Until you realize that most defensive gun uses result in no shots fired, and when shots are fired, very few die. Besides, how many of those 32 are career felons and gang bangers? About 80%. Let's exclude them, because the more of them that are put down the better. So what's that leave us, a 7:1 ratio? Keep calm and carry.
And your point is what precisely? The simple fact that a significant portion of the united states population is not threatened with great bodily harm or death, to the point they need to use deadly force to defend themselves, ultimately means nothing at all.
Are you excluding them for the sake of convenience so the numbers "look better" to support your argument?
It may mean nothing to you, but it says a lot. If the NRA admits that guns are rarely used in self defense, that is very telling.
No, I'm excluding them because they're going to be killing people with guns no matter what the laws are. Anyone who is engaged in gang activity and murder, and willing to ignore the penalties for murder, are of course going to laugh at magazine limits and bullet buttons. The only defense against psychopaths are lengthy prison sentences and/or a better aim. Besides, every gun banner in existence lumps suicides in with "gun violence", even though the two issues have nothing to do with each other.
My response to the thread isn't about laws or gangs, it's about gun statistics which cannot be ignored whether or not you agree with the statistics.
Well I have a piece of advice for you...you are in a hole....it's time to stop digging. DGU also include things like telling someone you have a weapon so they should cease and desist, showing someone you have a weapon and telling them they should cease and desist, pulling a weapon and advising them they should cease and desist without pointing it at them, and pointing a weapon at someone and advising them they should stop. All these are examples of using a gun to stop someone without ever shooting the weapon. These are the bulk of using a gun to stop an attack on an individual or others, thus everyone should have a gun. The next step...actually shooting someone more often than not does not result in death thus negating your articles point which was biased to begin with, the shootings that actually result in death in the act of self defense may be small but none the less all the above mentioned DGUs are way higher than the illogical and incorrect point the OP was trying to make. Finally to the point of your second sentence, I don't really know the originations of your thought process, LEOs and CCL holders are taught that in order to pull the trigger you must be under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, thus pointing a weapon at someone to convince them to stop their actions does not necessarily equate to being under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm....it is just sometimes a tactically smart thing to do. Gun owners get this as demonstrated by the lack of blood running in the streets or wild west shootouts with the millions of guns and CCL holders carrying everyday. You would benefit greatly from taking a CCH class although I would caution you that I don't believe with your current state of mind that you should actually apply for a license.
The article is wrong then. You don't have to shoot and kill someone in order for it to be called a defensive use of a gun.
You don't get it it do you, There is no such thing as 2000 people are killed doing X so 600 people being killed doing Y is no big deal , or is acceptable, or any bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Regressive sure can get goofy.
what's a regressive? someone who wants to steal freedom from others? someone who supports a nanny state government or someone who believes 600 accidental deaths out of 350 million firearms is grounds to ban them all?
http://concealednation.org/2016/06/...ake-of-raising-his-gun-to-an-armed-homeowner/ Yup everyone should have a gun.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/06/co-armed-witness-holds-knifeman-at.html?m=1 Yup everyone should have a gun, especially when the bad guy brings a knife. Good thread JB!
And so, even though you cannot answer the question, you believe the article proves that the dangers of guns outweigh their benefit. - - - Updated - - - ^^^ Mindless nonsense.
You want to go around waving a gun around that's your business. Lets hope someone else doesn't pull a gun behind you and shoot you because they fear for their lives.
Wait why? What I'm saying is that there is a risk to owning a gun, however that risk is minute in comparison to say driving a car.
What do you want me to say, the danger of owning a gun is less then what and who cares. The point is simple a lot of this can be taken care of with regulations that are concise and specific to the problem. You have the right to shoot yourself in the foot but no right to shoot someone else in the foot.
What is telling, is that the statement is in line with the fact that violent crime is at a historic low in the united states, as stated by the FBI. If violent crime is indeed at historic lows, of course there would be fewer defensive uses of firearms.
What rules and regulations and why focus on something that is at the bottom of things that can kill you accidentally? Why not focus on cars?
http://abc7.com/news/man-stabs-woman-in-koreatown-then-gets-shot-killed-by-bystander/1376300/ Yup everyone should own a gun...no foot shooting here eh JB?
In response, the Mayor declared it a "horrible tragedy". He promptly ordered the city to pay the victim 10 million dollars in damages. The male perpetrator was immediately jailed on a 5 million dollar bond. The Mayor responded "We must make the city safe from gun violence and the people who are illegally carrying guns in this city. We will take appropriate measures to ensure this never happens again. To the young woman who should have dressed more conservatively, you need to make sure you are not acting in a way which causes irresistible urges in our youth. This whole chain of events could have been avoided if you had dressed responsibly." /sarcasm
