Years ago I knew a man who was held up in his shop. Instead of giving in to the robbers' demands, he tried to get his gun and was shot dead. Recently a man and his son were held up in their home. The man succeeded in getting his gun and shot the two robbers dead, but was killed in the process. His young son suffered the trauma of seeing three men die. Today South African sporting hero Oscar Pistorius shot dead his girlfriend in what may have been an accident after claims were made that he had mistaken her for a burglar. In the light of these incidents, should gun ownership be banned?
sort by best latest
I'm glad that it worked out right for you, but I do worry about the many irresponsible gun owners out there.
There are many irresponsible alcohol drinkers who kill over 50,000 people a year in drunk driver traffic accidents. Should alcohol be banned since we have conclusively proven that our society cannot safely drink or are responsible drinkers?
Well I'd certainly say there's a case for better control of alcohol consumption too, but it has been proven that banning it outright doesn't work.
You've certainly done a lot of research on the subject and the statistics are impressive. Sadly the press has a way of only reporting the negative stories.
Sorry here is the correct link! it wont let me change the post under my answer! But I thought it might also interest Jack. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC275979...
Just.... have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"? Might want to think about that for a while.
I do know the limits of statistics, but I really do believe Dr. Branas's investigation has merit .
Well honestly, the only reason people carry guns is because they're scared of other people carrying guns! If the U.S. wasn't so lenient on gun laws, a lot less news stories would be about the massacres that happen with them.
That's what I'm saying. The reason citizens need them is because criminals can easily get them. There does need to be new legislation, something to stop that. But for now we must defend ourselves. And criminals are second priority over law-abiding
Torrossian believes that a 250 lb social deviant must need a gun to rape a 100 lb woman. If he doesn't have a ~gun~ then the woman has nothing to fear.
I agree Jack. If guns can somehow be taken from criminals, there will certainly be less death. There will still be crime, yes, but fewer deaths. So, I don't have all the answers I just know we must protect the innocent.
Jamie, your answer reminds me of my favorite Bible verse in Genesis where Abel asked his brother, Cain, "Crikey, mate, where did you get that Glock?"
Here are thousands of stories direct from the media of everyday, law abiding citizens defending themselves in their homes, their businesses and on the street with their firearms.
It's really quite common.
Pulling a gun on a criminal often increases your chance of dying. I still think prevention is more useful then arming the populace!
And just what are your "chances" of dying when you don't have a weapon and the criminal does? Call me silly, but I generally prefer not to base my chances of continued living upon the tender mercies of a thug and social deviant. Your mileage may vary
A study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. They got the info from a study of people who were shot!!!
It is much less likely that the criminal will use his gun if you give in to his demands than if you try to defend yourself. At least that has applied in the cases I have personal knowledge of.
I agree with you Gina! Here is the study I mentioned above. It worh reading. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carryi...
Anyone can play with bogus studies. I did one once that showed that people who went into a hospital died at a much greater rate than those who stayed out of hospitals. The conclusion was to never go to a hospital if you wanted a long life.
Hey, I read your whole list, now why should I accept your studies results over mine... so here we are back to square one! But I am amused by your list of those for the ban, I always counted them as gun owners.
Gina/... no one minds if you just "give in" to the social deviants. That's between you and them. I do thank you for making yourself a willing target for them as it makes life safer for my family as criminals know to attack willing sheep first.
Just... the fun of opinions is that any one can have them. Some are more grounded in reality though... and if you want to continue to believe that going to a hospital will kill you quicker than not going to one that is completely up to you.
Just... when it's you and the social deviant eyeball to eyeball it is a little late to be concerned about "prevention." Every women who reads this hub knows that you are not going to be there at that time to throw your body between her and the thug.
Jack, I'd much rather give a criminal everything I own than reach for a gun and be shot for trying to defend myself. As I said at the start, this happened to someone I knew personally.
Things can be replaced, lives can't.
Jack, I was reading your hub on safe gun handling and realize we really do think more alike than not. I don't need a gun, but I do not want to take away your right to own yours, but I think we need some controls in place.
Gina, you might want to read this story about a woman who gave the social deviant "everything he wanted" ... and then got shot thru the head for her courtesy.
Let's just agree to differ in our opinions, Jack. Not all criminals will react the same way to the same situation, so no one case proves anything.
How odd, Gina... you wanted your "cases" to prove that guns were no good for defense, and now that you have a clear cut case where an innocent was killed by a social deviant you want to declare that "cases" don't prove anything after all.
Now here's a "case" worth noting... In this small, sleepy rural town two women were attacked in their home by a social deviant. Did they give him what he wanted (wonder just what that was, eh). No... one of them shot him and sent him to the hospital.
Just... I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to have a gun for any reason. As long as they leave me and mine alone it is jake with me.
Jack, I'm just saying that single cases don't prove anything. In my country gun ownership seems to lead to a lot of problems and this topic is being widely debated at present as a result of the Oscar Pistorius case.
And I am saying, Gina, that you sure made quite an appeal to "cases" as long as you thought they proved your point. The moment they don't it was absolutely amazing how fast you decided that they really did not mean that much.
I'm not saying they don't mean much, just that there seem to be enough single cases to prove both sides are right. Maybe what works in one country will fail in another.
U said, "Pulling a gun on a criminal often increases your chance of dying." This is simply false. I gave 1000s of cases of people defending themselves. U gave nothing. Where are the sites showing 1000s of your such stories posted by anti-gun orgs?
A large percentage of bad people get guns, because good people do not store them safely and they are stolen. I am not sure why people are fighting so hard against having some rules to make gun ownership safer for all.
Because rules that are meaningless to bad guys and only put an unnecessary burden on good guys are not the way America should work. And I am not aware that many people leave their guys laying about on the sidewalk, lawns, and city streets.
You are not aware because you are not interested, Jack. I guess kids who shoot themselves with their parents guns cut off the locks on the Gun cabinets. Do you know what the stats are for crime committed with legally purchased but stolen weapons?
Hmmm... who's more interested in everything to do with guns? Gunowners and activisits? Or those who have nothing to do with guns? Tough question, I know.
80,000,000 gun owners. The number of people under 18 who steal parents guns and shoot others is measure under 100. You think it is reasonable to put restrictions on the 79,999,000 who don't cause problems. And yes, BAD GUYS do steal guns from homes.
You are quoting Rense.com almost word for word number for number. Using data from a conspiracy theorist does not really make you more convincing or accurate.
Never heard of any rense.com so it would be hard to quote him. But we notice that you really can't address the facts. Do you dispute 80,000,000 gun owners? Do you dispute the low number of deaths from children stealing guns? Then give facts.
Just wants "accuracy"? Okay, just. Give us the number of gun owners in American. With detail. Be specific. Give the number of guns stolen. Divide that into the number of gun owners and then tell us the actual percentage of the problem.
Ok jack, lets go with your numbers ... That makes gun owners about 25% of the population. So why should their voices be louder than the rest of the population?
Perhaps you can share with us just who said that gun owners voices should be louder than any one elses? Give detail. Be specific.
The NRA for one even thought they only represent about 5% of the gun owners. A a number of you on Hubpages who seem to think anyone who wants some kind of control on firearms or does not want to own one are out to disarm the whole country.
I asked for details and specifics, Just. Not a list of people and orgs that you don't like. YOU brought up the "louder voices". Back up your words, eh. Or admit that U pulled it out of thin air and gun owners never said they should have louder voices