If Biden wins we will all need to get a gun.

[Moonglow]

I've own guns and other weapons all my adult life no matter who is president...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am well known in my area for ARs. I have built for Sheriff's Deputies and others. I shoot them every week. I have 30 of them myself.

In the last month I have received dozens of calls from people wanting to get ARs. They have sold out of the ARs and other guns in the local gun stores. They are hard to get on line. The gun show this last weekend ARs were selling for twice the price that they were a couple of months ago.

Ammo is almost impossible to find.

People in general are concerned for their safety and they don't have any any faith in the police to protect them when their bosses are Democrats.

Luckily we have a great Sheriff in my county (Grady Judd). Last week a man tired to break into a woman's home and she she shot him. Sheriff Judd congratulated her for a good kill.

The reason anti-gun people are safe in their homes and streets is because people like her do have guns. A burglar or attacker is taking a huge risk when they intend to bring harm to other people. So many resist or otherwise use extreme caution when attempting to commit a crime.

When our state was considering CCW laws, I was part of a local blog. One member asked me why I would want to see the law passed. I told him (her) among other things, it's because my 73 year old mother likes to walk everywhere she goes. She never had a drivers license in her life. He followed up by asking if the law passed, would my elderly mother carry a firearm? To that I replied, no she wouldn't, but the bad guys don't know that.

So I always tell these anti-gunners, if they want to see what a truly disarmed society would look like, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSEHOLD for your front porch, and get back to us in a few months (if you're still alive) and let us know how that worked out for you. Because if you made guns illegal, or virtually impossible to get, that's exactly what they would be doing, hanging that huge sign on all our front porches.

 

[Flash]

I've own guns and other weapons all my adult life no matter who is president...

I have lots of guns. If it was up to this Biden asshole he would take most of them away from me. He said so.

 

[JoeB131]

The reason anti-gun people are safe in their homes and streets is because people like her do have guns. A burglar or attacker is taking a huge risk when they intend to bring harm to other people. So many resist or otherwise use extreme caution when attempting to commit a crime.

Not really. All a gun in the home does is give the crook somewhere to steal them from... they make us less safe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason anti-gun people are safe in their homes and streets is because people like her do have guns. A burglar or attacker is taking a huge risk when they intend to bring harm to other people. So many resist or otherwise use extreme caution when attempting to commit a crime.

Not really. All a gun in the home does is give the crook somewhere to steal them from... they make us less safe.

Wrong. Until my apartment got robbed, I never held a gun in my life. I knew the lowlifes who did it. They were friends with another tenant here before I bought the place. These were pretty dangerous people.

In any case, I played stupid and acted like I didn't know it was them. After the tenant was kicked out, they came over acting like my friends. That's when I flashed my new gun. I told them I anxiously await the people who ripped me off to come back. I was going to send them home in boxes. Then I took the gun and started to twirl it on my first finger like a cowboy. I knew it wouldn't go off because it was a revolver with a pretty heavy trigger. Their eyes lit up and one said "Dude! Be careful with that thing!" I just laughed. I told them I even have a friend come over to pickup my car from time to time to give the appearance I wasn't home to draw them back in. I couldn't wait to kill them!

They never came back. They knew I had a gun and thought I was nuts to boot.

 

[JoeB131]

In any case, I played stupid and acted like I didn't know it was them. After the tenant was kicked out, they came over acting like my friends. That's when I flashed my new gun. I told them I anxiously await the people who ripped me off to come back. I was going to send them home in boxes. Then I took the gun and started to twirl it on my first finger like a cowboy. I knew it wouldn't go off because it was a revolver with a pretty heavy trigger. Their eyes lit up and one said "Dude! Be careful with that thing!" I just laughed. I told them I even have a friend come over to pickup my car from time to time to give the appearance I wasn't home to draw them back in. I couldn't wait to kill them!

Wow.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut... Thanks for proving that again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In any case, I played stupid and acted like I didn't know it was them. After the tenant was kicked out, they came over acting like my friends. That's when I flashed my new gun. I told them I anxiously await the people who ripped me off to come back. I was going to send them home in boxes. Then I took the gun and started to twirl it on my first finger like a cowboy. I knew it wouldn't go off because it was a revolver with a pretty heavy trigger. Their eyes lit up and one said "Dude! Be careful with that thing!" I just laughed. I told them I even have a friend come over to pickup my car from time to time to give the appearance I wasn't home to draw them back in. I couldn't wait to kill them!

Wow.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut... Thanks for proving that again.

Obviously the point flew right over your head. Once the lowlifes learned that I purchased a firearm and well prepared to use it, they never came back.

I'm assuming by your stance you currently have no firearms in your home. Would you be willing to tell everybody that? Would you advertise to the criminals you have no real way of protecting yourself against them--the same people that do have firearms?

The internet is the most wonderful invention of our time. You can use it to stay in contact with people, to pay bills, to order merchandise, to educate yourself. There are a certain amount of people who also use the internet for nefarious activities. Should we take away everybody's ability to access the net?

Personal vehicles are a wonderful thing. We can go to the store two blocks away, or on vacation ten states away. Having a personal vehicle gives us liberty, it allows us to obtain necessary and non-necessary goods, it gives us the ability to help family members, friends or neighbors that need to get to places. But we lose 35,000 Americans a year to auto deaths, many of which are the fault of the operator. Should we all be forced into public transportation?

Firearms are no different. Even with the unbiased FBI statistics, Americans defend themselves (or others) hundreds of thousands of times a year with firearms. Firearm ownership gives criminals uncertainty about committing crimes. They provide people with jobs, security, and contribute to our economic system. But like with the internet, personal vehicles, people will use guns to cause harm to themselves or other people. And like the internet or personal vehicles, it's absolutely ridiculous to say we need to ignore all the good that comes from the freedom of owning firearms because of the negative aspects that comes along with it.

 

[Ray9]

One thing people should consider is that some criminals that belong in jail are not there. Instead they move freely among us because they are useful politically right now. Home invasions in outlying areas are likey to increase because drug dependent miscreants are not incarcerated and what police there are stay mostly in cities. That is my main motivation to get a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously the point flew right over your head. Once the lowlifes learned that I purchased a firearm and well prepared to use it, they never came back.

I'm assuming by your stance you currently have no firearms in your home. Would you be willing to tell everybody that? Would you advertise to the criminals you have no real way of protecting yourself against them--the same people that do have firearms?

Again, if you knew they were the ones who robbed you, you should have reported it to the cops, not invited them to your house and started twirling your gun around like a nut.

My guess is, the first time they robbed you, you weren't home, and they probably wouldn't have had an issue robbing you a second time when you weren't home, gun or not. They probably figured they really didn't need a gun that bad.

Personal vehicles are a wonderful thing. We can go to the store two blocks away, or on vacation ten states away. Having a personal vehicle gives us liberty, it allows us to obtain necessary and non-necessary goods, it gives us the ability to help family members, friends or neighbors that need to get to places. But we lose 35,000 Americans a year to auto deaths, many of which are the fault of the operator. Should we all be forced into public transportation?

Uh, guy, if we regulated firearms the way we regulate cars, we wouldn't have an issue. To get a car you must be licensed, registered, take competency tests, required to get insurance, must only operate the car in designated areas under strict rules and they can take away your car if you fuck up. I'm all for regulating guns the way we regulate cars. I don't think you gun nuts would be too keen on it, though.

Firearms are no different. Even with the unbiased FBI statistics, Americans defend themselves (or others) hundreds of thousands of times a year with firearms. Firearm ownership gives criminals uncertainty about committing crimes. They provide people with jobs, security, and contribute to our economic system. But like with the internet, personal vehicles, people will use guns to cause harm to themselves or other people. And like the internet or personal vehicles, it's absolutely ridiculous to say we need to ignore all the good that comes from the freedom of owning firearms because of the negative aspects that comes along with it.

DGU's are a myth. Only 200 people a year are killed by civilians in "Justified" self-defense with guns. (And that's usually some poor battered wife, not someone shooting a criminal.) By comparison, 14,000 people are murdered and 25,000 commit suicide with guns.

Criminals are not deterred by gun ownership. If they were, we wouldn't have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world.

As far a the "contribution" of guns, 39,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and $270,000,000,000 in economic losses due to loss of life, medical treatment and additional precautions businesses have to take to protect themselves from gun nuts they just fired. By comparison, the Gun Industry itself is only a $28 Billion dollar industry, and half of that is sales to government agencies. So, no, the gun economy is a net loss.

The REST OF THE WORLD has figured this out, which is why they limit who can own a gun or ban them altogether. They have nowhere near or murder rates, nowhere near our crime rates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, if you knew they were the ones who robbed you, you should have reported it to the cops, not invited them to your house and started twirling your gun around like a nut.

My guess is, the first time they robbed you, you weren't home, and they probably wouldn't have had an issue robbing you a second time when you weren't home, gun or not. They probably figured they really didn't need a gun that bad.

I did report it to the police. They said without evidence, there is nothing they could do. You need to have an eye witness or video.

Correct, I was not home the first time. That's why I told them I had a friend coming over to take my car to make it look like I'm not home so I had the legal authority to kill them once they broke into my apartment again. Correct again, they wouldn't have had a problem robbing me a second time. I created the problem for them by buying a gun and showing my excitement of using it.

Uh, guy, if we regulated firearms the way we regulate cars, we wouldn't have an issue. To get a car you must be licensed, registered, take competency tests, required to get insurance, must only operate the car in designated areas under strict rules and they can take away your car if you fuck up. I'm all for regulating guns the way we regulate cars. I don't think you gun nuts would be too keen on it, though.

You get a drivers license which 15 year old kids do every day, call an insurance company and get insured. It's no big deal. Furthermore is firearms are the most regulated thing in our country.

DGU's are a myth. Only 200 people a year are killed by civilians in "Justified" self-defense with guns. (And that's usually some poor battered wife, not someone shooting a criminal.) By comparison, 14,000 people are murdered and 25,000 commit suicide with guns.

Criminals are not deterred by gun ownership. If they were, we wouldn't have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world.

As far a the "contribution" of guns, 39,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and $270,000,000,000 in economic losses due to loss of life, medical treatment and additional precautions businesses have to take to protect themselves from gun nuts they just fired. By comparison, the Gun Industry itself is only a $28 Billion dollar industry, and half of that is sales to government agencies. So, no, the gun economy is a net loss.

You don't need to shoot somebody for a firearm to be effective. The mere brandishing of a gun stops all criminal activity. Yes, criminals are scared of law abiding citizens with guns. That's why most of the mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.

It's not just gun sales that add to our economy. It's also ammunition which is in extremely short supply now. Ammo providers are working 2/47 to get their product to market, and they can't make ammo fast enough to satisfy it. Then there are the ingredients to making the ammo that must be manufactured. There are gun ranges and gun clubs all over this country. Accessaries like holsters, gun safes, gun cleaning supplies, scopes, targets, extra magazines, speed loaders, lasers are just a few items that are manufactured and sold. I won't leave out gun smiths to service the tens of millions of weapons we have in this country.

 

[JoeB131]

I did report it to the police. They said without evidence, there is nothing they could do. You need to have an eye witness or video.

Correct, I was not home the first time. That's why I told them I had a friend coming over to take my car to make it look like I'm not home so I had the legal authority to kill them once they broke into my apartment again. Correct again, they wouldn't have had a problem robbing me a second time. I created the problem for them by buying a gun and showing my excitement of using it.

This sounds a little convoluted, and not really believable...

You don't need to shoot somebody for a firearm to be effective. The mere brandishing of a gun stops all criminal activity. Yes, criminals are scared of law abiding citizens with guns. That's why most of the mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.

Dude, if some is desperate enough to commit a crime, this probably isn't going to scare them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This sounds a little convoluted, and not really believable...

That's because you on the left only believe what you want to believe.

Dude, if some is desperate enough to commit a crime, this probably isn't going to scare them.

Some it won't, but those are the people who get shot and killed.

However if some lowlife is trying to steal a purse from a lady in the store parking lot and I come to her rescue with a gun, I guarantee you he's going to run like hell. He knows that I have the legal authority to use deadly force against him, and because I took the time and money to obtain my license, I'm willing to do just that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why is it that anti-gun extremists of all types have to lie and lie and lie in order to push their side of the debate?

Because you guys are fucking crazy and have no decency.

Now, class...this would be a PERFECT example of "pure projection" on Joey's part.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Obviously the point flew right over your head. Once the lowlifes learned that I purchased a firearm and well prepared to use it, they never came back.

I'm assuming by your stance you currently have no firearms in your home. Would you be willing to tell everybody that? Would you advertise to the criminals you have no real way of protecting yourself against them--the same people that do have firearms?

Again, if you knew they were the ones who robbed you, you should have reported it to the cops, not invited them to your house and started twirling your gun around like a nut.

My guess is, the first time they robbed you, you weren't home, and they probably wouldn't have had an issue robbing you a second time when you weren't home, gun or not. They probably figured they really didn't need a gun that bad.

Personal vehicles are a wonderful thing. We can go to the store two blocks away, or on vacation ten states away. Having a personal vehicle gives us liberty, it allows us to obtain necessary and non-necessary goods, it gives us the ability to help family members, friends or neighbors that need to get to places. But we lose 35,000 Americans a year to auto deaths, many of which are the fault of the operator. Should we all be forced into public transportation?

Uh, guy, if we regulated firearms the way we regulate cars, we wouldn't have an issue. To get a car you must be licensed, registered, take competency tests, required to get insurance, must only operate the car in designated areas under strict rules and they can take away your car if you fuck up. I'm all for regulating guns the way we regulate cars. I don't think you gun nuts would be too keen on it, though.

Shit, I would love it! Buy and own whatever I want with no restrictions, a carry permit from any state is valid in every state and territory of the United States. I could build stuff in my garage and even legally sell it! Hell yes, sounds good to me!

 

[2aguy]

I did report it to the police. They said without evidence, there is nothing they could do. You need to have an eye witness or video.

Correct, I was not home the first time. That's why I told them I had a friend coming over to take my car to make it look like I'm not home so I had the legal authority to kill them once they broke into my apartment again. Correct again, they wouldn't have had a problem robbing me a second time. I created the problem for them by buying a gun and showing my excitement of using it.

This sounds a little convoluted, and not really believable...

You don't need to shoot somebody for a firearm to be effective. The mere brandishing of a gun stops all criminal activity. Yes, criminals are scared of law abiding citizens with guns. That's why most of the mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.

Dude, if some is desperate enough to commit a crime, this probably isn't going to scare them.

View attachment 381596

From your signature line...


The pandemic was created by China, the country that gave the biden family a 1.5 billion dollar business deal.

The recession was created by the release of the Chinese flu....a country that supports joe biden.

The riots are being organized, financed, coordinated by the democrat party and the actual rioters are joe biden voters in antifa and black lives matter....

You have given us 3 more reasons to vote for Trump and every republican on the ticket.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously the point flew right over your head. Once the lowlifes learned that I purchased a firearm and well prepared to use it, they never came back.

I'm assuming by your stance you currently have no firearms in your home. Would you be willing to tell everybody that? Would you advertise to the criminals you have no real way of protecting yourself against them--the same people that do have firearms?

Again, if you knew they were the ones who robbed you, you should have reported it to the cops, not invited them to your house and started twirling your gun around like a nut.

My guess is, the first time they robbed you, you weren't home, and they probably wouldn't have had an issue robbing you a second time when you weren't home, gun or not. They probably figured they really didn't need a gun that bad.

Personal vehicles are a wonderful thing. We can go to the store two blocks away, or on vacation ten states away. Having a personal vehicle gives us liberty, it allows us to obtain necessary and non-necessary goods, it gives us the ability to help family members, friends or neighbors that need to get to places. But we lose 35,000 Americans a year to auto deaths, many of which are the fault of the operator. Should we all be forced into public transportation?

Uh, guy, if we regulated firearms the way we regulate cars, we wouldn't have an issue. To get a car you must be licensed, registered, take competency tests, required to get insurance, must only operate the car in designated areas under strict rules and they can take away your car if you fuck up. I'm all for regulating guns the way we regulate cars. I don't think you gun nuts would be too keen on it, though.

Firearms are no different. Even with the unbiased FBI statistics, Americans defend themselves (or others) hundreds of thousands of times a year with firearms. Firearm ownership gives criminals uncertainty about committing crimes. They provide people with jobs, security, and contribute to our economic system. But like with the internet, personal vehicles, people will use guns to cause harm to themselves or other people. And like the internet or personal vehicles, it's absolutely ridiculous to say we need to ignore all the good that comes from the freedom of owning firearms because of the negative aspects that comes along with it.

DGU's are a myth. Only 200 people a year are killed by civilians in "Justified" self-defense with guns. (And that's usually some poor battered wife, not someone shooting a criminal.) By comparison, 14,000 people are murdered and 25,000 commit suicide with guns.

Criminals are not deterred by gun ownership. If they were, we wouldn't have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world.

As far a the "contribution" of guns, 39,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and $270,000,000,000 in economic losses due to loss of life, medical treatment and additional precautions businesses have to take to protect themselves from gun nuts they just fired. By comparison, the Gun Industry itself is only a $28 Billion dollar industry, and half of that is sales to government agencies. So, no, the gun economy is a net loss.

The REST OF THE WORLD has figured this out, which is why they limit who can own a gun or ban them altogether. They have nowhere near or murder rates, nowhere near our crime rates.

Gun self defense is not a myth.....here is actual research into gun self defense....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

 

[Moonglow]

I've own guns and other weapons all my adult life no matter who is president...

I have lots of guns. If it was up to this Biden asshole he would take most of them away from me. He said so.

I don't let anyone take mine..

 

[2aguy]

Obviously the point flew right over your head. Once the lowlifes learned that I purchased a firearm and well prepared to use it, they never came back.

I'm assuming by your stance you currently have no firearms in your home. Would you be willing to tell everybody that? Would you advertise to the criminals you have no real way of protecting yourself against them--the same people that do have firearms?

Again, if you knew they were the ones who robbed you, you should have reported it to the cops, not invited them to your house and started twirling your gun around like a nut.

My guess is, the first time they robbed you, you weren't home, and they probably wouldn't have had an issue robbing you a second time when you weren't home, gun or not. They probably figured they really didn't need a gun that bad.

Personal vehicles are a wonderful thing. We can go to the store two blocks away, or on vacation ten states away. Having a personal vehicle gives us liberty, it allows us to obtain necessary and non-necessary goods, it gives us the ability to help family members, friends or neighbors that need to get to places. But we lose 35,000 Americans a year to auto deaths, many of which are the fault of the operator. Should we all be forced into public transportation?

Uh, guy, if we regulated firearms the way we regulate cars, we wouldn't have an issue. To get a car you must be licensed, registered, take competency tests, required to get insurance, must only operate the car in designated areas under strict rules and they can take away your car if you fuck up. I'm all for regulating guns the way we regulate cars. I don't think you gun nuts would be too keen on it, though.

Firearms are no different. Even with the unbiased FBI statistics, Americans defend themselves (or others) hundreds of thousands of times a year with firearms. Firearm ownership gives criminals uncertainty about committing crimes. They provide people with jobs, security, and contribute to our economic system. But like with the internet, personal vehicles, people will use guns to cause harm to themselves or other people. And like the internet or personal vehicles, it's absolutely ridiculous to say we need to ignore all the good that comes from the freedom of owning firearms because of the negative aspects that comes along with it.

DGU's are a myth. Only 200 people a year are killed by civilians in "Justified" self-defense with guns. (And that's usually some poor battered wife, not someone shooting a criminal.) By comparison, 14,000 people are murdered and 25,000 commit suicide with guns.

Criminals are not deterred by gun ownership. If they were, we wouldn't have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world.

As far a the "contribution" of guns, 39,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and $270,000,000,000 in economic losses due to loss of life, medical treatment and additional precautions businesses have to take to protect themselves from gun nuts they just fired. By comparison, the Gun Industry itself is only a $28 Billion dollar industry, and half of that is sales to government agencies. So, no, the gun economy is a net loss.

The REST OF THE WORLD has figured this out, which is why they limit who can own a gun or ban them altogether. They have nowhere near or murder rates, nowhere near our crime rates.

There were 10,265 gun murders in this country according to the FBI, the majority of those were criminals murdering other criminals in democrat party controlled cities...

The rest of the gun deaths were suicides...and since Japan, China and South Korea have higher suicide rates with extreme gun control, guns are not the issue in the rest of those deaths....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.
========

 

[Moonglow]

One thing people should consider is that some criminals that belong in jail are not there. Instead they move freely among us because they are useful politically right now. Home invasions in outlying areas are likey to increase because drug dependent miscreants are not incarcerated and what police there are stay mostly in cities. That is my main motivation to get a gun.

Why does Trump keep releasing criminals out of prison early?

 

[2aguy]

Obviously the point flew right over your head. Once the lowlifes learned that I purchased a firearm and well prepared to use it, they never came back.

I'm assuming by your stance you currently have no firearms in your home. Would you be willing to tell everybody that? Would you advertise to the criminals you have no real way of protecting yourself against them--the same people that do have firearms?

Again, if you knew they were the ones who robbed you, you should have reported it to the cops, not invited them to your house and started twirling your gun around like a nut.

My guess is, the first time they robbed you, you weren't home, and they probably wouldn't have had an issue robbing you a second time when you weren't home, gun or not. They probably figured they really didn't need a gun that bad.

Personal vehicles are a wonderful thing. We can go to the store two blocks away, or on vacation ten states away. Having a personal vehicle gives us liberty, it allows us to obtain necessary and non-necessary goods, it gives us the ability to help family members, friends or neighbors that need to get to places. But we lose 35,000 Americans a year to auto deaths, many of which are the fault of the operator. Should we all be forced into public transportation?

Uh, guy, if we regulated firearms the way we regulate cars, we wouldn't have an issue. To get a car you must be licensed, registered, take competency tests, required to get insurance, must only operate the car in designated areas under strict rules and they can take away your car if you fuck up. I'm all for regulating guns the way we regulate cars. I don't think you gun nuts would be too keen on it, though.

Firearms are no different. Even with the unbiased FBI statistics, Americans defend themselves (or others) hundreds of thousands of times a year with firearms. Firearm ownership gives criminals uncertainty about committing crimes. They provide people with jobs, security, and contribute to our economic system. But like with the internet, personal vehicles, people will use guns to cause harm to themselves or other people. And like the internet or personal vehicles, it's absolutely ridiculous to say we need to ignore all the good that comes from the freedom of owning firearms because of the negative aspects that comes along with it.

DGU's are a myth. Only 200 people a year are killed by civilians in "Justified" self-defense with guns. (And that's usually some poor battered wife, not someone shooting a criminal.) By comparison, 14,000 people are murdered and 25,000 commit suicide with guns.

Criminals are not deterred by gun ownership. If they were, we wouldn't have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world.

As far a the "contribution" of guns, 39,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and $270,000,000,000 in economic losses due to loss of life, medical treatment and additional precautions businesses have to take to protect themselves from gun nuts they just fired. By comparison, the Gun Industry itself is only a $28 Billion dollar industry, and half of that is sales to government agencies. So, no, the gun economy is a net loss.

The REST OF THE WORLD has figured this out, which is why they limit who can own a gun or ban them altogether. They have nowhere near or murder rates, nowhere near our crime rates.

Guns save more lives than criminals take with them....

gun murder.....with criminals 70-80% of the actual victims...

10,265

Lives saved by Americans with their legal guns...

176,000

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.





==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------

It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .

In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------

How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.

According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.

So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.