Does anyone else find it upsetting that people are walking around in Target with guns?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
yes, because there are NO concealed weapons in DC. all those murders are by rubber band. |
Anonymous
I'm a democrat, and I agree with PP. An armed populace leads to lower crime. Also, I believe in the bill of rights -- all ten amendments. |
Anonymous
But the Bill of Rights was drafted at a time when colonists were fighting against imperial tyranny. The wanted to make sure the colonists would be armed against the government, not against other citizens. |
Anonymous
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.) In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to. In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love. In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
The Supreme Court disagrees. |
Anonymous
OTOH if enough people were armed to make that a real deterrent, then nobody would leave their homes. The sheer number of accidental deaths would be staggering, and bars would go out of business for the liability. |
Anonymous
| In countries with relatively homogeneous population and mandatory military service, eg, Switzerland and Israel, where most households have at least one gun, the rate of criminal gun violence is low. Of course their outlook on guns differs than in the US. They see their training and weapons as a matter of national security and not for criminal activity. Also, their criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration into society once they finish their prison sentence. |
Anonymous
| I've had a ccw for years. Carried just about everywhere---rather have a weapon and not need it than vice versa. Only pulled it once yet, did not fire. Am I glad I have it? Hell yes. In some ways, you move differently and look at the world differently if you are armed. I think people read that body language and avoid you if they are seeking a victim. |
Anonymous
What caused you to pull it out but not fire? |
Anonymous
This a common misinterpretation of the second amendment. The prefatory clause does not limit the right protected by the operative clause. The second amendment protects an individual right of self-defense using firearms. This includes defending oneself against other citizens. The second amendment contemplates that once a sufficiently large number of individuals are capable of self-defense using firearms, they become capable of acting collectively in defense of the state. This was clarified by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller: Held: 1. The Second 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. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. |
Anonymous
Not PP, but my guess is that most criminals run away as soon as a potential victim brandishes a weapon. There is probably to need to fire it. |
Anonymous
My brother lives in NC and was almost a victim of a carjacking late one night going home from work. He conceal carries. Three hoodlums approached his car at a stop light and two tried to open the driver door and were yelling at him to get out. He brandished the weapon and they bolted. Thats the only time he has had to 'use' it. |
Anonymous
OK, but these stats are taken from JUST people who had successfully used them in self-defense. This is NOT what the previous poster asked for. Talk about biased surveys. And I work in polling... |
Anonymous
| Pulled weapon as I was investigating a threat----unidentified person in my home, after dark, making the dog growl. Said person turned out to be a neighbor kid who was stupid and did not identify himself when I challenged, so I came downstairs with weapon drawn. Kid shit pants and ran away..... |