"The Second Amendment you don't know"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a...icle-1.1223900
"On Guns, America Stands Out"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/op...tands-out.html
Printable View
"The Second Amendment you don't know"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a...icle-1.1223900
"On Guns, America Stands Out"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/op...tands-out.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfyman
To me this is a suprising thing. There is a lot of sensible and reasoned analysis on this issue coming out of America at the moment, I have been reading journalism of the highest quality and integrity. Does nobody read it over there? Or is a it out of step with popular thinking.
I would hardly call that second article 'journalism of the highest quality and integrity'. Those statistics are meaningless given that it is obvious that with less guns less gun homicides will follow. Now if the writer had shown statistics for TOTAL homicide and crime rates with any weapon used, then I would be able to call it high quality.
However I do fully agree with that first article linked. If gun-owners want to follow the 2nd Amendment, they should form a REAL militia, not a bunch of random gun owners who half the time might not be well-trained or safe (though that is not to say that all gun owners are like this).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Wasn't the 4th column exactly that. - deaths due to assult per 100 000
How about protection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I stand corrected, sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Do you know if deaths caused by self-defence count as homicides?
Varenne - A guns purpose is indeed to kill. That doesn't mean it's there to kill good people though. You can use them for self-defence and for hunting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
It would be interesting to see how many of those deaths were "bad guys" shot by "good guys"- to use NRA phraseology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Although I don't think shooting burglars and thieves is something to be proud of.
It's not a question of being proud but one of self-preservation.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Personally I don't care what happens to burglars.
Without an orderly trial, who's a burglar and who's not cannot be determined. Even then, it is often difficult. To frame someone as a burglar is very easy. It has been demonstrated again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Idle message board goers: just as powerful as the UN.
Protection and self-preservation through a gun in each home... A domestic arms race. What a ridiculous idea. No wonder there are so many firearm homicides in America each year.
If someone breaks into my property he's a burglar. Why else would he force an entry? Why would anyone want to frame someone else as a burglar? Unless you have a logical response there's little point in posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
No not each home because there are plenty of people who aren't prepared to protect themselves but for those of us who are we will take whatever measures we are allowed and continue to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
I found this interesting:
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.
Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.
I don't think you'll like hearing this, Emil, but with that attitude you'd fit right in here in Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Personally, I'm not prepared to kill somebody for stealing my TV.