United States Gun Control [Read the first post before posting, like, every bit of it]

[BigLutz]

That personal story is sad and all, but statistics mean nothing in terms of the individual. We're talking about the majority of women here.

Problem is I do not see even the majority of women who suffered abuse who may even have some mild form of PTSD, to suddenly go out on a shooting rampage.

Unfortunately life isn't all about sunshine and smiles, and a woman doesn't magically get confidence out of nowhere after being abused for so long. Why do you think the majority can't even bring themselves to leave in the first place? Those who do escape even have trouble in the future with relationships with a person who wouldn't even think to harm them.

Future Relationships aside, there is usually a breaking point in which they gain the confidence to leave, where they see that life would be better away than back with their husbands, which is why I would say they would be willing to shoot their husband to keep them from going back.

A gun shouldn't even be considered, as you have non lethal cheaper stuff you can use. Why would you even think to use a gun when stuff like that is freely available?

You do realize things like a Tazer and even mace does not automatically guarantee stopping power especially not at the same level of a gun, infact in the case of mace used in a compact inclosed space like a house, it can do more harm than good and block her vision as well. Not to mention there is a minimum distance a person has to get when it comes to either a tazer or mace, especially if the tazer does not shoot the barbs out but has to be jabbed against the skin, as such those things could only exacerbate the situation as now you have a pissed off, more powerful man, within arms length of you.

[WizardTrubbish]

http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-...224508338.html
A four year study published today by the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine shows that states with more gun laws have less gun deaths, supporting the crazy theory that less guns results in less killing.

[BigLutz]

http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-...224508338.html
A four year study published today by the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine shows that states with more gun laws have less gun deaths, supporting the crazy theory that less guns results in less killing.

"During the four-years studied, there were nearly 122,000 gun deaths, 60 percent of them suicides."

Hope they excluded this from their info, as some one wishing to commit suicide would just find another way to kill themselves. If they didn't exclude it then the whole study is rather useless.

[master3019]

Really? Because Chicago has the strongest gun laws, and the the highest murder rate. Is that logical?

[WizardTrubbish]

Really? Because Chicago has the strongest gun laws, and the the highest murder rate. Is that logical?

Highest murder rate? You're thinking of New Orleans, which has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.

Also, for a while, Chicago's crime rate's were going own, until 2010 when the Supreme Court ordered that Chicago loosen its gun control laws.

Finally, 58% of guns used in Chicago come from out of state

Gun laws are difficult to enforce at state and local levels because there's no border control, so I can bring a gun from a state with weak gun laws (such as Vermont) to a state with extremely strict laws (such as its neighbor, New York), and nobody would be able to stop me. If you're going to bring up Chicago, than fine, its merely evidence that gun control needs to be enacted at a federal level.

[BigLutz]

Gun laws are difficult to enforce at state and local levels because there's no border control, so I can bring a gun from a state with weak gun laws (such as Vermont) to a state with extremely strict laws (such as its neighbor, New York), and nobody would be able to stop me.

And THAT is the reason why very strict national gun laws is utterly stupid, as we have no border control on a national level that could stop the transport of guns.

[Cifala]

And THAT is the reason why very strict national gun laws is utterly stupid, as we have no border control on a national level that could stop the transport of guns.

you could get some

now there's an idea

[BigLutz]

Should be worth pointing out that a Marine with a Conceal Carry Permit was able to stop a woman from being beaten to death a few days ago.

A Marine Corps veteran was able to stop a man early Tuesday, March 12th from nearly kicking a woman to death. It happened near 102nd and Lincoln, and Wisconsin’s concealed carry law made his efforts possible.

Charlie Blackmore was driving home from work at 4:00 a.m. along Lincoln Avenue when he saw something on the sidewalk. Blackmore didn’t realize it was a woman on the ground being kicked in the head and stomach until he got closer.

That’s when he jumped out of his car and sprung into action.

“I said ‘stop’ and he starts coming towards me and that`s when I drew on him. He started getting closer and I said ‘get down on the ground,’” Blackmore said.

Blackmore held his gun on the suspect and called West Allis police. He says several times while waiting for police to arrive, the attacker moved toward him.

“I mean I’ve already made it up in mind that if he came at me I was going to have to take him down and I told him that. I warned him multiple times not to come towards me because he was a big guy and I wasn’t playing around and he didn’t seem like he was playing around,” Blackmore said.

http://fox6now.com/2013/03/12/marine...beating-woman/

[Sogeking]

Wouldn't a marine have the training to neutralize the man with or without a gun?

[BigLutz]

Wouldn't a marine have the training to neutralize the man with or without a gun?

Depends on the other man's size and own training, as well as the possibility if he had any additional weapons on him.

[ldsman]

Two well-written posts (IMO) on Gun Control/

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/bl...on-gun-control


Gun Control laws only affects the law-abiding. This leaves the law-abiding to be victims to those that willfully ignore laws. Why are the law-abiding being targeted by these laws? Punish those that break the laws and leave the rest of us alone.

[Pookey-man]

Guns are 12 times more likely to kill a household member than an intruder

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...-violence.aspx

Other sources said even more times more likely. A gun in the house is not worth the risk, unless you're living in some crime-ridden city.

[ldsman]

You left a word or two out of that quote. "member or visitor". Maybe because a number of crimes occur when a family member becomes angry?

It's cherry picked data.

They don't look at incidents were a gun stopped a crime without death or injury, they add in suicides when suicide rates don't change regardless of gun laws. They ignore outside factors like drug use, etc.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Banning an inanimate object won't help.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5


http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...6_1_screen.pdf

[Cifala]

Depends on the other man's size and own training, as well as the possibility if he had any additional weapons on him.

having taken martial arts I can say that the other man's size wouldn't be a factor, training possibly but tbh I don't think this one isolated incident wins you any points

[Phlogiston]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Banning an inanimate object won't help.

Unless you're implying that a firearm won't make a person more capable of harming a fellow human being, I'm pretty sure that constraining their ability to own or obtain a gun will help -- at least in theory.

People will still be able to get the restricted firearms through criminal means. They can be punished for it.

Assuming cops don't "look the other way."

That's kind of the big problem that people supporting legislature forget and/or ignore: it doesn't really do a whole lot if it's not enforced. Say what you will about other issues, but legislation without enforcement doesn't have a whole lot of point to it.

[BigLutz]

having taken martial arts I can say that the other man's size wouldn't be a factor, training possibly but tbh I don't think this one isolated incident wins you any points

Your problem is in the opening "having taken martial arts" you have been trained to overpower someone who has more size and strength than you. Have it as a knock down straight up fight with out such training, the larger, heavier guy is probably going to win as he can create more force with his punches.

By the way to think that this is an isolated incident would be incorrect. There are numerous stories when people with a CHL stop a robber, or a would be mass murderer, or even a rape, many of them go unreported or buried as they are far less scandalous than the actual event being carried out.

http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/stor...rbElEBOTQ.cspx
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...er-1691661.php

[Mye]

Not true. In average 1 on 1 combat, it usually comes down to speed (skinnier people) versus survivability/"endurance" (heavier people). Anyone can win a fight, it just takes strategy.

[Silvershark]

Finally, 58% of guns used in Chicago come from out of state

Gun laws are difficult to enforce at state and local levels because there's no border control, so I can bring a gun from a state with weak gun laws (such as Vermont) to a state with extremely strict laws (such as its neighbor, New York), and nobody would be able to stop me. If you're going to bring up Chicago, than fine, its merely evidence that gun control needs to be enacted at a federal level.

Which makes you wonder why those people's whose guns were seized took the time and effort to obtain a firearm out of state and then come back into a state with strict gun laws to commit their crimes. Maybe the lower probability of the average citizen being similarly armed has something to do with it.

[Pookey-man]

Unless you're implying that a firearm won't make a person more capable of harming a fellow human being, I'm pretty sure that constraining their ability to own or obtain a gun will help -- at least in theory.

People will still be able to get the restricted firearms through criminal means. They can be punished for it.

Assuming cops don't "look the other way."

That's kind of the big problem that people supporting legislature forget and/or ignore: it doesn't really do a whole lot if it's not enforced. Say what you will about other issues, but legislation without enforcement doesn't have a whole lot of point to it.

This^

It's hard to deny that guns make it far easier to kill a human.

[ldsman]

This^

It's hard to deny that guns make it far easier to kill a human.

Yes. A gun can enable an elderly woman, a small, gay man, a handicapped person, etc to defend themselves and others against a larger, violent person or groups.

There are plenty of gun laws already. Let's try enforcing those first, instead of adding more laws that will only affect the law abiding!