roaches, there are exterminators and mouse traps) and twisted them around to support the absurd (exterminators and mouse traps cause roaches and mice).
That much I gathered. I'm not too terribly ignorant. My post had two purposes. First, to ask which part of the argument was skewing statistics, and second, to say that I don't think any part of the argument used the statistics misleadingly. I appreciate the explanation of his simple analogy. Now, please tell me how it particularly applies to the statistics above.
originally posted by Day Breaker: James Madison wrote in an article published on January 29, 1788, extolling the advantage of protecting the right to bear arms, lauding a broad based militia, and scorning governments that do not trust people with arms.
Which, at the time, included his own. Shays' Rebellion demonstrated to many of Madison's generation the dangers to representative government of an easily-armed mob, and you see fewer calls to arm the countryside in its wake.
quote:
originally posted by mikeyd501: The fact is where you had guns available to the average good citizen and took them away, you now have criminals that overpower the good citizens.
See, there's a fundamental learning disability here that goes way, way beyond simple spelling errors. Tell me, mikey: how do you identify an "average good citizen"? But first, remember to do your research somewhere with the journalistic integrity of High Times--then dutifully report back to these boards!
___________
The world Julian wanted to preserve and restore is gone...the barbarians are at the gate. Yet when they breach the wall, they will find nothing of value to seize, only empty relics. The spirit of what we were has fled.
-Gore Vidal, "Julian"
Posts: 522 | Location: St. Albans, WV | Registered: February 03, 2004
Hydrogoat was making a simple point, that you can easily twist facts and stats around to support any viewpoint.
He used facts (where there are mice and roaches, there are exterminators and mouse traps) and twisted them around to support the absurd (exterminators and mouse traps cause roaches and mice).
Very flawed. The fact is where you had guns available to the average good citizen and took them away, you now have criminals that overpower the good citizens. That does not mean that the guns caused or started the crimes (guns are inanimate objects)people did. Only when you stop the criminals do you stop crime.
If I misspelled any words please forgive me. Pinto is off today getting his nails done.
It was meant to be flawed... he was giving everyone a lecture in introductory logic.
Hydrogoat was making a simple point, that you can easily twist facts and stats around to support any viewpoint.
He used facts (where there are mice and roaches, there are exterminators and mouse traps) and twisted them around to support the absurd (exterminators and mouse traps cause roaches and mice).
That much I gathered. I'm not too terribly ignorant. My post had two purposes. First, to ask which part of the argument was skewing statistics, and second, to say that I don't think any part of the argument used the statistics misleadingly. I appreciate the explanation of his simple analogy. Now, please tell me how it particularly applies to the statistics above.
I'm assuming s/he was referring to the post that began the thread.
A rare victory for common sense today with the 2nd Amendment ruling, although a no-brainer for historians, I can’t imagine the “horror” Liberals are feeling today as their thoughts are consumed by the “only if John Kerry could have”, or “Al Gore would of”, or if this only could have been after Obama, etc.
It still remains criminal that history, objective factual analysis, and common sense are oblivious to almost half of the Supremes. Regardless, the 2nd amendment is truly the last bastion of freedom.
I will celebrate tonight by buying our local Tinder Box Thursday night regulars (“The Man Pigs”) a round of Padron 4000 Maduro. Palm Springs, 6:00–10:00 pm if your in the area.
---------------------------- "I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies."
