Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[MrJonno]

Seth normally ignores any statistics usually by saying he isnt a statistic and has his 'rights'. After all 'natural rights' shut down any argument

[Gallstones]

Atlanta Crook Makes Fatal Mistake

A crook in Atlanta made a fatal mistake on Saturday when he tried to rob patrons in line for the new, $180 Lebron James shoes: The lawbreaker was shot dead after a customer used his gun to fight back. And there’s incredible surveillance video showing the moment the customer decided to exercise his Second Amendment right.
...
“He really stood up for all of us,” Taylor White — a fellow patron — told WSB. “And I salute him, to the homie that did that.”

[Seth]

Seth

There is absolutely zero science in your assertion than more guns means less crime. The data suggests that changes in gun ownership do not affect crime rates other than murder. Murder is another matter. More guns, but especially more hand guns, means more murders.

Goalpost shifting. Don't think we don't remember what you've actually said in the past. You don't get to get away with weaseling out of those statements. Murder ALSO continues to decline in the US, despite a rapidly increasing number of handguns in society. So, you're wrong again.

And if changes in gun ownership do not make crime rates go up, which it doesn't, including murders, there's no need to ban handguns because whatever is causing handgun murders is unrelated to handgun ownership by the general public.

You really are being obtuse and recondite.

Half of all murders in the USA are carried out with hand guns. Without those hand guns, and 8,000 human lives each year would be saved.

Mendacious pettifoggery. Of course if "those hand guns," meaning the specific handguns used to perpetrate the 8000 murders were not in possession of the killer the murders MIGHT not have occurred, and they wouldn't have occurred with the non-existent handgun, although they might have occurred using one of the other many weapons killers use besides handguns.

But that fact does not support the notion that those murders can be prevented by banning the possession of handguns by persons OTHER THAN the killers. You have admitted many times that handgun ownership in general does not cause higher crime rates, including murder and murder with handguns, all of which continue to decline in the US despite more handguns in circulation.

The statistics clearly show that higher hand gun ownership means more murders.

You just contradicted yourself again, for the tenth time.

Even just owning a hand gun makes you more prone to being murdered.

In your opinion. But even if, arguendo, it's true, that's MY choice to make, not yours or the government's.

Murder rates world wide are dropping.

Yup, and all the while handgun ownership in the US continues to soar.

Get this into your thick skull.

Go fuck yourself.

Those murder rates dropping have nothing to do with any increase in gun ownership.

So you say. You can't prove this of course. But I'm accepting your claim in order to show you how ridiculous your reasoning is. If the decline in murder rates has nothing to do with "any increase in gun ownership" then the obverse is also logically true: Gun ownership has nothing to do with the murder rate. If there were a causative link, an increase in the number of handguns in society would result in a higher murder rate IN THAT SOCIETY. That's not happening. Therefore, while a drop in murder rates MAY be causally connected to a higher incidence of handgun ownership by non-criminals (and there is certainly a strong correlation) you destroy your own argument that more handguns mean more murders by admitting that murder rates are unconnected to the level of handgun ownership.

You contradict yourself again and again. You have to face facts. Either more handguns in society means a higher and rising murder rate proportionally connected to the absolute number of handguns in a society or it doesn't. If it doesn't, as is the case, then it's not the handguns themselves that cause the murders, it's who has the handgun and how they use it that matters.

It is a global phenomenon, and happens all round the world regardless of whether gun ownership is growing or falling. Other factors are at work.

Indeed.

However, the widespread ownership of hand guns in the USA is still the main factor causing the disgusting high level of murders in the USA.

Wrong. You just said the number of handguns has no effect on murder rates. Make up your mind. It is the possession of handguns by criminals (prior offenders) and those who have criminal intent or a predisposition to commit murder that's the problem, not the number of guns in the society. You have admitted this time and time again, and you acknowledge that the dropping murder rate is unconnected to the number of guns.

Therefore, your broad-brush argument is fallacious and untrue. You really should take a remedial logic class.

No other OECD nation has anything approaching the very high per capita murder rate that you get in America, for the simple reason that no other OECD country has the same number of hand guns. Since half of all murders in the USA are with hand guns, it is bloody obvious that hand gun ownership is a massive factor.

[/quote]

But you said several times above that the number of handguns is NOT a factor in murder rates. Make up your mind because both statements can't be true, they are mutually exclusive.

The real issue is handguns in the hands of criminals, not handguns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. But you refuse to acknowledge or examine this aspect of the debate because it forces you to admit that not all handguns are used for criminal purposes and that therefore there is no logical reason to ban ownership of them.

[Seth]

Seth normally ignores any statistics usually by saying he isnt a statistic and has his 'rights'. After all 'natural rights' shut down any argument

Fucking right my natural rights shut down any argument that turns me into an unarmed victim.

If you doubt that, come try to take my guns away and see how far you get with that.

Of course you're a coward, so you'll send jackbooted thugs to do your dirty work, but that won't help much.

[Seth]

Oh data, my data...

Crime
Atlanta Crook Makes Fatal Mistake by Thinking Patrons in Line for $180 Shoes Won’t Exercise 2nd Amendment Right
Jun. 24, 2013 8:35am Jonathon M. Seidl

Atlanta robber shot and killed by customr in line for new Lebron James shoes

Surveillance footage obtained by WAGA-TV shows the moment a customer (top left) shoots a crook trying to rob people in line for the new Lebron James shoes. (Source: WAGA-TV screen shot)

A crook in Atlanta made a fatal mistake on Saturday when he tried to rob patrons in line for the new, $180 Lebron James shoes: The lawbreaker was shot dead after a customer used his gun to fight back. And there’s incredible surveillance video showing the moment the customer decided to exercise his Second Amendment right.

Patrons had been lining up all week — at least of them one since last Monday — to get the new Nike LeBron X EXT shoes. And according to WSB-TV, a parking attendant had warned buyers outside the store Wish in the Little Five Points area that someone had been pick-pocketing patrons. Around 5:30am on Saturday, he apparently struck.

Reports indicate the crook used a gun to try and rob everyone one in line. But one person wasn’t having it. An armed citizen in line used his own gun to fight back — he opened fire on the man and hit him. The crook ran a little ways before collapsing and dying.

“He really stood up for all of us,” Taylor White — a fellow patron — told WSB. “And I salute him, to the homie that did that.”

WSB has a video report with more incredible details, such as a man in line responding to the parking attendant’s initial warning by saying he had a concealed weapon permit and wasn’t afraid to use it, and even the local channel saying that the good Samaritan was actually still in line while they were doing their report but he asked not to be identified:

And WAGA-TV has the surveillance camera footage showing the exact moment gunfire rang out:

So far, the patron has not been charged as police have determined the shooting was in self-defense.
Atlanta robber shot and killed by customr in line for new Lebron James shoes

The Nike LeBron X EXT (Source: Insider.Nike.com)

As for the shoes and the store, the Atlanta Journal Constitution says the store at the center of the shooting sold out in two hours.

[Blind groper]

Seth

The simple fact that you continue to use anecdotes as data shows you are blind to logic. Anecdotes are not, and never have been, data, regardless of whether they are true or false. With 100,000 shootings per year in the USA, carefully cherry picking the few that support your case is a meaningless gesture.

Let me see if I can get something through to you that you insist on confusing all the time.

Murder rates world wide are falling. In fact, they have been falling for 1000 years or more. Since long before guns were even invented. This overall trend has nothing to do with guns. But the other point is that the USA has 4 times the per capita murder rate of other OECD nations. It has 5 times the rate of my country. This massive and ridiculous, and obscene high rate of murder is due to the pathological American gun culture and to the high rate of hand gun ownership.

Now can you understand the difference between a long term, thousand year, trend, and the immediate impact of all those hand guns?

Certainly a hand gun in the hands of a law abiding person is unlikely to result in murder. But there are several things you need to realise.
1. Lots of times that hand gun will end up in the hands of a murderer. Sometimes in the owner's house, leading to his own murder.
2. High levels of hand gun ownership among the law abiding inevitably lead to high levels of hand gun ownership among criminals. Sometimes due to theft. Sometimes due to sales on the second hand gun market. Sometimes due to criminals posing as the law abiding in order to buy those hand guns.
3. Those we regard as law abiding can often suddenly become murderers. Sometimes due to passion, like all those 3500 murders each year when two people argue and one gets so angry that he pulls out a hand gun and kills the person he is arguing with. Sometimes because he gets drunk, and he is one of those who is a naturally mean drunk. Sometimes because he is on drugs. Methamphetamine, for example, feeds aggressive behaviour. Sometimes because he was never law abiding in the first place. He just was good at pretending.

Anyway, the end result is that if lots of hand guns enter the populace, lots will enter the hands of criminals and murderers.

Seth
You have never come up with a credible explanation for the high murder rate in the USA. Since my country has a slightly higher violent crime rate, but one fifth of the murder rate, it is clear it is not due to criminal gangs, or the drug trade, or else NZ would have a higher murder rate than the USA. Especially since FBI figures show gang murders and drug related murders are a small percentage of the total. My belief is that the USA has such a high murder rate due to gun culture and due to high hand gun ownership.

You evade this point. Face it!

[Seth]

Seth

The simple fact that you continue to use anecdotes as data shows you are blind to logic. Anecdotes are not, and never have been, data, regardless of whether they are true or false. With 100,000 shootings per year in the USA, carefully cherry picking the few that support your case is a meaningless gesture.

You really are quite tiresome in your stupidity you know. Each "anecdote" of which you complain is yet another data point towards the proposition that defensive gun uses in the US are anything but "rare."

Let me see if I can get something through to you that you insist on confusing all the time.

Murder rates world wide are falling. In fact, they have been falling for 1000 years or more. Since long before guns were even invented. . But the other point is that the USA has 4 times the per capita murder rate of other OECD nations. It has 5 times the rate of my country. This massive and ridiculous, and obscene high rate of murder is due to the pathological American gun culture and to the high rate of hand gun ownership.

Just went over this. If the "overall trend" plus the trend in the US is downwards and this has "nothing to do with guns" then your theory that more handguns means more crime is bogus. And it is. As the facts YOU cite prove.

People don't become homicidal maniacs merely because they purchase or possess handguns. People who commit murders are predisposed in some way to do so, and as you have rightly pointed out, the availability of handguns has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now can you understand the difference between a long term, thousand year, trend, and the immediate impact of all those hand guns?

Better than you do. Now you're temporizing and making some sort of vague reference to "thousand year trends" which makes no sense whatsoever. The facts are plain and come right from your keyboard: Violence is decreasing worldwide, as are murders, as are specifically handgun murders in the US. That fact we can agree on. What you seem incapable of comprehending is your very own claim that "this overall trend has nothing to do with guns." You're absolutely right, it doesn't. Of course what this means in the US specifically is that all the tens of millions of handguns that have entered society in the last few years have not caused murder rates of any kind to rise, because, to be redundant, violent crime and murder rates of all sorts are on the decline in spite of the addition of hundreds of millions of handguns.

It should be obvious even to a pinheaded moron that if what you suggest were true, with the addition of millions of handguns every year, the murder rate would be going UP, not down. It's not. Therefore you are wrong. QED.

Certainly a hand gun in the hands of a law abiding person is unlikely to result in murder.

Well, it's nice that you finally conceded that particular point. I'll be referring to it frequently.

But there are several things you need to realise.
1. Lots of times that hand gun will end up in the hands of a murderer.

Show me "lots of times." Where's your data?

Sometimes in the owner's house, leading to his own murder.

Yes, sometimes that happens. So what? Absent the gun the victim could have ended up dead from some other cause. You don't know and cannot predict that not having a handgun so that an assailant can't use it against you results in fewer homicides or victimizations than having a handgun that's employed to stop or prevent a crime. You can at best speculate, which you do a lot.

2. High levels of hand gun ownership among the law abiding inevitably lead to high levels of hand gun ownership among criminals. Sometimes due to theft. Sometimes due to sales on the second hand gun market. Sometimes due to criminals posing as the law abiding in order to buy those hand guns.

Now this is true. A larger pool of handguns results in easier availability to criminals. But the solution to that problem is not to limit the pool of handguns owned by law-abiding citizens who can use them in self defense against armed criminals who get their guns illegally.

The key word there is "illegally." The point being that a criminal who wants a handgun can obtain a handgun anywhere on earth, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand. This is a fact. It may be more difficult for a criminal to do so, and other countries may have criminals who are generally less violent and less willing to use lethal force, but the fact remains that there is no nation on earth that has a zero handgun crime rate. Thus, if you ban guns for the law abiding, all you are doing is disarming THEM while failing to effectively prevent the criminal who wants a handgun from getting one illegally.

The only way such a system would work would be the imposition of a police state where every person is constantly monitored and searched frequently to see if they are illegally carrying a handgun. But this police state would have to be so ubiquitous that the state itself would inevitably become the criminal because, as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You may choose to live in such a police state, where you will still only have the ILLUSION of safety from handguns...or any other weapon a murderous person might decide to use...like a glass jar full of gasoline mixed with Tide laundry detergent. That's up to you.

I choose not to live in such a society, and fortunately for me, our Founding Fathers set things up the best anyone possibly could to make sure that doesn't happen, and they did it by guaranteeing my right to keep and bear a handgun, or other arms and placing that right beyond the authority of government to infringe upon.

3. Those we regard as law abiding can often suddenly become murderers. Sometimes due to passion, like all those 3500 murders each year when two people argue and one gets so angry that he pulls out a hand gun and kills the person he is arguing with.

And I suppose you're going to claim that none of these killers has a proven history of violence that would be a predictor of such illegal activity. Pshaw.

And even if true, so what? That's no reason to deny the other 300 million people in the US their right to keep and bear arms in self defense.

What it militates for is for more people to carry handguns so that they can put a stop to such "passionate" murders before they are achieved.

Sometimes because he gets drunk, and he is one of those who is a naturally mean drunk. Sometimes because he is on drugs. Methamphetamine, for example, feeds aggressive behaviour. Sometimes because he was never law abiding in the first place. He just was good at pretending.

You are aware that it's a federal offense to be an illegal drug user and possess ANY firearm, don't you?

Anyway, the end result is that if lots of hand guns enter the populace, lots will enter the hands of criminals and murderers.

But many more, by several orders of magnitude, will enter the hands of law abiding citizens where they will never be used to commit a murder but are available to STOP a violent criminal in his tracks, thus preserving the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the part of the victim.

That's worth way more to us as a nation than banning handguns because 8000 people a year are ILLEGALLY murdered with ILLEGALLY-POSSESSED handguns by CRIMINALS who might not succeed had their victim been armed for self defense.

Seth
You have never come up with a credible explanation for the high murder rate in the USA. Since my country has a slightly higher violent crime rate, but one fifth of the murder rate, it is clear it is not due to criminal gangs, or the drug trade, or else NZ would have a higher murder rate than the USA. Especially since FBI figures show gang murders and drug related murders are a small percentage of the total. My belief is that the USA has such a high murder rate due to gun culture and due to high hand gun ownership.

You evade this point. Face it!

I don't have to come up with an explanation for crime, you do, and you utterly failed to link crime and the prevalence of handguns in society, and have admitted this numerous times, evidently without actually understanding what you're writing.

Again, if "high handgun ownership" in the United States were the cause for murders, then the murder rate in the US would be going UP. But it's not, it's going down. This fact, which you have admitted is true (insisted on actually) completely destroys the bogus attempt at even correlating the prevalence of handguns with crime, much less proving it to be causal.

It's an inverse correlation. The more handguns that flow into our society, the lower the murder rate goes. I'm not claiming causation here, although the correlation is obvious and strong, I'm merely stating known and undisputed facts: The crime rate worldwide is going down; and the prevalence of handguns in the US is going up, at an astronomical pace right now.

Therefore, you're full of shit, and always have been.

An interesting aside: I just read today that the AR-15 market panic has bottomed out and rifles that were selling for $2500 or more a few months ago are back down to $800-$1200, were they were before Obama boosted the market. It's actually a GREAT time to buy an AR right now because manufacturers massively ramped-up production during the panic and now places like Cabelas are giving deep discounts on already low-priced ARs just to clear the inventory. Which means two things: First, everybody who wants. or even thinks they might one day want an AR went out and bought one during the panic, to the tune of MILLIONS of new ARs in circulation, so the market is glutted; and second, those of us who are smart are going to take advantage of the glut to stockpile EVEN MORE rifles against a future drought...because these rifles aren't like wheat or books, they retain their utility and become much more valuable if the government ever does succeed in banning them. It's a fine investment because not only can you sell them to those who didn't think ahead at a tidy profit, you can also hand them out to your friends and neighbors in the event that the Unorganized Militia is required to act in defense of the Constitution and the nation. Can't really lose buying ARs right now...in the long run.

I'm going to pop over to the new Cabelas this week and pick up a couple of new rifles myself.

Ammunition remains as scarce as rooster eggs right now however, because smart people (like me) are stockpiling it.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

The explanation why murder rates go down while 'hand gun ownership goes up' is simple. The number of people owning hand guns is actually going down, not up. As I have pointed out numerous times, though you never take notice, several surveys have shown that fewer Americans over the past few decades actually own guns.

However, background checks have increased, and most especially since Obama came to power. That is explained by the fact that the fewer people who do own guns tend to be paranoid. They have this crazy fear that Obama might take away their guns, and their irrational response is to buy more guns. So there are more new gun sales, but not to people who were previously non gun owners in the main.

Surveys have shown in the USA that two thirds of the population own no guns, but the remaining one third own at least 3 as an overall average. When the roughly 100 million gun owners increase the number of guns they own, the number of background checks go up. But at the same time, there are fewer gun owners. This reduction in the number of gun owners is happening in parallel with the reduction in murders.

This is very simple. Is it simple enough for you to understand?

[MrJonno]

Seth normally ignores any statistics usually by saying he isnt a statistic and has his 'rights'. After all 'natural rights' shut down any argument

Fucking right my natural rights shut down any argument that turns me into an unarmed victim.

If you doubt that, come try to take my guns away and see how far you get with that.

Of course you're a coward, so you'll send jackbooted thugs to do your dirty work, but that won't help much.

Th real coward is anyone who can't walk around unarmed

[Seth]

To Seth

The explanation why murder rates go down while 'hand gun ownership goes up' is simple. The number of people owning hand guns is actually going down, not up. As I have pointed out numerous times, though you never take notice, several surveys have shown that fewer Americans over the past few decades actually own guns.

And I've explained to you why those surveys are unreliable several times, which you've ignored and never refuted. You like to tout the notion that interviews with people who claim to have used a handgun for self defense are invalid because you think people inflate or make up the incidents. Well, as it turns out, it's my notion that people who get called up by random researchers on the phone and asked about their guns are very, very unlikely in today's climate of impending gun bans and seizures and the now-evident ubiquitous monitoring of our phone calls and emails, to tell a researcher the truth. It's my claim that the number of guns reported in such "studies" is actually orders of magnitude FEWER than actually exist because people simply lie to researchers about having guns out of fear of getting on a list somewhere that will be used for confiscations in the future. This is not an insubstantial or imaginary fear because that's what happened in both California and New Jersey when law-abiding citizens obeyed the new law requiring them to register their "assault weapons." In both cases, some years later the "assault weapons" that were just supposed to be registered so the government would know they were owned by law-abiding citizens were banned and state police were sent out with those lists to seize the now-contraband weapons.

See, we gun owners are not idiots, and we don't tell the truth when it comes to what and how many firearms we may have because it's NONE OF YOUR OR ANYBODY ELSE'S FUCKING BUSINESS.

And that's why your "surveys" are, as usual, so much bilge. Go to a gun show and check out how many of the people at the dealer's tables are buying their first handgun and then get back to me with some actual data.

However, background checks have increased, and most especially since Obama came to power. That is explained by the fact that the fewer people who do own guns tend to be paranoid. They have this crazy fear that Obama might take away their guns, and their irrational response is to buy more guns. So there are more new gun sales, but not to people who were previously non gun owners in the main.

Your opinion is noted, and rejected.

Surveys have shown in the USA that two thirds of the population own no guns, but the remaining one third own at least 3 as an overall average. When the roughly 100 million gun owners increase the number of guns they own, the number of background checks go up. But at the same time, there are fewer gun owners. This reduction in the number of gun owners is happening in parallel with the reduction in murders.

Unfounded assertion.

This is very simple. Is it simple enough for you to understand?

Oh, it's simple alright, just like your mind. Simplistic really. You want to think that the answers are east and pat. They aren't.

[Seth]

Seth normally ignores any statistics usually by saying he isnt a statistic and has his 'rights'. After all 'natural rights' shut down any argument

Fucking right my natural rights shut down any argument that turns me into an unarmed victim.

If you doubt that, come try to take my guns away and see how far you get with that.

Of course you're a coward, so you'll send jackbooted thugs to do your dirty work, but that won't help much.

Th real coward is anyone who can't walk around unarmed

You seem to think that being a stupid, complacent sheeple means you're being brave. Not in the least.

I'll put my courage up against yours any day MrMarxist dependent-class prole.

You want some, come get some.

[MrJonno]

You seem to think that being a stupid, complacent sheeple means you're being brave. Not in the least.

I'll put my courage up against yours any day MrMarxist dependent-class prole.

You want some, come get some.

Only two types of people those who embrace violence as an normal part of life and the more civilized people who do their best to avoid it.

Waste of time talking in his world what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. Simple as that a true fanatic

[Collector1337]

The number of people owning hand guns is actually going down, not up.

This is a lie. Where's your proof?

As I have pointed out numerous times, though you never take notice, several surveys have shown that fewer Americans over the past few decades actually own guns.

Another lie.

That is explained by the fact that the fewer people who do own guns tend to be paranoid.

Another lie. You do not have the education, training, and experience required to deem what is "paranoid" or not.

Where's your peer reviewed article on this?

They have this crazy fear that Obama might take away their guns, and their irrational response is to buy more guns. So there are more new gun sales, but not to people who were previously non gun owners in the main.

Again. Where is your peer reviewed journal article on this?

Surveys have shown in the USA that two thirds of the population own no guns, but the remaining one third own at least 3 as an overall average. When the roughly 100 million gun owners increase the number of guns they own, the number of background checks go up. But at the same time, there are fewer gun owners. This reduction in the number of gun owners is happening in parallel with the reduction in murders.

This is very simple. Is it simple enough for you to understand?

If this is so simple, then you should have no problem finding numerous peer reviewed journal articles that have researched this.

[Gallstones]

This is how it goes down when you can't defend yourself.

[Collector1337]

This is how it goes down when you can't defend yourself.

If you can't see why this woman should be able to shoot this scum dead in his tracks, then you are just as bad as he is.