I'll never need a gun - Part 6

The stories above are tragic. It's hard for me to get my mind around how some people can exhibit such lethal unprovoked aggression, or escalate a trivial incident into a life or death altercation. I wonder how these incidents would have turned out if either victim was legally armed?

I might have a better notion if any national news agency bothered to cover the many occasions when a legally armed citizen saved a life (their own or someone else's).

Sorry guys, got up on my soap box there for a minute :rolleyes:
 
It doesn't matter where you are, or who you are, eventually you may need to respond to a deadly attack. It's a crazy world.
Click to expand...

So true.

I used to be a Boy Scout about a century ago. Their motto is "be prepared." I always thought that was a good way to go.
 
Um...Using EBSCO on my university library system, I can't find a single peer review article that shows the chance of violent death has increased.

Actually, the chances of violent death has decreased. Significantly. In the US and the world violent death is less likely even if you include WWI and WWII from the past century.

Taking individual 'stories' and extrapolating it to create world image that doesn't exist is a no no.

Edit: I am attacking what I think you meant by saying it is a crazy world to mean it has become more violent. That is incorrect.
 
So there are statistics that show that violent death has decreased? It would be interesting to see who wrote those statistics or funded the research. Are the parameters of the study kind of fishy? Does the investigator have other articles published that suggest a particular trend or goal in mind? (no one's got the time but it would still be interesting I bet)

Here is some food for thought:

Improvements in medicine/surgical techniques/rapid response times. Improvements in communication to reach those services.
A lack of reporting "back in the day"
The definition of "violent death" death at the scene? or death later in the hospital? One could grievously wound many but if their lives are saved in the hospital that wouldn't contribute to the statistic and therefore could be used to imply that crime is NOT on the rise but is improving.

It's quite possible that things were just as crazy as they were back then, but now we all hear about it with the increase in media / internet whereas perhaps things were kept more local back then. But I do think some things have changed - why was everyone shocked when Columbine happened? 9/11? Have things like this happened before but were forgotten? If things were always "this crazy" then heck we should be even more aware of our surroundings as it's us are slow to wake up to reality. (tin foil hat time :D)

I'd say surface things change but people's motives don't really change a whole lot.
 
violent death is down, eh?

Here's a lesson. The tornado here only killed 160 some people.

IF this tornado had happened 50 years ago, with medical technology of that time, and only a single hospital, the death toll would have been easily a thousand, as none of the people who were torn limb from limb would not have survived.

If that thing had hit at any time other than sunday evening it would have plowed through an area that had easily 5,000 more people in it. Traffic on the major roads, those churches would have been full, the stores would have been full, and the high school commencement may have been going on in the gymnasium of the school that was flattened like a beer can under a semi.

The 162 deaths, instead of potentially 2,000 or even more, was an anomaly of timing, not an indication that F5 tornados in populated areas aren't dangerous.

Blips and burps in statistics that are gathered by cherry picking data sets and carefully wording the study's goals and interpretation are so deceiving that you would be wise to ignore, or at least have a healhty skepticism for ANY studies that you read, even ones that support what you want to believe.
 
I should add this.

Up or down,

IT DOESN'T MATTER!

violent crime happens, and random citizens are targeted. Whether your chances of a violent death are 10,000 to 1 or 20,000 to 1, you are still at risk, and still, should take what measures are possible to protect yourself, family and freinds, and even strangers.

One murder, IMO,

IS STILL TOO MANY!!!!
 
Violent crime is also down in the US. FBI one of those studies.

Attacking studies without seeming them is silly. You totally forgot that I said there wasn't one saying violent death/violent crime was on the rise. There isn't one.
 
Here is how someone can disprove me. Go to google.com. Click More. Select Scholar. Search for what you want.

BUT REMEMBER!!! Google Scholar does not have the best peer reviewed journals. The best tend to be circulated in databases that cost money (EBSCO for example). Think $100,000 each year for a university subscription.

Surely someone is attends a university and will be able to look at EBSCO too. I searched in the abstract and the full article.

Good luck. The US is safer kiddos than years ago. Media has increased with the internet and 24 hour agenda pushing news. Obviously you are going to latch onto stories that do no represent the true situation.

Think about fear of air travel. Couldn't be safer. Order(S!) of magnitude safer than driving. Do you fear a freeway? Do you know someone killed in a airline crash? do you know somone who died in a car crash?

Same math. We are rational and mathmatical stupid animals.
 
If you are attacked with deadly intent then your chances of violence is 100%, no? And that is what is being discussed. Over all violence may be down on paper, which I find hard to believe especially after finding out that large cities have "re written" the definition of crimes over the years in order to have a down ward trend in crime even though real incident numbers were the same or trending upward. It’s the old leftist trick of defining deviance and crime down to make it appear to go away. The cops know different, not the chiefs who are politicians masquerading as cops, but the street cops know all about these % games.
 
Mister wildcat, Don't take this personally unless it will make a better person out of you.

You're talking nonsense.

You aren't very good at it, either.

I hope this wasn't too aggressive, I'm trying for clarity and simplicity.
 
I always hate to see, "it has never happened here before" .

Well, about everyone who has a violent crime committed against them or someone they know , has never had it happen before ... blah blah blah blah.

A gun and a fire extinguishers fall in the same category, and you hope you never need either, but if you do.... you know it's a tool that can save lives.
 
Child abuse and wife abuse wasn't a classified crime when you grandparents were being raised. Crime classification has increased. For example, human trafficking became classified in the US in 2000 with the TVAP. Yep, the US didn't track slavery until 2000.

I guess I didn't understand your clarification. Can you site me a source of how you can correct my confusion? Didn't think so. I am kinda being rude, you aren't supporting your attack with information outside of your opinion.
 
I'm in the Chicagoland area, and I don't need studies or statistics to know the city can be dangerous. The lakefront/GoldCoast has recently seen an uptick of "flash mob" robberies and assaults, and in the summer, the hotter it gets, the deadlier in the bad neighborhoods. The trouble is "bad" neighborhoods are made up of mostly good people, who are the victims of robberies and violence. And the gangs are killing each other by the dozen on weekends.

Because Illinois doesn't allow it's citizens to carry weapons, the politicians who choose to deny the right to carry don't want us to know crime is up. If violent crime wasn't on the rise, there would be no need to hire new police officers, like Chicago is claiming to be. As to crime classifications, splitting homicides commited "outdoors vs indoors" only serves to dilute the numbers.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2010/05/seriously-indoor-outdoor.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...eis-separates-indoors-and-outdoors-homicides/

p.s. I just noticed this thread is no longer about handguns.
 
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.


A quote attributed to so many persons that naming any one of them is probably a lie.

Edit to add: Yes, it's still about guns; the need to have one, if having one is a good thing, and if having a gun has helped statistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top