DescentBB

Washington DC is now a whole lot safer:

"A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

Wife and I went gun shopping today

Buy anything?

Looking at the Springfield XDs 45 and getting my ccwp, and then maybe a 1911. kind of a sentimental thing, I carried one in the Navy.
And the Glock 380 for the wife. Small enough for her to handle easy.
I'm looking at the 45 because if I do end up shooting it, it's going down, its not a guarantee with a 9 or a 38. We do a lot if remote hiking and I want to be able to protect my self from animals. The two legged type.
a friend of mine owns a gun shop, so he's helping me out. First purchase, but I'm not unfamiliar with guns

Take a look at the Walther PPQ M2 while you're shopping.

CUDA wrote:We do a lot if remote hiking and I want to be able to protect my self from animals. The two legged type.

I'd carry a gun, too, to ward off the flamingos, penguins, and hummingbirds.

Shield mp40 is also a good choice. Small profile but quite a bang. The 1911 is also my pistol of choice, but it's price tag has kept me from it thus far.

Ya, I eventually want a 1911 but $1200.00 is just a little out my price range right now

snoopy wrote:

CUDA wrote:We do a lot if remote hiking and I want to be able to protect my self from animals. The two legged type.

I'd carry a gun, too, to ward off the flamingos, penguins, and hummingbirds.

Hey I grew up in Florida Flamingo's can get nasty

Especially the plastic kind!

your point?

gun ownership does not equate to safety, by and large. See today's events in Fayetteville, and you know damned well that I can cite nearly an example per day(although that would make for a boring thread which still won't make its point on the gun-totin' fringe)

slick, will you include the nearly 2 million times per year legal gun owners, with police far from arriving on the scene, used guns to ward off violent attackers when you start citing your examples? Let me know if yours give you a net positive outcome toward supporting that which you imply. Lol, not happening...

callmeslick wrote:gun ownership does not equate to safety, by and large. See today's events in Fayetteville, and you know damned well that I can cite nearly an example per day(although that would make for a boring thread which still won't make its point on the gun-totin' fringe)

I think the judge's ruling is on point: individual safety wasn't relevant to the ruling and isn't relevant to the second amendment.

callmeslick wrote:http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/29 ... wards-him/

What that moron did was break the law, and should spend some time for interfering with the duties of a police officer.

Dumb people come in all shapes and sizes, and yes…some of them carry guns.

But once again, I must be stupid, because I can’t bring myself to blame the gun.

I have heard cases where people chased after robbers in their cars, and interfered with police…duh

callmeslick wrote:gun ownership does not equate to safety, by and large. See today's events in Fayetteville, and you know damned well that I can cite nearly an example per day(although that would make for a boring thread which still won't make its point on the gun-totin' fringe)

Lets see what one of your favored pollsters have to say"

At least one recent study suggests that Craig (Craig is Detroit's police chief and states private gun ownership and CCW's help prevent crime) hits the nail on the head. A long-range study by a Quinnipiac University economist shows that states with more restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits had higher murder rates by guns than gun-friendly states, and suggests that increasing restrictions on concealed-carry permits pushes the murder rate up, not down. It also showed that assault-weapons bans had no effect on murder rates.

So once again slick, you speak first with absolutely no knowledge of what you talk about. Citing single instances does not bolster your point.

Will Robinson wrote:...include the nearly 2 million times per year legal gun owners, with police far from arriving on the scene, used guns to ward off violent attackers...

How is this incredible statistic calculated? I want to better understand how 1 out of every 150 US residents fight crime with guns... every year.

Vision, look up Prof John Lott and perhaps you will better understand.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...include the nearly 2 million times per year legal gun owners, with police far from arriving on the scene, used guns to ward off violent attackers...

How is this incredible statistic calculated? I want to better understand how 1 out of every 150 US residents fight crime with guns... every year.

or the same handful use their guns a whole lot!

Number of times a citizen reports to police that he/she pulled a gun to deal with a possible threat.
As in, woke to hear someone in the garage, took shotgun and went to investigate...potential threat ran away when confronted.

Of those 2+million/year incidents a study was conducted to determine how many times was violence most likely averted. Interviewed responding officers, witnesses, etc. Results, over 250,000 times per year, without firing a shot, a rape or violent assault is stopped by an armed citizen.

The number of times a criminal is shot in the act of an attack is not included in that number because those incidents are moved to another category.

FBI crime stats collecting Sheriffs department records is the source. The investigation into threat vs. imminent threat is in a post I made about this about a year ago with all links etc.
I'm tired of digging it out and reposting it because once I do you guys just disappear only to reappear next time spouting your same illogic as if reality had never been tossed in your face the last time.

So, in a sense, you are winning the war of attrition to implement illogical based non-solutions in the name of compassion...yay you....

meanwhile, over in Chicago, those pesky gang-bangers are shooting up.......the financial district? Not safe to go to Jos A Bank, anymore?
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/2- ... z393oLKgWu

yep all those Chicago Anti gun laws stopped that attack in it's tracks huh?

woodchip wrote:Vision, look up Prof John Lott and perhaps you will better understand.

Thanks. Although what I now understand from looking at wikipedia is that his conclusions are sketchy.

Speaking of sketchy, I am still having a hard time believing the 2 million per year number. According to GunPolicy.org (hosted by the University of Sydney Australia) 34.4% of US households have firearms (2012). Even if we bump it up assuming unregistered guns bring the total to 50% and subtract children from adults that same year we are left with 122 million gun owners. Dividing the number of reports by 365 then dividing that by the number of gun owners gives us 22,266 reports of thwarted crime every day. I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing our police stations are spending this much time recording crime thwarted by guns, especially considering there are just over 1 million total police officers (2009) in the country. A good percentage of them would have jobs that consisted solely of taking reports from gun owners recalling their heroics. Each officer would have to take 46 of these reports every day. The math just doesn't add up!

Can someone provide me a believable number of how many people use guns to ward off violent attackers every year? Anyone?

I can paste links too

[03/25/14] Customer with gun stops man stabbing security officer at Home Depot (Roseville, MI) http://www.freep.com/article/20140325/N ... -Depot-gun

[07/24/14] Gunman shoots two at Darby hospital, doctor returns fire (near Philadelphia, PA) http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140 ... pital.html

[2/24/14] 15 Year Old Shoots and Kills Man Who Was Trying to Kidnap Woman in Wyoming [WY] http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/1 ... n-wyoming/#

[7/30/14] Man shot dead by girlfriend in domestic dispute (Vancouver, WA) http://koin.com/2014/07/30/officials-gi ... boyfriend/

[7/30/14] Auto repair shop owner pulls gun after being threatened (Lorain, OH) http://tbo.com/news/crime/employee-shoo ... -20140729/


[7/25/14] Teen arrested after gas station clerk pulls gun (High Ridge, MO) http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article ... 647436.php

[7/25/14] Autauga County (AL) grand jury clears homeowner who killed intruder http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/sto ... /13162651/

[7/23/14] No charges for Lakeport (CA) woman who fatally shot husband http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/sto ... /13162651/

'Point 'em out, knock 'em out': Brutal game ends when assault victim fires his concealed handgun (Lansing, MI) http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... _brut.html

[10/20/13] - Pastor pulls gun, stops robbery at Evansville, IN business http://www.14news.com/story/23740536/pa ... e-business

A lot more where that came from. Just let me know.

vision wrote:Each officer would have to take 46 of these reports every day. The math just doesn't add up!

Your math doesn’t add up that’s for sure…

1 million police x 46 reports a day x 365 days = 16,790,000,000 events per year.


EDIT:
Any first grader could figure out if you have 2 million reports a year and 1 million police officers that….each officer would have to take a WHOPPING 2 reports a year.

Spidey wrote:Your math doesn’t add up that’s for sure…

Oh thanks for catching my error, I was multi-tasking at the time. The actual number is one report per police officer every 2 days. That is still an amazingly high number and needs citation.

Isaac wrote:A lot more where that came from. Just let me know.

Post all of them please. I want to get to the bottom of this amazing 2-million per year number. To have that high a number would mean almost 2% of gun owners are pulling a firearm to ward off crime every year (this is my low estimate). I have a very diverse set of friends who live in all parts of the country and cover a wide range of the socio-economic scale. Most of them own guns. Exactly zero of them have ever had to whip one out to protect themselves. I think this annual 2-million number is very far fetched indeed.

Still wrong…

1 Million officers getting a report every two days…

1 Million x 182.5=182.5 million.

See my edit above.

Post all of them please

YES PLEASE post all 2 million of them

I announce right now that I'm only going to skim 2 million links. Actually the average of one report every other day seems plausible, but sort of high. Haven't sorted Spidey's math, but I think you end up with a reasonable enough number, per capita.

With 1 million officers they only need to report 2 such crime preventions A Year

The Chipper gets a gold star.

But hey, I can see the confusion...with such a complicated formula and all...

two divided by one...

Ha! I'm bad at math today. I've been working crazy hours. Still, there really is no correlation between conceal and carry / gun rights and declining violence. Raising the standard of living is why we see declining violence. But you know, make up whatever you want about gun rights. It's just talk.

but there is a correlation with gun bans and increased violence in those cities. it is fact that banning guns does not limit gun violence

CUDA wrote:but there is a correlation with gun bans and increased violence in those cities. it is fact that banning guns does not limit gun violence

Right, but the opposite is not true. Increasing guns does not decrease violence. The US has the highest per capita gun ownership (by a huge margin) and some of the highest per capita firearm deaths (excluding war zones). It's hard to find a place easier to get a gun than the US. This fact alone is enough to prove more guns =/= more safety. Just look at all you cowboys on this forum, practically foaming at the mouth waiting for the opportunity to shoot a bad guy and prove some sort of macho egoism. Violence is waning globally due to increases in the quality of life, not gun policy. So keep on talking. It's kind of a stupid thing to waste your time on.

As I said I posted detailed links before.
Go find it yourself so you can then quickly disappear or change the subject since there is no refuting the number of goofballs that almost shoot a cop trying to help...added to all the other incidents slick offered to post....won't add up to anything close to the number of times people use guns in a way that warrants the right to keep and bear them....

Will Robinson wrote:...won't add up to anything close to the number of times people use guns in a way that warrants the right to keep and bear them....

There is no realistic way to ban guns anyway. There are simply too many of them in this country. However, it is possible to create progressively stricter gun laws while simultaneously increasing safety and education and reducing factors that contribute to violence (like poverty). Of course, it would take several generations to make this kind of cultural change, to be a more polite, responsible society, and everyone would have to be on board.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...won't add up to anything close to the number of times people use guns in a way that warrants the right to keep and bear them....

There is no realistic way to ban guns anyway. There are simply too many of them in this country. However, it is possible to create progressively stricter gun laws while simultaneously increasing safety and education and reducing factors that contribute to violence (like poverty). Of course, it would take several generations to make this kind of cultural change, to be a more polite, responsible society, and everyone would have to be on board.

I'm ok with that assuming the "progressive" part does not progress into prohibitive. Point me to the Party that will build such common sense into their platform...

Will Robinson wrote:I'm ok with that assuming the "progressive" part does not progress into prohibitive. Point me to the Party that will build such common sense into their platform...

As I said in the post above, it will only happen when everyone gets on board. The gun industry doesn't want a polite, responsible society -- it's bad for business. Keeping everyone afraid of each other and the government, that's what sells weapons. Anyway, there are much more important things to worry about than guns. It's kind of a stupid thing to waste time talking about.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:but there is a correlation with gun bans and increased violence in those cities. it is fact that banning guns does not limit gun violence

Right, but the opposite is not true. Increasing guns does not decrease violence.

your logic is flawed.
if you agree that tighter gun control increases violence in cities. Then the opposite must be true. Less restrictive gun control has to lower the violence rate

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.