[MP-Ryan]

Obama forced the CDC to treat gun ownership as a disease (without clearing it with Congress first), hoping it would support his anti-gun agenda.

The CDC has been studying gun violence since long before Obama was elected.  It's part of their statistical analysis of death trends.  Also, the CDC doesn't "rule" on anything; they provide a summary of statistical data in the form of reports.

[Nakura]

Obama forced the CDC to treat gun ownership as a disease (without clearing it with Congress first), hoping it would support his anti-gun agenda.

The CDC has been studying gun violence since long before Obama was elected.  It's part of their statistical analysis of death trends.  Also, the CDC doesn't "rule" on anything; they provide a summary of statistical data in the form of reports.

Deathfun is the one who used the term "ruling," not me.

The CDC was banned from treating gun ownership as a disease, as it should have been. Obama is the one who ignored the ban and issued an executive order for the CDC to treat gun owners as a disease: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/

[MP-Ryan]

Deathfun is the one who used the term "ruling," not me.

Apparently not, the CDC rules that handguns are incredibly effective for self-defense and save up to three million lives a year.

Orly.

The CDC was banned from treating gun ownership as a disease, as it should have been. Obama is the one who ignored the ban and issued an executive order for the CDC to treat gun owners as a disease: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Come on, it was in the article you linked.  Nowhere does it say he wanted it "treated as a disease." (edit for clarity)

The point of this is not ridicule; it's to demonstrate that you are using politicized versions of events to try to argue your position.  It's called rhetoric, and you appear to have fallen for it.

[deathfun]

Once I'm old enough to own a handgun, I'm going to carry for self-defense.

The RCMP called me up asking me why I was interested in getting a restricted firearms license
My response was naturally, that I wasn't interested in it as that was the truth

However, had my response been "For self-defense" my license would have been denied and I wouldn't ever get myself even a rifle
But I suppose everyone who carries the gun for self-defense does it because they don't feel safe within their respective city so they need to take matters into their own hands

I could purchase a pistol if I wanted to, but I don't really want to. I have no need for a handgun

The criminal almost always surrenders or runs away upon learning that their would-be victim is armed.

Know what that tells me? That tells me criminals aren't out there to kill you
I was always under the impression that a gun is a final resort

[NGTM-1R]

I guess you didn't read page two, where I went over this in detail.

I did. I also find it singularly unconvincing. Your discussion of it does not address it as an individual right under any of the laws, cite its supposed quotations from the founding fathers that are actually on-point to the amendment, and tosses out a bunch of quotations that have nothing to do with the amendment except as a tangent. You made assertions without evidence.

And it is oddly Orwellian, because the actual Supreme Court decision that first spoke of it as an individual right was only five years ago. (While lower court decisions in support of it being an individual right are numerous, ones not reversed on appeal date to the late '90s.) I actually remember the ruling and the discussion of it that resulted. You are not denying history, but instead denying the existence of living memory.

But for your education: US Supreme Court decisions on the subject.

US v. Cruikshank, 1875 held that: the "right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

US v. Miller from 1939 held that: the Second Amendment only protects arms that have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". (The "right to bear arms" has obviously shrunk considerably from the last ruling.)

And it isn't until 2008 that the US Supreme Court actually held the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home", in District of Columbia v. Heller.

[jr2]

The criminal almost always surrenders or runs away upon learning that their would-be victim is armed.

Know what that tells me? That tells me criminals aren't out there to kill you
I was always under the impression that a gun is a final resort

Say what?  Criminal finds that his crime might cost him his life, runs away or surrenders, and it means he/she's not out to kill you??!


No, my dear fellow, I do believe all that that means is that he places the value of his own life above committing whatever crime(s) he was about before being confronted.

For example, his / her life was not worth more than the money in your wallet / your credit cards.  Or perhaps the satisfaction of beating you up.  Or perhaps raping you.  And then perhaps just taking your life as well.

All that this means:

The criminal almost always surrenders or runs away upon learning that their would-be victim is armed.

is that the mere threat of an impending death penalty works wonders.  Makes sense, right?  Why waste your life on that?

What is does not mean, is that they place your life at a value anywhere close to theirs.  Because, let's face it, if they did, perhaps they wouldn't be attempting to commit a crime against you.  Although there are other reasons (stealing out of desperation).  Also, using a weapon in self-defense wouldn't work if they valued killing you as worth their own life (say, if they were bent on getting revenge for you testifying against them in a trial, or perhaps some form of cheating with their partner or what have you).


So, to summarize, bad guy running away at sign of perhaps lethal resistance = bad guy doesn't think it's worth risking his life to continue.  Not your life.

Honestly, if they used a firearm (or knife, for that matter), they already are risking your life.  Weapons safety (yeah, they probably didn't bother learning that since it'not taught to everyone anymore) dictates that you must never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.  (Doesn't mean you can't change your mind, but basically means that unless you have legitimate cause to use the threat lethal force, with the intention of following up on that threat, don't point!)  It would follow that holding a knife to someone's neck/back is also in the same category.

Think of it this way: they are willing to risk your life to commit a crime.  What gives you any reasonable idea that they will not just as easily decide that your life threatens / inconveniences them?

[Darien]

Obama forced the CDC to treat gun ownership as a disease (without clearing it with Congress first), hoping it would support his anti-gun agenda.

This is a blatant lie. You spend too much time listening to NRA talking points.

[NGTM-1R]

Think of it this way: they are willing to risk your life to commit a crime.

Considering nothing here has asserted they have a weapon, and indeed their running away rather than attempting to stop you drawing your own suggests they don't, this statement is kind of questionable.

[Darien]

Think of it this way: they are willing to risk your life to commit a crime.  What gives you any reasonable idea that they will not just as easily decide that your life threatens / inconveniences them?

Because people mug other people for money. Usually to fund a drug habit. They rarely do it for fun, and they very rarely do it with the intention of killing people.

Adding firearms to a confrontation like that just winds up getting people killed, and it isn't always the 'bad guy'. If there was even such an easy way to characterize people like that.

[Phantom Hoover]

I won't lie, I suspect most of the self-defence and ~resisting tyranny~ scenarios proposed by gun nuts are more juvenile power fantasies than anything particularly relevant to the real world.

[Nakura]

I won't lie, I suspect most of the self-defence and ~resisting tyranny~ scenarios proposed by gun nuts are more juvenile power fantasies than anything particularly relevant to the real world.

Except for the fact that, you know, the government has become increasingly authoritarian over the past 50+ years and that firearms are used in self-defense ten times more than they are used by criminals. You've obviously never been to Chicago or even my own city, St. Louis, if you think self-defense "isn't particularly relevant to the real world."

The anti-gun lobby can't have it both ways. You can't say that "violent crime is too low to justify gun ownership," while simultaneously saying "violent crime is too high to allow people to own guns."

Just last year one of my co-workers was almost raped in the city, but she used a firearm to stop the criminal and hold him prisoner until police arrived.

[The E]

Are you claiming that a majority of americans will, over the course of their lifes, have need to use (or threaten to use) firearms in defense of themselves or their posessions?

You're pointing to local maxima for the relevant statistics and formulating an opinion on what the rest of the country should do based on that. I'm pretty sure that that's not a good idea.

[Nakura]

Are you claiming that a majority of americans will, over the course of their lifes, have need to use (or threaten to use) firearms in defense of themselves or their posessions?

You're pointing to local maxima for the relevant statistics and formulating an opinion on what the rest of the country should do based on that. I'm pretty sure that that's not a good idea.

Will most Americans need to? I hope not. Will most Americans need Obamacare? Nope. Will most Americans need amnesty for illegal aliens? Nope. Will most Americans need an abortion? Nope. You can't just take away everyone's right, just because not everyone will exercise that right.

Three million people a year in a country that has three hundred million people. Your average person lives to be about eighty years old, so multiply three by eighty. That's 240 million cases of self-defense. Apparently the average American will need firearms for self-defense at some point in their life.

[BloodEagle]

You can't just take away everyone's right, just because not everyone will exercise that right.

Point of order: no one is saying that.

Three million people a year in a country that has three hundred million people. Your average person lives to be about eighty years old, so multiply three by eighty. That's 240 million cases of self-defense. Apparently the average American will need firearms for self-defense at some point in their life.

I'm pretty sure using math that way gets you put on the naughty list.  I'm pretty sure.

[Phantom Hoover]

(For reference, Nakura is assuming that incidents where firearms are used for self-defence are evenly distributed throughout the population and across all ages.)

[Ghostavo]

Nakura, if you actually read the report, it doesn't say that three million lives were saved. It says there is an upper bound of 3 million uses of firearms as self-defense.

It doesn't say that these were situations where their lives were in danger or if it was actually a successful case of self-defense. It also doesn't mention if the use of firearms as self-defense raised the threat level.

[jr2]

Think of it this way: they are willing to risk your life to commit a crime.

Considering nothing here has asserted they have a weapon, and indeed their running away rather than attempting to stop you drawing your own suggests they don't, this statement is kind of questionable.

What, they just said pretty pl0x hand over your wallet // lie down and let me rape you??  They usually at least pretend that they have a weapon of some sort, or they resort to bodily physical violence (again, or the threat thereof) to perpetrate their crime.


...how were you under the impression that crimes are committed?

[deathfun]

What, they just said pretty pl0x hand over your wallet // lie down and let me rape you??  They usually at least pretend that they have a weapon of some sort, or they resort to bodily physical violence (again, or the threat thereof) to perpetrate their crime.

Know what that tells me? Is that people are stupid by drawing their guns
Criminal makes it seem like they have gun hidden. Idiot draws their own gun to call bluff

Not actually a bluff, guy being mugged gets shot

Say what?  Criminal finds that his crime might cost him his life, runs away or surrenders, and it means he/she's not out to kill you??!

The point flew past your head

My point is that it's excessive in nature. There's plenty of other NON-LETHAL self defense techniques out there
Mace, tazer, good ol' Taekwondo.

Here's a nice snippet regarding self-defense in the Canadian Criminal Code

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

    (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

    (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

    (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

    (a) the nature of the force or threat;

    (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

    (c) the person’s role in the incident;

    (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

    (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

    (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

    (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

    (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

    (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Note section 2g when it talks about proportionality

He wants to mug you. He has a knife but isn't going to use the knife if you just do as he wants
You pull out a gun

He didn't have intent to stab you, he just wanted your money. You've now escalated past which is considered lawful defense for what, a couple credit cards and maybe some cash?

[SpardaSon21]

I'm fairly certain brandishing a knife at someone and threatening harm if they don't hand over their possessions is both armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.  I don't know about Canada but in America I'm reasonably sure they're both felony-level offenses.  Brandishing a firearm in self-defense under those circumstances seems entirely reasonable to me.

[deathfun]

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself...

...(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

http://www.lawyers.ca/statutes/criminal_code_of_canada_assault.htm

Otherwise cannot preserve himself

If someone is mugging you, and you don't give him what he wants, you've crossed past self-defense and into assault yourself
You HAD another option, but you chose not to do it and opted for pulling out a weapon yourself


Also note the bolded italicized