Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Charismatic on February 18, 2009, 01:21:49 pm
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/banglist/index?tab=articles
"Illinois Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:05:16 PM · by KeyLargo · 28 replies · 442+ views
INSURANCE JOURNAL ^ | February 18, 2009
Midwest News Illinois Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance February 18, 2009 An Illinois state lawmaker is proposing that gun owners be required to carry personal liability insurance of at least $1 million. Rep. Kenneth Dunkin's bill seeks to amend the state's Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to provides that any person who owns a firearm in the state maintain a $1 million or higher policy of liability insurance "specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person." A gun owner... "
This for real? That's rediculous.
-
Why? To me, it sounds actually quite reasonable.
-
Sounds like the easiest way to limit availability of firearms in USA. Hitting directly the purse. It is of course a little bit questionable if one milloin dollars is the right amount, I would have gone with 20 000 $. This, of course, applies only in ideal world.
I'm afraid that the only thing this legislation will do is increase the demand of black market arms.
Mika
-
I'm afraid that the only thing this legislation will do is increase the demand of black market arms.
Which is the most significant flaw with gun prevalence in the US. This law will only hurt the responsible.
-
If a person is already going to break the law with "willful acts" with a firearm, why would needing insurance deter them? This is just another stupid bill that looks good theoretically. Restricting ownership and availability of firearms only increases the chance that someone who disobeys the rules will cause more damage. It's a pretty serious deterrent if any of a half-dozen people can stop a would-be criminal if he/she chooses to strike.
For example: Would it be more risky for a criminal to rob a convenience store when it is almost assured that no one there will have a weapon, or to rob a convenience store when every person there could have a weapon. More of the upright, law-abiding citizens are being hurt by this than any would-be gunman.
-
Guns for all, i say.
But im actually surprised, no one said its fake, yet reasonable. Also suprised at only 4 replies.
-
From what I've read it's real HB45 or something. It also includes things such as requiring all firearms to be licensed, no transfers of firearms without a licensed dealer (including inheritances). So basically you can't leave you guns to your family in a will.
Found a link on our towns local site mud slinging forum: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
Actually I think this might be 2 different bills one national and one state probably by the same person. The one I posted mentions nothing about insurance.
Edit again: 2 different guys both from Illinois.
-
So basically you can't leave you guns to your family in a will.
Where do they go?
-
My guess is they are declared illegal firearms and melted down just like any other illegal gun.
From what I heard this all stems from a quick public outrage over a tragic shooting.
-
....
:wtf:
Freaking bribes.
-
Why not just go for a Gun Registry act? It costs next to nothing for the gun owner (in Canada at least) and insurance is usually offered as an option, not a requirement.
-
I'm not sure how this will stack up against the second amendment, since basically its infringing on people's right to bear arms. It will certainly go to the supreme court if it gets passed, NRA(for good or bad) will see to that. Quite frankly it seems pretty useless piece of legislation, people who use firearms illegally are usually getting them illegally. It's certainly not going to curb gang violence or organized crime its basically going to screw over folks who legally own a firearm.
A don't subscribe to the idea that if everyone had a gun there would be no violence (hell just go to Mogadishu were you can buy a Kalishnokov at the corner store real peaceful there) but this certainly isn't going to curb most violence and is basically going to infringe on responsible folks' rights.
-
You don't need a gun registry, you don't need to ban guns altogether, and you certainly don't need this outrageous insurance. Basic education:
1) Always treat a weapon as if it's loaded.
2) Safety = ON
3) Do not point gun at face.
* If helplessly retarded, do the exact opposite as suggested, and pull trigger. There will be a slight tingling followed by 72 virgins**, an unlimited supply of cake, and lots and lots of neat little shiny things.
** Virgins may not be female.
-
I think you're missing the point here guys. It's like claiming car insurance shouldn't be mandatory because some people don't get it and still crash anyway. Car insurance is there to cover you for accidents, not wilful negligence.
I very much doubt you could persuade the insurance companies to go for "Stupidity Insurance" anyway. Given what bastards insurance companies are I very much doubt that they'll pay out for illegal use of a gun, same as they won't pay out if you crash your car while driving with your feet while drunk. :p
-
Kids take their parents' legal weapons to school and then shoot their classmates.
Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.
-
Kids take their parents' legal weapons to school and then shoot their classmates.
Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.
For something they didn't do? Why should we punish every single gun owner in the U.S. because of a few mistakes. mistakes being the key word there. It was not premeditated, deliberate, or in any way willful.
Next time, please phrase it so it doesn't look like all kids are homicidal maniacs. </nitpick>
-
My point is more that guns are effing dangerous and there should be frigging laws about what kind you can have lying around in your house. Nobody whines about switchblades being illegal.
If someone like me can get a gun license and a gun (and in a few months, I can) then there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things.
-
oh yeah lets make it so only the rich can afford to have weaponry, what could possibly go wrong with that.
-
Kids take their parents' legal weapons to school and then shoot their classmates.
No, the parents of THOSE kids should be punished.
Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.
How about everybody with a car getting 2 hours in jail (legal car owners punished. Just a little) because some 16 year old d!ck took his parents' car and killed a police officer (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/feb/19/190826/hernando-sheriffs-captain-killed-brooksville-car-c/news-metro/)?
A don't subscribe to the idea that if everyone had a gun there would be no violence (hell just go to Mogadishu were you can buy a Kalishnokov at the corner store real peaceful there) but this certainly isn't going to curb most violence and is basically going to infringe on responsible folks' rights.
Well I wouldn't compare a war zone to the US. What about Gun Town, USA (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288) vs Chicago?
Or Switzerland vs Chicago?
(I took Ch-go because there are pretty restrictive gun laws there).
-
Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.
Maybe legal taxpayers should be punished. Maybe people who aren't murderers should be punished. Maybe people who aren't rapists should be punished. Maybe babies should be punished.
How about this: Every single time you don't commit a crime, you have to pay a 0.001 cent fine?
My point is more that guns are effing dangerous and there should be frigging laws about what kind you can have lying around in your house. Nobody whines about switchblades being illegal.
There are laws like that. Why do you think it's such a big deal that the VT shooter had automatic pistols with extended clips?
If someone like me can get a gun license and a gun (and in a few months, I can) then there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things.
True, but doing a psychological evaluation of every person who wants to get a gun is less practical than banning guns. They figure most people actually value human life to some extent, which oddly enough, is true.
I think you're missing the point here guys. It's like claiming car insurance shouldn't be mandatory because some people don't get it and still crash anyway. Car insurance is there to cover you for accidents, not wilful negligence.
I'm think I understand what you're trying to say, but if the intention of this really was similar to car insurance's, it would cost a lot less. Cars can kill people, too, and they're a lot more expensive than any gun a normal person would own. I feel that a $1 million insurance policy for guns is obviously an attempt to reduce gun ownership without blatantly disallowing people from having guns.
It looks like most other people here have made this assumption too, but it just might be the hostile media effect, I guess. :p
-
oh yeah lets make it so only the rich can afford to have weaponry, what could possibly go wrong with that.
Seconded.
Wait, everyone who gets a gun has to take a psychological test?
If someone like me can get a gun license and a gun then there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things.
Why? Near everyone should be allowed to have guns. Guns are for protection; some ppl are idiots, granted. But its like with cars, some people abuse them. But why say we should severly limit the rights to cars?
-
We do limit the ability of people to have cars. First you must have proved you can drive a car safely in order to get a licence. Then if you do abuse your right that licence is taken away from you.
AFAIK there is no need to prove you can handle a gun in order to get a licence for one. Even many people in favour of 2nd amendment rights think that there should be.
I'm think I understand what you're trying to say, but if the intention of this really was similar to car insurance's, it would cost a lot less. Cars can kill people, too, and they're a lot more expensive than any gun a normal person would own. I feel that a $1 million insurance policy for guns is obviously an attempt to reduce gun ownership without blatantly disallowing people from having guns.
It looks like most other people here have made this assumption too, but it just might be the hostile media effect, I guess. :p
Might simply be that pay outs for gun insurance would be less common than for car insurance even if they are bigger when they do need to pay out.
That's especially true if the companies only pay for accidents.
-
Has nobody realized a VERY simple fact?
$1 million liability insurance costs about a total of $60 a year. If that.
-
I'm required to have car insurance, that's much more expensive than $60 a year.
-
If someone like me can get a gun license and a gun then there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things.
Why? Near everyone should be allowed to have guns. Guns are for protection; some ppl are idiots, granted. But its like with cars, some people abuse them. But why say we should severly limit the rights to cars?
I can't have a driver's license. So... yeah. Guns should be harder to get than cars.
-
Why? Near everyone should be allowed to have guns. Guns are for protection; some ppl are idiots, granted. But its like with cars, some people abuse them. But why say we should severly limit the rights to cars?
Guns are for protection, yes. But nearly no-one in the Netherlands carries a gun (Just people who have a good reason to own one, IE people who use them regurlary for a job/for a hobby. And even then you don't get it before you've had the psycho-analylist (whatshisname?) give you the green light), and we have been able to defend ourselves just fine.
-
I can't have a driver's license. So... yeah. Guns should be harder to get than cars.
Okay, lemme check this for a second. YOU can't have a drivers license, therefore.... guns should be harder to get? Not sure I follow there.
AFAIK there is no need to prove you can handle a gun in order to get a licence for one.
The gun 'right-to-carry' permit is issued only after background checks, waiting periods, and any applicable child protection laws, varied by state.
To put it simply, there is a need to prove you can handle a gun to get a license for one.
-
Doesn't that strike you as wrong? You aren't allowed to handle a car until you have passed a test to prove you aren't going to kill yourself or other people with it due to your lack of understanding but a gun is perfectly fine?
-
That would be because you don't drive a gun around that you can hit people in. A car is just a little more deadly when someone who doesn't know what they are doing tries to use them.
That, and there isn't an amendment in the constitution about 'the right to have a car'
-
Doesn't that strike you as wrong? You aren't allowed to handle a car until you have passed a test to prove you aren't going to kill yourself or other people with it due to your lack of understanding but a gun is perfectly fine?
Shocking as it is, on this aspect of gun control I agree perfectly with Kara. You should be required to attend some form of gun safety classes, and also prove you can consistantly hit a target at a range of twenty feet.
-
I'm better at shooting than driving. :3
-
God, more Americans whining about guns. As a nation, you'll grow out of it someday. I hope :(
-
God, more Americans whining about guns. As a nation, you'll grow out of it someday. I hope :(
Self-righteous, much?
Doesn't that strike you as wrong? You aren't allowed to handle a car until you have passed a test to prove you aren't going to kill yourself or other people with it due to your lack of understanding but a gun is perfectly fine?
Shocking as it is, on this aspect of gun control I agree perfectly with Kara. You should be required to attend some form of gun safety classes, and also prove you can consistantly hit a target at a range of twenty feet.
This isn't a bad idea, as long as the tests and classes are relatively cheap, considering how it does prevent people who actually want them wouldn't be prevented from having them. Even if people still get around it, at least there would be that many more people who would know how to use them properly. But 20 feet is a little close. Even at 50, it's kinda hard to miss most targets.
-
Are you from the UK, Canada, or Australia?
-
God, more Americans whining about guns. As a nation, you'll grow out of it someday. I hope :(
Self-righteous, much?
By definition, yes. And I'm comfortable with that.
-
God, more Americans whining about guns. As a nation, you'll grow out of it someday. I hope :(
Self-righteous, much?
By definition, yes. And I'm comfortable with that.
Oh. I just said that because that post came across to me as a bit snobby, and I guess I've seen enough people on the intarnet generally being dismissive of America to see that stuff where it's not. To be honest, that stuff is more ridiculous than most of what's actually going on in America, this included.
EDIT: Yeah, to be honest, as a more libertarian person, I'm a bit offended that you're appalled at me disliking these controlling laws and stuff, but I guess your feeling isn't uncalled for regarding the people who just love blowing stuff up. Well actually, it is a bit uncalled for regarding that, too, but not much.
-
I find it hilarious how most Americans who want to do something about gun crime think the solution is to legislate more.
Why is this amusing to me? Because of the reason they pursue such a solution - they're afraid to challenge the cultural issues that lead to gun crime in the first place.
-
I don't promote gun laws to stop gun crime. I just don't like the retardo gun culture.
Owning a gun would do nothing for most people as far as protection goes. Taser gun thingers would be the better route. Not lethal, so people would be more likely to use them.
-
America's debate over gun rights always strikes me as a classic case of one of those collectively understood lies; Everyone knows that the real reason they want the right to own guns is because they think guns are awesome, and they know that everyone else thinks that too. Our nation's entire history is imbued with the totemistic fetishization of guns, but unfortunately the sweet, ejaculatory release that millions of Americans experience from the discharge of a firearm doesn't quite make par as the basis of a Constitutional right, so we've all decided that it's actually about the inalienable rights of men. (It is the second thing after free expression, so the Framers didn't exactly make it hard for us to get there as long as we abstain from any kind of smarty-pants hermeneutics.) But whether or not the ownership of firearms is truly a legitimate right in this day and age is irrelevant, because America has a boner for weaponry, and goddamnit, we'll do what ever it takes to frame it as a passable appeal to Enlightenment universals.
It's the same reason porn could never be illegal: Its legitimization is free expression, but its sanctity is in the fact that everyone loves a nice pair of tits. Only the things that are culturally sacred are truly protected. Unfortunately, guns are among those things.
-
This isn't a bad idea, as long as the tests and classes are relatively cheap, considering how it does prevent people who actually want them wouldn't be prevented from having them. Even if people still get around it, at least there would be that many more people who would know how to use them properly. But 20 feet is a little close. Even at 50, it's kinda hard to miss most targets.
Hitting a moving target with a pistol at fifty feet is not as easy as you would think, particularly when people are screaming and running around cluttering up your sight picture, etc. Twenty feet is also, I think, a much more reasonable approximation of the situations in which you would have cause to fire a weapon in self-defense or in defense of another person. It would also discourge people from trying to shoot much further than that subtly, which is probably a good thing considering they may or may not practice regularly and fifty feet is more or less across the average fast-food place, bank, or about as far from the counter as you'd be able to get in a mall and still see it; too many people might end up intercepting a bullet when you fire from that far.
-
I think I'd feel safer with a gun than with a knife or blunt weapon but IRL I doubt most people (that I know of) would be able to reliably use a gun in a proper pressure situation. I think the main thing about having a gun is the aura of fear it carries with it.
-
America's debate over gun rights always strikes me as a classic case of one of those collectively understood lies; Everyone knows that the real reason they want the right to own guns is because they think guns are awesome, and they know that everyone else thinks that too. Our nation's entire history is imbued with the totemistic fetishization of guns, but unfortunately the sweet, ejaculatory release that millions of Americans experience from the discharge of a firearm doesn't quite make par as the basis of a Constitutional right, so we've all decided that it's actually about the inalienable rights of men. (It is the second thing after free expression, so the Framers didn't exactly make it hard for us to get there as long as we abstain from any kind of smarty-pants hermeneutics.) But whether or not the ownership of firearms is truly a legitimate right in this day and age is irrelevant, because America has a boner for weaponry, and goddamnit, we'll do what ever it takes to frame it as a passable appeal to Enlightenment universals.
It's the same reason porn could never be illegal: Its legitimization is free expression, but its sanctity is in the fact that everyone loves a nice pair of tits. Only the things that are culturally sacred are truly protected. Unfortunately, guns are among those things.
Personally, I don't look at a gun and salivate just because it's a gun. You might know people that do, but I shoot targets with a .22 at my cottage every summer I go up there, and I enjoy it in the same way that I enjoy playing Frisbee with my family or friends.
EDIT: Of course, using me as a representation of every responsible gun user is a pretty big generalization, and I don't doubt at all that most people do conform to your idea, just not everyone like you said.
This isn't a bad idea, as long as the tests and classes are relatively cheap, considering how it does prevent people who actually want them wouldn't be prevented from having them. Even if people still get around it, at least there would be that many more people who would know how to use them properly. But 20 feet is a little close. Even at 50, it's kinda hard to miss most targets.
Hitting a moving target with a pistol at fifty feet is not as easy as you would think, particularly when people are screaming and running around cluttering up your sight picture, etc. Twenty feet is also, I think, a much more reasonable approximation of the situations in which you would have cause to fire a weapon in self-defense or in defense of another person. It would also discourge people from trying to shoot much further than that subtly, which is probably a good thing considering they may or may not practice regularly and fifty feet is more or less across the average fast-food place, bank, or about as far from the counter as you'd be able to get in a mall and still see it; too many people might end up intercepting a bullet when you fire from that far.
A moving target is a different case completely. I would've agreed with you entirely had you said "moving target" rather than just "target." And aiming with a pistol is considerably harder than a rifle, which is what I assumed what we were talking about, I guess.
-
Pfft, gimme a Taser and I'm happy.
-
I doubt most people (that I know of) would be able to reliably use a gun in a proper pressure situation.
When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathing.
~Rambo
I think the main thing about having a gun is the aura of fear it carries with it.
Bingo.
To the Guy Who Mugged Me Downtown (Downtown, Savannah)
I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message. I'd like to apologize.
I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 . 45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?
I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster.
I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know which ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.
So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry.
Peace!
- Alex
Someone found that text on Craigslist. It's been flagged and deleted so I won't be able to get the original link to it.
-
Of course, that little anecdote says nothing about the utility of guns for self-defense, since it's an anecdote, not any kind of statistic.
It doesn't say anything about the dozens of people who get killed in stupid, useless, ignorant ways because they thought guns could protect them.
And I hope the Rambo quote was a joke, because under pressure most people can't kill -- unless conditioned and trained, people tend to freeze up or panic, and killing is even more difficult than reacting with calm. Do some reading on the psychology of killing, it's fascinating stuff.
-
People would be much more likely to use a nonlethal weapon to protect themselves.
What happens when some idiot pulls a gun in a situation like that and the mugger knows better than to think they would actually use it? If he's close enough to threaten you with a knife, he might just stab you for scaring him.
It's sort of a gamble, isn't it..
-
You should never point a gun at a person if you do not have the intention of killing said person.
If you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself, then there is no point in owning a firearm.
-
Killing someone in self-defense is still killing someone. Most people would have a problem with that.
But that doesn't stop people from going "lulz, I will keep this gun around to protect myself with it!"
-
You should never point a gun at a person if you do not have the intention of killing said person.
If you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself, then there is no point in owning a firearm.
The problem is that there's no way to really test this except for actually killing someone.
-
People could just not lie to themselves...
-
You should never point a gun at a person if you do not have the intention of killing said person.
If you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself, then there is no point in owning a firearm.
A) You shouldn't point a gun at a person that you mind if they would get hurt.
B) I don't want to kill people to defend myself. My family has a .22 rifle. We use the .22 for the purpose of target shooting. Therefore, there is a point to owning a gun even if you are not willing to kill someone to defend yourself.
-
I don't really know what to say about this thing. But I think most people are actually capable of killing others, given the circumstances. It is true that there are certain types of people who are especially effective in it, but all in all, I guess everyone can do it. It is also one of the big problems in the army, how do you teach people to shoot at human shaped targets so that recruits don't refuse to do it at first hand. I suppose quite a lot of work has been done in that area in Western Countries.
Now that statistics have been brought up, how many people have died in US because they tried to pull out a gun they were carrying when confronted by a mugger who already had a gun pointed at them?
I think I have mentioned it here before, my father used to play with his friends with real guns and live ammunition when he was young. In addition for their hobbies, they also defused German mines in the Northen Finland, quite a lot of them were around 12 - 15 years old (1950s and 1960s). As you can guess, I didn't see a lot of weapons at my youth. And in some societies, it is required to carry a firearm, but there is no gun related crime!
My personal feeling is simply that the problem is in screening the people who get the firearm. As in Finland also.
Mika
-
I heard an interesting quote the other day and I want to get some reaction as to how others feel about it. Also, I'm curious if anyone knows who said the quote (please bare in mind that this is a paraphrase as I'm a dolt who can retain information worth sh*t).
"If they want to use guns, then they can go ahead and join the military!"
-
I heard an interesting quote the other day and I want to get some reaction as to how others feel about it. Also, I'm curious if anyone knows who said the quote (please bare in mind that this is a paraphrase as I'm a dolt who can retain information worth sh*t).
"If they want to use guns, then they go ahead and join the military!"
That's like going to cooking school because you like pancakes.
-
Well then:
Here's a statistic:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
I've posted it here already, but since General Battuta asking for more than anecdotal evidence, I'm posting it again in case you've missed it.
It says here, that crime rates in general drop when people must own firearms, and rise when they cannot own firearms. It also says that in Kennesaw, Georgia, there was not a single murder in the 25 years of mandatory gun ownership.
And here's another one:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
The article says that there are between 108,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the USA (based on 15 surveys). That makes the "dozens who get killed because they pulled out a gun and failed to use it" less than 0.1% of the cases. Also notice that:
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
in 2005 there were 569 homicides by shooting in Illinois.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/Murder2005.pdf (page 28)
339 of those happened in Chicago, and 327 of these were commited by handguns, which are prohibited in Chicago.
Just that makes the majority of shootings done by people who don't care about gun laws (or insurance policies, for that matter). A more detailed search will result in a much larger percentage of illegal guns being used. In other words- no matter how restrictive the laws, most gun crimes will still occur.
It also proves that 3/5 of the gun crimes are involved in a place where less than 3 out of the 12 million Illinois residents live, in the place where gun laws are the most strict in the state.
Now, remember the second article, about the minimum 108k defensive gun uses per year? According to the www.ichv.org site, there were 330 deaths from legal gun use and 221 from undetermined intent in the USA in 2005. And 330/108 000 times 100% gives just above 0.3%. A maximum of 3 people out of 1000 who (legally) pulled out a gun actually (legally) killed someone in self defense. The other 997 were fine just by showing the perp they have one, or shooting but not killing them.
This makes the argument of thugs continuing their assault after the victim pulls out a weapon mostly false too.
And a final thing:
Notice that in 2005, there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S, among them:
12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
If not for the guns, 17k people would have poisoned themselves, jumped off bridges or used some other method to kill themselves.
If not for the suicides, there would have been 13 692 gun related deaths, or only 45% of the total.
P.S. Taking the 108k defensive gun uses (the smallest of all surveys) as the true number, somewhere in America 12 people have used their guns in self defense while I was writing this post. (It took me about an hour to find and read everything, and write it)
-
Good stuff.
Looks like gun crime works the same way as abortion, then -- happens no matter what the laws are.
-
One of the interesting statistics would be one that showed how many of the concealed carry permit owning people have gotten shot.
The reason why I'm asking these questions is that I have seen and heard arguments like these quite often:
"You don't have time to pull out your gun, you just get shot if you tried doing that"
"They just continue assaulting you even if you did"
But what I haven't seen is anykind of statistics of things like that actually happening. Instead I think gun owners have shown quite a lot of statistics that disproves the above. And from what I know, comments like above feel quite strange. But one thing I don't like is actually the concealed carry permit. Personally I think all firearms should be visible for maximum deterrent.
It is another topic why USA is such a society where you need to carry a weapon in order not to become mugged or killed.
Mika
-
The reason why I'm asking these questions is that I have seen and heard arguments like these quite often:
"You don't have time to pull out your gun, you just get shot if you tried doing that"
"They just continue assaulting you even if you did"
The only people who say that are those who never carry a gun, and see no reason why normal people should be able to have a firearm. Just reread and memorize my previous post. Let's see what they say when they find out that at least 108 000 (and up to 2.5 million) people go from victim to citizen every year (in the USA alone) by pulling out a gun, and only 0.3% of them need to shoot the suspect.
It is another topic why USA is such a society where you need to carry a weapon in order not to become mugged or killed.
Mika
I have something that might give a clue why:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."
In other words- kick out the illegals, and prisons in CA will be half way empty.
And here's more:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens.
I'm not sure if those numbers are correct, but I wouldn't be surprized if they were. According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm , there were 16,929 murders in the US in 2007. That would mean that the 12 or so million illegal aliens perform a quarter of the murders in a 300 or so million country.
Not counting the probable illegal immigrant crimes, there would be 12 549 murders by 288 million legal residents, or roughly 4,3 per 100 000 citizens. In 2006 there were 5.7 murders per 100 000 people in the US.
Here's a list of murder rates per 100 000 people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
-
Oh, come on. 'Go from victims to citizens'? Massively more people are injured or killed in car crashes. If you're going to start awarding 'citizenship', do it on the basis of safe driving practices -- that actually makes a big difference.
-
So what do you call a person who's neither a victim nor guilty of a crime? I think citizen's a good word.
And where did I write that they should be awarded citizenship after stopping a thug from harming them?
-
You didn't say that, exactly, but saying "Let's see what they say when they find out that at least 108 000 (and up to 2.5 million) people go from victim to citizen every year (in the USA alone) by pulling out a gun." certainly implies it, wether you meant to do it or not. And even Victims are Citizens, believe it or not. They were citizens before the crime, they stay citizens during it, but explain to me how someone loses the magical quality of citizenship by being a victim of a crime?
And, that worldnetnewsdaily.com thing..... :eek2: Let's just say that people with "liberal" leanings should avoid it at all cost.
-
You didn't say that, exactly, but saying "Let's see what they say when they find out that at least 108 000 (and up to 2.5 million) people go from victim to citizen every year (in the USA alone) by pulling out a gun." certainly implies it, wether you meant to do it or not. And even Victims are Citizens, believe it or not. They were citizens before the crime, they stay citizens during it, but explain to me how someone loses the magical quality of citizenship by being a victim of a crime?
And, that worldnetnewsdaily.com thing..... :eek2: Let's just say that people with "liberal" leanings should avoid it at all cost.
Yep, that.
-
And, that worldnetnewsdaily.com thing..... :eek2: Let's just say that people with "liberal" leanings should avoid it at all cost.
/takes a peek
What the Christ?
¯\(°_o)/¯
-
I don't really have that much of a problem with worldnetdaily, though generally, the only articles I read are usually by Pat Buchanan since he doesn't really tow Republican Party rhetoric and is fair-minded in his opinions.
Sometimes I venture over to Ann Coulter's articles too, and while I agree with certain points, she really is just preaching to the choir and is more of an attacker for the right if anything. With that said, I could easily see why some people are put off by her.
-
the only articles I read are usually by Pat Buchanan since he doesn't really tow Republican Party rhetoric and is fair-minded in his opinions.
Thanks a lot! I gave myself a headache laughing at this comment.
-
Why is worldnetdaily banned at my school? :[
-
Because they want to preserve what little sanity is left in their students?
-
I'm not sure how this will stack up against the second amendment, since basically its infringing on people's right to bear arms.
http://www.flixgadget.com/video79338.aspx
A don't subscribe to the idea that if everyone had a gun there would be no violence (hell just go to Mogadishu were you can buy a Kalishnokov at the corner store real peaceful there) but this certainly isn't going to curb most violence and is basically going to infringe on responsible folks' rights.
Methinks everyone should be required by LAW to own a gun...and also to shoot at least 100 people with it. that way we will get rid of all problems on the planet. No man, no problem.
-
The problem is that there's no way to really test this except for actually killing someone.
On the contrary. You don't have to succeed to know you have the capablity.
-
The problem is that there's no way to really test this except for actually killing someone.
On the contrary. You don't have to succeed to know you have the capablity.
[/quote
David Grossman would like a word with you.
While many people (particularly teenage males) think they're stone-cold killers, the data seems to suggest that without some kind of conditioning (or some kind of condition) it's a difficult task.
Most people are suprised by how they react to violence, and it's often not in accord with their own expectations.
This is not to say it's impossible or even an ordeal for everyone -- some people can quite accurately predict that they're killers -- but it's often unpredictable or sensitive to conditions.
-
none of which really matters.
And would that be Colonel David Grossman? The guy who thinks that violent video games are the cause of today's, oh what did he call it, "Virus of violent crime that is raging around the world?"
John Stossel looked into this in his book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity:
"Self-appointed experts are sometimes so successful in propagating their arguments that the original source gets lost in the confusion..."
"Even the Surgeon General's Office told us, 'The Marines use the game Doom to desensitize recruits.' Where did they learn that? From Grossman. We called the Marines, They said (Doom) is not used to desensitize Marines, They say they used a version of the software to teach eye/hand coordination and teamwork. Period."
Stossel continues: "Do we, individual parents, get to decide for ourselves and our children, or will the government appoint some expert, maybe David Grossman to decide for us? After all, he's the source of the 'conventional wisdom' on the subject. Get out the shovel."
Link: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/288356.html
Personally, Grossman seems full of s*** to me.
-
David Grossman would like a word with you.
I'm sure he would, but then I'm a reprobate who grew up with video games. I would recommend a more reliable source, like S.L.A. Marshall.
However I chose my phrasing more carefully than you credit for. You don't have to succeed to know you have the capablity to. But you do have to make a serious attempt at it. Say, knocking someone down and choking them with a serious intention to see them dead for approximately thirty seconds before you realize this is not proportional response.
In a way, a gun is a lot easier than that, a lot simpler. Knowing that I can is something that I usually find more frightening then anything else.
-
Are you certain you know who Grossman is? He based his work on S.L.A. Marshall's research and doesn't differ from Marshall in many significant ways. (And, man, calling Marshall 'reliable' is opening a pretty huge can of worms! There's a lot of historiographic controversy around his reliability, particularly the statistics in 'Men Against Fire'. I'm not sure what I think myself.)
In any case, if you want to talk about yourself then I certainly say anything since I don't know you. My comments regarded populations at large.
I pray you never have to find out. Try not to make it too much a part of your personal narrative construction, though.