Good Samaritan Gun Use

[RSX-S777]

Law enforcement exists for a reason. We can't have every yahoo cowboy wanna-be with a shiny new handgun and a tiny penis out there playing Justice League and looking to be the hero, regardless of his intentions. Guns kill and guns get people killed. Leave it to the trained professionals. We have enough problems keeping them reigned in without civilian "help". We are trying to have a society here, this is not the American Revolution, this is not the Wild West. Lose the guns and work on your self-esteem instead.

[SniperX13]

How are your morals RSX? Are you the type of person who would run and protect yourself over your fellow man, or one who would jump in and help out a wrong doing that you are witness too? If you saw a person getting beat down with a ball bat, and had no way to defend themselves, would you just walk on, pretend you didn't notice, or try to help regardless of the fact that you might get hurt?? Yes, this case is a bit different because the other side had a firearm, but so did the other team. This man, used his weapon, and he went to help out people who were unable to help themselves, and I bet he did it with no thought of reward, he did it with total disregard for his own safety, because he saw people who needed help when no one was there to give it. He saw a injustice and decided to help his fellow man. like I said, the signs of a true hero.



Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you have to have a "small penis" This guy showed that he had one helluva pair of cajones.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by SnoopisTDI

I won't be comparing gun deaths because the tools used are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is crime in general, and murder in general. If someone gets raped by a man with a gun, or a knife, I could care less what the weapon was- the problem is the criminal and the rape he commits.

In addition, comparing different countries is not very accurate, because there are a lot more factors playing into it than just the fact that one country has one law and another has a different law. There are a lot of cultural and societal differences, different histories, etc., that affect crime rates. The only logical way to compare would be to look at each country individually, and see what happened to their crime rates after firearms restrictions were passed or removed. I have yet to see anything that shows an overall reduction in crime after anti self-defense laws were passed. The general trend after passing these laws is no change, or slight increase in crime. And I have never heard of the removal of such restrictions leading to an increase in crime.

And if you look within the United States, the areas with the most strict "gun control" laws are the places with the highest crime. I'm not saying the high crime has anything to do with these laws, because that's hard to verify either way. The only thing we do know is that there is still a lot of crime in these places(like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC). The only effect these laws have had is to keep people like you and I from defending ourselves in a place that is known to be dangerous.

And I don't think my comment on delusion was a flame at all. From Webster's, delusion is defined as "a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence..." and that's exactly what I see when I read your posts.

edit: I forgot to add, the MAK90 is a sporting rifle based on the AK47.

Splitting hairs about the brand of weapon isn't going to win you this argument,and nor is becoming offensive.If I choose to take issue with your use of the term delusional,it is ignorant and rude of you to persist with such a term.

Take a quick look at the 'high crime' areas of the States,and their gun laws.In all cases you will find that the tighter gun lsaws came as a result of the high gun crime rate, not vice versa.

you stated earlier that "Well I'm not sure what you define as "harm" and "good." I'm havnig computer problems tonight so I can't find the gun-related death count for the US, but it's something like 46,000. About 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals, and 1/4 of which are suicides- the rest being innocent people killed, or police shootings(accidental or inentional). Even if you count all 46k, it's quite a bit smaller than the two million defensive uses of guns. To me, that looks like good>harm.

now you refuse to back up your claims.Your excuse?

I won't be comparing gun deaths because the tools used are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is crime in general, and murder in general.If someone gets raped by a man with a gun, or a knife, I could care less what the weapon was- the problem is the criminal and the rape he commits.

What a load of bunk.This killer,the Columbine killers,and countless other like them would not have been able to perpetrate the same crimes with a knife.IT NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT WITHOUT THE GUNS.Rape is an entirely seperate issue, and I'd wager that for every woman raped at knifepoint there's a dozen raped at gunpoint.

Your refusal to look at the statistics is very telling.Your bragging about 46000 dead shows that you have absolutely no idea how normal society operates. 46,000 gun deaths is weak to say the least.

I'll help you out with the figures shall I?..

The best New Zealand figures that I can come up with are from the anti-gun lobby, so they won't be under-reporting.

http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER.../Nzd_OR01.html

Estimated Number of Firearms: 700,000 – 1,000,000; Estimated Number of Illegal Guns: 10,000 – 25,000

In an average year, 100 New Zealanders are shot to death: more than one very four days. Of these, 75% are suicides, 12% accidents, 11% homicides, while in 2% causes are indeterminate.


So....lets compare. Multiply the New Zealand figures by 75 to get a reasonable population comparison...

you claim 46,000 deaths.My figure works to 7,500.

you claim 2/3 are criminals killing criminals.Nice try, but I'm not buying it without some stats to back it up.Either way, THEY'RE STILL MURDERS.I'm so glad that we dont have anything like the gang problems that you do.

Suicides? your rate claimed is about 25% ,mine is 75%.Even so, you are looking at 11,500 deaths a year and I'm still only looking at 5600.

that leaves 34,000 non suicide firearms deaths in the States EVERY year.If NZ had a comparable population we'd be looking at 1,875, of which half were accidental. lets say 1000 homicides compared to your 34,000.

No wonder you don't want to back your figures up..Your figures are a damnation of your own position.According to your statistics, the crims are running riot,the population are killing themselves in droves, and the cops are killing hundreds if not thousands every year.Here's a figure for you to consider.....the last controversial firearms death against the new zealand police happened in september 2000.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/sep2000/nz-s07.shtml

Hopw many people have the US police shot and killed since then?
well they can better that figure in just one city in just 4 days

http://www.indybay.org/archives/arch...category_id=13

You must be so proud.


As to your suggestion that guns are responsible for preventing 2 million crimes a year in the States, I'm still laughing at that one.If you are going to pluck such figures out of thin air to try to justify alegislation that is ffailing at every turn,I'll consider this argument comprehensively won by the good sense of the anti-gun lobby. Unless of course you can come up with something more concrete.

[SnoopisTDI]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Splitting hairs about the brand of weapon isn't going to win you this argument

I wasn't trying to split hairs, just trying to let you know the facts. If someone was run over by a guy driving a Skoda Octavia, and I said it was a VW Jetta, I would be incorrect. The same is true for this story.

Take a quick look at the 'high crime' areas of the States,and their gun laws.In all cases you will find that the tighter gun lsaws came as a result of the high gun crime rate

I neither claimed nor implied anything to the contrary. I just stated that the the crime rate has remained high even after the gun laws were created.

you stated earlier that "Well I'm not sure what you define as "harm" and "good." I'm havnig computer problems tonight so I can't find the gun-related death count for the US, but it's something like 46,000. About 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals, and 1/4 of which are suicides- the rest being innocent people killed, or police shootings(accidental or inentional). Even if you count all 46k, it's quite a bit smaller than the two million defensive uses of guns. To me, that looks like good>harm.

now you refuse to back up your claims.Your excuse?

I'm not sure what you mean by refusal to back up my claims. If you're referring to not having a source, I'm having a hell of a time with the CDC website, and that's all there is to it. I've tried at home and at work, and I keep getting "Service unavailable."

IT NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT WITHOUT THE GUNS.

Did you know the same night as the shooting at the mall in NY(where one man was shot, in the leg), a lone knifeman in Manhattan stabbed three people, killing two of them? You probably didn't hear too much about that. And don't forget, 19 man killed nearly 3000 with knives in a single morning.

Rape is an entirely seperate issue, and I'd wager that for every woman raped at knifepoint there's a dozen raped at gunpoint.

And I'd wager that women on the receiving end of an attempted rape are 4 times more likely to be raped if they are unarmed.

Your refusal to look at the statistics is very telling.

It sure is. I've seen statistics from both sides of the fence, and they both prove each other wrong- some even based on the same data!

Ok, I actually got something on the CDC site to come up. I need to get back to work, so I haven't read it yet. But here ya go:
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by SnoopisTDI

Did you know the same night as the shooting at the mall in NY(where one man was shot, in the leg), a lone knifeman in Manhattan stabbed three people, killing two of them? You probably didn't hear too much about that. And don't forget, 19 man killed nearly 3000 with knives in a single morning.

So gimme some reliable stats here. How many multiple homicides are committed in the US per year with assault rifles or their derivatives, and how many are committed with knives?

Do explain more about your last sentence in this paragraph, because I haven't a clue what you mean.

Ok, I actually got something on the CDC site to come up. I need to get back to work, so I haven't read it yet. But here ya go:
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

So, you're going to your government's site for strategy on reducing gun deaths? Frankly that's like going to the Marlboro Man for advice on quitting smoking.It's time to front up to the ugly truth that your country's firearms management strategies are not working. Any twenty-first century strategy based on 18th century ideals is going to fail.Tell me, are you so scared of your government that you intend to raise an armed militia?And if you tried to, do you think you would get far enough to make one iota of difference?OK so you were given a constitutional right to protect yourself against your government.So What? it's obsolete.

One final point.

58,000 men died in Vietnam.That war is almost universally accepted as a failed campaign.Fought over ten years thats an average of less than 6000 deaths per year for a failed cause.You are holding up 46,000 gun deaths as an acceptable figure.With the same success as Vietnam.

46,000 killed by guns every year. Worst percentage figures in the developed world. Allowing civilians to carry handguns and get themselves killed in wild west style shootouts with the people that you allow to own semi-automatic combat weapons[or their derivatives]is not going to make a damn of difference.The figures prove that handguns and large-magazine weapons are not condusive to a peaceful society.

[YogsVR4]

If you take out Wayne, Ingham and Genesee county gun deaths out of Michigan then not only would our population match New Zealands, our gun deaths would be lower. Those counties contain the largest cities in the state (especially Detroit) and it says something for the perponderance of violence in the big cities. (Firefox is freaking out on me so I''ve lost the links for the time being).

If I were to take the same example of a county with 1/75 the size of New Zealand - Marquette is the closest http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26103.html (though it is 1/62) and the number of gun related deaths is 1 - thats right - ONE. What does Marquette county have in common with New Zealand? About the same as New Zealand does with the USA in terms of population, nothing. New Zealand is more comparable to Finland.

There has been only anicdotal evidence of crime reduction simply because firearms were elminated. There is also the same type of evidence that crime decreases when more firearms are introduced into society (Michigan is one of those examples). My wife and I are amont the 95 million legal gun owners who hurt noone today.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

If you take out Wayne, Ingham and Genesee county gun deaths out of Michigan then not only would our population match New Zealands, our gun deaths would be lower. Those counties contain the largest cities in the state (especially Detroit) and it says something for the perponderance of violence in the big cities. (Firefox is freaking out on me so I''ve lost the links for the time being).

Hmmm...what a good idea, take out the problem areas and the figure drops.Of course it's a skewed argument,but never mind, it gives Yogs figures that he needn't be embarrassed about.

Curiously, if you took out new zealands 3 biggest urban areas, the percentage of gun deaths would rise. It's no good simply classifying it as a 'city' problem, and therefore unimportant. the gun-owning fraternity in New Zealand accounts for an average of 11 murders per year. Total. city and country. Eleven. and that from an estimated total gun supply of around about 1 MILLION.

So for one for million guns in NZ,[25% of population] we have 11 murders per annum.

to be comparable by population, the US should have about 825 murders per annum.

To be comparable by number of firearms held[considering that the us boasts roughly 85 guns for every 100 people] we can boost that figure to about 2800 murders per annum.

Using snoop's rather vague percentages,over 34,000 people are murdered in the US with firearm.

So to summarise

The US has more guns than NZ.
The US has more guns per head of population than NZ
The US has a higher rate of murder per gun than NZ.
We're comparing 46000 with 11. If we compare a representative proportion of the American population with the entire NZ population[85% of whom are city dwellers], we end up with over 600 deaths.

Bottom line, you are sixty times more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the US.

Thanks guys, but at those odds, I'll waive my right to own a gun.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by taranaki

So gimme some reliable stats here. How many multiple homicides are committed in the US per year with assault rifles or their derivatives, and how many are committed with knives?

There are more homicides and murders committed with knives, baseball bats, pipes, bare hands, brass knuckles, and other common objects than guns. I think the numbers are double, maybe triple, than what is done with guns. True, when somebody goes crazy with a gun they kill more people but when looking at the big numbers guns aren't as bad as they seem. Also homicides and other murders involving guns has been on the decline ever since 1990 but that information was back in 2002.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

True, when somebody goes crazy with a gun they kill more people but when looking at the big numbers guns aren't as bad as they seem.

46,000 isn't a bad number?..........sheesh.

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by SniperX13

How are your morals RSX? Are you the type of person who would run and protect yourself over your fellow man, or one who would jump in and help out a wrong doing that you are witness too? If you saw a person getting beat down with a ball bat, and had no way to defend themselves, would you just walk on, pretend you didn't notice, or try to help regardless of the fact that you might get hurt?? Yes, this case is a bit different because the other side had a firearm, but so did the other team. This man, used his weapon, and he went to help out people who were unable to help themselves, and I bet he did it with no thought of reward, he did it with total disregard for his own safety, because he saw people who needed help when no one was there to give it. He saw a injustice and decided to help his fellow man. like I said, the signs of a true hero. Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you have to have a "small penis" This guy showed that he had one helluva pair of cajones.

I fail to understand how my integrity has any bearing whatsoever on the issue of gun control. Challenging my personal sense of honor and decency will not a solid case make. Guns don't make a man brave, and gun ownership does not give one the right to enforce the law, unless you are a police officer.

[SniperX13]

I am sorry if you feel I was challenging your honor, I was trying to guage what type of person you were, not trying imply anything, or attack you personally.

no one said the gun made him brave, he himself was brave already to make up his mind to go and help. the firearm was mearly a tool to assist.

but with the comment of "not his (our) job to enforce the law, leave it to the professionals, I guess that answers my question of stopping to help out someone who needs help and can't help themselves.

[Twitch1]

I can tell you this from personal knowledge. Let's go to any city of say 100,000 or so and I will find someone willing to sell me both dope and an unregistered firearm within an hour. All you gotta do in a strange town is ask someone where the bad part of town that you should stay away from is, then go there.


I've been to places like that dressed in business suit- I look like a cop anyway- and driving Ford sedan company car that screams "cop." I always got a hit of "wanna buy dope?" or "I got a .38 for sale $50." And where I could find dope a question of where I could buy a gun went hand in hand.

Since this a car-oriented site folks should consider the same amount that die due to drunk driving every year. That is something far easier to address.

Nobody gives a flyin' fongulu about New Zealand or any other foreign country. Comparing apples with turds doesn't mean anything. Antis have always done this and it proves nothing since everything is different from geography to social mores and values and weather- all of which affect crime. And by the way- the way all comparitive crime statistical studies of US cities are done are via crimes per 100,000 population in relation to the population in any given year. It's the only equatable, rational way.

If certain law-abiding people choose not to own a firarm that's great. Other law-abiding folks do and that is their choice. That's what this country is all about- having personal freedom to make those choices guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This goes far beyond the 2nd Amendment in our society.

If anyone here talking about this is not living in the US please don't attempt to pretend you know all about us since you read some statistics somewhere. You have no more immersive knowledge of our culture than we do of the Jivaro tribe in the Amazon basin.

[taranaki]

Aaah..the old 'you don't understand' card.

Heard that one before, not buying into it.

Argue the facts or go away.We know that America is 'different'.That's why it has a gun problem unique to the civilised world.It has very little to do with gun ownership percentages either, since countries like Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership.Strange how you don't hear sabout Swiss drive-by shootings every week.or Swiss serial killers...or Swiss kids going nuts and shooting up their schools.

Yes America is different.Problem is different is not always better.In this case, different only happened because the people of the US accepted it.Getting shot at is ok,apparently.

Gun related deaths are as easy to deal with as drunk driving.In other words, it's down to the collective will.Either you want to be part of the first world, or part of the third.

The second ammendement is a carbunkle on the Constitution.The sooner it is consigned to the dustbin, the better.

If you have any suggestions ads to how to reduce America's death rate due to firearms,twitch,I'd be interested to hear about them.But I really don't give a 'flyin' fongulu' if you'd rather lash out at the more successful countries instead of fixing your own.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by Twitch1

Nobody gives a flyin' fongulu about New Zealand or any other foreign country. Comparing apples with turds doesn't mean anything. Antis have always done this and it proves nothing since everything is different from geography to social mores and values and weather- all of which affect crime. And by the way- the way all comparitive crime statistical studies of US cities are done are via crimes per 100,000 population in relation to the population in any given year. It's the only equatable, rational way.

Nice attitude.(<---yes that's sarcasm in case you missed it) I live in the US and your idiotic post pissed ME off. Calling the people of another country (that you have never and will never visit) turds only shows your ignorance. There happend to be LOTS of people that give a "flying fongulu" about other countries. Have you ever even been out of the US? I kinda think not. Why don't you try opening your mind?


I think the guy that used his pistol to go against the guy with the AK-47 variant was heroic. He went into a situation to help numerous people, many of which (according to the story) would have died had he not taken action. If the AK guy hadn't had a vest on, he would have been killed by the first 2 shots and it would have been over.

I think the statistics speak for themselves. The US has more deaths per gun/per person (per 100K people) than NZ does. Why is this? If we remove the criminals from this discussion, the US still leads NZ by a huge margin. Are we the gun toting cowboys that the world sees us as, or are the people of NZ more reasonable, not taking deathly offense in day to day life? Or are the big cities of the US too big, the overcrowding causing the problem? I don't think it's guns, it's the people and the situation.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Hmmm...what a good idea, take out the problem areas and the figure drops.Of course it's a skewed argument,but never mind, it gives Yogs figures that he needn't be embarrassed about.

Curiously, if you took out new zealands 3 biggest urban areas, the percentage of gun deaths would rise. It's no good simply classifying it as a 'city' problem, and therefore unimportant. the gun-owning fraternity in New Zealand accounts for an average of 11 murders per year. Total. city and country. Eleven. and that from an estimated total gun supply of around about 1 MILLION.

So for one for million guns in NZ,[25% of population] we have 11 murders per annum.

to be comparable by population, the US should have about 825 murders per annum.

To be comparable by number of firearms held[considering that the us boasts roughly 85 guns for every 100 people] we can boost that figure to about 2800 murders per annum.

Using snoop's rather vague percentages,over 34,000 people are murdered in the US with firearm.

So to summarise

The US has more guns than NZ.
The US has more guns per head of population than NZ
The US has a higher rate of murder per gun than NZ.
We're comparing 46000 with 11. If we compare a representative proportion of the American population with the entire NZ population[85% of whom are city dwellers], we end up with over 600 deaths.

Bottom line, you are sixty times more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the US.

Thanks guys, but at those odds, I'll waive my right to own a gun.

Interesting imagination you have there. In 2000 there were over 15,600 murders - nowhere near the 46,000 number you're lobbing around http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Its true that a significan portion (80% or so) were done using firearms http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa...S/GUNSTAT.html But, even then, there is no evidence that the crimes wouldn't have been committed even if there were no guns.

Its to bad that so many countries that have people who are so willing to give up our civil liberties.


To summarize. You're pulling imaginary numbers out of the air.