-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Good Guy with a Gun Prevents Teen from Returning Malfunctioning Airsoft Pistol to Sporting Goods Store
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 17,723
- 7,853
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There is no official consensus or exact number for how many lives guns save annually in the US. Estimates range widely—from tens of thousands to over a million—due to differing methodologies and whether "saving a life" means a violent crime was thwarted or a shot was fired. [1, 2, 3]
The frequency of defensive gun uses (DGUs) is hotly debated, with credible estimates varying across government and private research: [1, 2, 3]
- Lower Estimates (60,000–120,000): Data from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey estimates roughly 60,000 to 70,000 incidents per year where a gun is used for defense.
- Higher Estimates (500,000–3,000,000): Surveys conducted by criminologists, such as Gary Kleck, and acknowledged in reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimate higher bounds between 500,000 and 3 million DGUs per year.
- Discharged Firearms: A survey-based study in JAMA Network Open estimated 489,000 incidents occur yearly in which a firearm is actually discharged in self-defense or at a perceived threat
- Source Google
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 31,557
- 14,276
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
- Aug 11, 2017
- 26,808
- 8,718
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I think that’s a bit of an overstatement because not all criminals are stupid and the vast majority of crimes seem to be happening in places where guns aren’t expected to be. Don’t see very many crimes taking place at shooting ranges despite the fact that pretty much everyone there is armed with a firearm. And if the potential to be shot deters people with a sense of consequences from committing crimes then what percentage of the population does that demographic make up of our society because if it deters them then it’s still deterring an awful lot of people. I can certainly say that the thought of getting shot deterred me from breaking into people’s houses when I was a young dumb teenager.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 31,557
- 14,276
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Most of them are. It's no accident that the only president convicted of felonies, is also one of the dumbest presidents we've had.
Which makes sense. People at gun ranges would be those interested in properly handling weapons. Generally not criminals.
According to the National Safety Council study I mentioned, it shows that deterrence is a real thing. Problem is, the dangers of keeping guns is greater than the expected safety in most American neighborhoods. Accidents, impulsive violence, etc. are significant hazards, particularly for the great majority of Americans who have not taken a firearms safety course. The odds could go up, if owning a firearm required safety training. But the 2nd Amendment being what it is, that is not an option.
Upvote
0
- Aug 11, 2017
- 26,808
- 8,718
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Touché, but the saying “as crooked as a politician” predates Trump by over a century, so there is that.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 31,557
- 14,276
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
There is a pretty large number of presidential felony convictions. But they are all held by one president.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 31,557
- 14,276
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Amen. There's a difference between people who use firearms responsibly and "gun nuts." The violent shooters rarely have a history of responsible gun ownership.
A friend of mine in the AF was an ER nurse. He was badly shaken by the DOA victim of a family shooting. Said the shooter was a sobbing wreck, as it sunk in what he had done. Don't know if it was an accident or an argument. Doesn't really matter. Training might have saved the victim.
Upvote
0
JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 2,607
- 1,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
The 2nd Amendment, or at least current court interpretations of it, does not forbid a requirement of safety training. The most pro-Second Amendment decision by the Supreme Court is probably New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, and that still explicitly said in footnote 9 that firearms safety courses were an acceptable requirement for gun ownership. Emphases mine:
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Upvote
0
expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 11,294
- 6,270
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I agree, and I would be shocked credible data to support that claim were forthcoming.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
