F
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
GodspromisesRyes
Member
I would like to know, how many christians here, who believe in having and using guns against others, for any reason including protection- would also be willing to fight against authorities if the nwo began to take control here and there was martial law or finding us christians and killing or locking us up?
F
follower of Christ
Guest
Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
F
follower of Christ
Guest
The last resort is civil war, of course.GodspromisesRyes said:
But Id be more than willing to fight for what the Constitution stands for...
I seriously doubt its going to come to that in our lifetimes.
.
Drew
Member
I will repeat the obvious counter to this for any newcomers.follower of Christ said:
If the gun magically materialized in your hand when a rape was about to happen, then this argument might have some weight.
But, of course, things don't work that way. The gun that might deter a rapist is also there all the time and could be used for other, less honourable, purposes.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
.
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9
* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens
* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18
Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20
Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23
1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.
Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
8Id. at 164, 185.
9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
22Id.
23Id.
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9
* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens
* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18
Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20
Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23
1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.
Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
8Id. at 164, 185.
9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
22Id.
23Id.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
.
British Gun Control Doesn’t Work: Armed Intruders Break in and Rape a Pregnant Woman
A truly terrible case from England shows both the futility of gun control, and the terrible things that can happen to unarmed victims:
A 33 year old British woman was 7 months pregnant. She was at home with her 39 year old boyfriend watching TV at 10:30PM when they heard a noise outside. The boyfriend stepped out the front door to investigate, and saw 3 masked men standing outside. He tried to close the door, but the masked intruders rushed inside, pushing him to the floor. One of the intruders held a shotgun to his head, while the others demanded the keys to the couple’s Audi parked outside. One of the criminals then began dragging the pregnant woman upstairs as the boyfriend begged them not to hurt her, while repeatedly shouting that she was pregnant. The boyfriend was hit with the butt of the shotgun for speaking up, while the pregnant woman was taken upstairs. The criminal said that unless the woman complied, both she and her boyfriend would be shot. The woman was then raped, and told by the rapist that it was her “lucky day.†The criminals then stole cash and belongings from the couple, before leaving in their Audi. All this took place on May 14, 2008, although the attack was just recently mentioned in the news. Police have some rather poor quality images of the suspected attackers from a nearby surveillance camera, but no arrests have been made. The baby was later born in good health, but the woman made clear that the attack has forever changed her life, saying “Everything that you believe to be safe is no longer safe. You can’t walk into the bedroom and feel relaxed because you remember that someone was in there who wasn’t supposed to be in there.â€
This is not the first time that British gun control has failed in a rather spectacular fashion. Indeed, whether we’re talking about the UK, or US cities like Chicago, guns bans fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That is because criminals who want guns will get them, just as they are able to get illegal drugs and other contraband on the black market. For such criminals, gun control laws are just another law for them to break – and a person willing to commit a more serious crime like robbery or rape won’t think twice about violating the gun ban. That is why instead of decreasing, gun related crime actually rose in the UK after the gun ban was passed. When gun bans pass, criminals become emboldened by their monopoly on guns, and go about using those guns against their now-disarmed victims. Interestingly enough, knife related crime also tends to rise after guns are banned, as it did in the UK, possibly because the emboldened knife-wielding criminals are also less afraid that their victim may have a self defense gun. This and the many other cases, where British citizens are left defenseless against violent criminals, really show the folly of strict gun control. The message to take to heart is that gun bans don’t prevent violence, since violence is caused by the intentional actions of a criminal – not the presence of an inanimate object. Denying law abiding citizens the right to have a gun for self defense only ensures that the law abiding members of society will be unarmed when those violent criminals attack, and that those few citizens who do defend themselves will be sent to jail.
After reading this tragic story, I mentioned to my fiancé that I am so glad we live in the USA, and in a state that respects our right to gun ownership for self defense. She whole-heartedly agreed. We’ve set our wedding date for October 16, 2010, and we plan to have our first child about a year or so after getting married. Although that is still a ways in the future, I couldn’t help thinking about what it would be like to suffer this sort of home invasion, and to stand by helplessly while the mother of one’s unborn child is raped. My fiancé similarly mentioned how terrible it must be to not only suffer rape, but also be in fear for the safety of your unborn child at the same time. As sad as those thoughts are, I am comforted by the fact that as I write this article, a Springfield XD-40 sits just inches away from me in a quick-access safe, providing me with the ability to stop multiple home invaders should they break in. In the next room over sits my large gun safe, a few feet from my fiancé’s computer, and unlocked since we are at home. In the event of a home invasion, she too would quickly be able to grab one of several firearms suitable for self defense. Since both of us regularly visit our local gun range to maintain and improve our marksmanship skills, I’m confident that either of us could skillfully use those gun in self defense. While I can’t guarantee that we would prevail in every single conceivable home invasion scenario, I know that we are in the best possible position to defend ourselves, should the need arise.
As both the statistical evidence and real life examples make clear, armed self defense works. It allows pregnant women, the elderly, the disabled, and all other types of citizens to save themselves from physically stronger and/or numerically superior attackers. Sticking with the example of pregnant women defending themselves against home invaders, I would also note this other real life case, from just a couple weeks ago, where a pregnant woman held an armed home invader at gunpoint until the police arrived. Not only do armed citizens save themselves, but they also deter some criminals while taking other criminals off the streets before they can harm another victim.
I would encourage everyone reading this article to take a moment to think whether they would be able to defend themselves and their loved ones, should the need arise. If the answer to that question is “no,†then I would suggest promptly redressing that situation.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/09/3 ... ish-woman/
British Gun Control Doesn’t Work: Armed Intruders Break in and Rape a Pregnant Woman
A truly terrible case from England shows both the futility of gun control, and the terrible things that can happen to unarmed victims:
A 33 year old British woman was 7 months pregnant. She was at home with her 39 year old boyfriend watching TV at 10:30PM when they heard a noise outside. The boyfriend stepped out the front door to investigate, and saw 3 masked men standing outside. He tried to close the door, but the masked intruders rushed inside, pushing him to the floor. One of the intruders held a shotgun to his head, while the others demanded the keys to the couple’s Audi parked outside. One of the criminals then began dragging the pregnant woman upstairs as the boyfriend begged them not to hurt her, while repeatedly shouting that she was pregnant. The boyfriend was hit with the butt of the shotgun for speaking up, while the pregnant woman was taken upstairs. The criminal said that unless the woman complied, both she and her boyfriend would be shot. The woman was then raped, and told by the rapist that it was her “lucky day.†The criminals then stole cash and belongings from the couple, before leaving in their Audi. All this took place on May 14, 2008, although the attack was just recently mentioned in the news. Police have some rather poor quality images of the suspected attackers from a nearby surveillance camera, but no arrests have been made. The baby was later born in good health, but the woman made clear that the attack has forever changed her life, saying “Everything that you believe to be safe is no longer safe. You can’t walk into the bedroom and feel relaxed because you remember that someone was in there who wasn’t supposed to be in there.â€
This is not the first time that British gun control has failed in a rather spectacular fashion. Indeed, whether we’re talking about the UK, or US cities like Chicago, guns bans fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That is because criminals who want guns will get them, just as they are able to get illegal drugs and other contraband on the black market. For such criminals, gun control laws are just another law for them to break – and a person willing to commit a more serious crime like robbery or rape won’t think twice about violating the gun ban. That is why instead of decreasing, gun related crime actually rose in the UK after the gun ban was passed. When gun bans pass, criminals become emboldened by their monopoly on guns, and go about using those guns against their now-disarmed victims. Interestingly enough, knife related crime also tends to rise after guns are banned, as it did in the UK, possibly because the emboldened knife-wielding criminals are also less afraid that their victim may have a self defense gun. This and the many other cases, where British citizens are left defenseless against violent criminals, really show the folly of strict gun control. The message to take to heart is that gun bans don’t prevent violence, since violence is caused by the intentional actions of a criminal – not the presence of an inanimate object. Denying law abiding citizens the right to have a gun for self defense only ensures that the law abiding members of society will be unarmed when those violent criminals attack, and that those few citizens who do defend themselves will be sent to jail.
After reading this tragic story, I mentioned to my fiancé that I am so glad we live in the USA, and in a state that respects our right to gun ownership for self defense. She whole-heartedly agreed. We’ve set our wedding date for October 16, 2010, and we plan to have our first child about a year or so after getting married. Although that is still a ways in the future, I couldn’t help thinking about what it would be like to suffer this sort of home invasion, and to stand by helplessly while the mother of one’s unborn child is raped. My fiancé similarly mentioned how terrible it must be to not only suffer rape, but also be in fear for the safety of your unborn child at the same time. As sad as those thoughts are, I am comforted by the fact that as I write this article, a Springfield XD-40 sits just inches away from me in a quick-access safe, providing me with the ability to stop multiple home invaders should they break in. In the next room over sits my large gun safe, a few feet from my fiancé’s computer, and unlocked since we are at home. In the event of a home invasion, she too would quickly be able to grab one of several firearms suitable for self defense. Since both of us regularly visit our local gun range to maintain and improve our marksmanship skills, I’m confident that either of us could skillfully use those gun in self defense. While I can’t guarantee that we would prevail in every single conceivable home invasion scenario, I know that we are in the best possible position to defend ourselves, should the need arise.
As both the statistical evidence and real life examples make clear, armed self defense works. It allows pregnant women, the elderly, the disabled, and all other types of citizens to save themselves from physically stronger and/or numerically superior attackers. Sticking with the example of pregnant women defending themselves against home invaders, I would also note this other real life case, from just a couple weeks ago, where a pregnant woman held an armed home invader at gunpoint until the police arrived. Not only do armed citizens save themselves, but they also deter some criminals while taking other criminals off the streets before they can harm another victim.
I would encourage everyone reading this article to take a moment to think whether they would be able to defend themselves and their loved ones, should the need arise. If the answer to that question is “no,†then I would suggest promptly redressing that situation.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/09/3 ... ish-woman/
F
follower of Christ
Guest
You have to wonder about the logic in some of the statements here, for certain.glorydaz said:
An armed woman can have her firearm 'appear' in a matter of a second or two and thus provide defense for herself and her children that she doesnt have otherwise.
.
Drew
Member
You do not tell us where this ratio of 80 is taken from. I assume that when you divide 2.5 million by 80, you get about 30,000 which is, I guess, is the number of people who die by guns each year in the US? That seems a little high, even for the US.follower of Christ said:
In any event, the ratio of 80 is deeply misleading. When it is claimed that guns are used to defend against criminals, and this ratio of 80 is used, the reader need to understand that he is being led to believe that 80 people would have died in crimes had they not had their guns to defend themselves for every "innocent" person who dies by gunfire.
Am I the only one who sees the obvious problem with this?
Clearly, it is an exceedingly dubious assumption that each of these people would have been killed if they did not have a gun. For all the reader knows, many of these "criminals" confronted by gun-owners are punks trespassing on property who are scared off by the owner with a gun. In such cases, we have no reason to believe there was any real threat to the gun-owner in the first place.
So we need a lot more information which, of course, we are not given.
Drew
Member
Uh....please engage the argument.glorydaz said:
The problem with the material that FoC posted is this: the fact that guns prevented rapes is not evidence for the wisdom of people being armed. This is because the gun will not only be there at the time of the rape, it will be there at other times when it can be used for less honourable purposes than defence against rape.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
Its really funny how some seem to think we should be mind readers and KNOW if some group of thugs is intending on killing us or notglorydaz said:
Apparently we dont need a gun for defense unless the Force has instructed us that we do ;)
.
Drew
Member
No. This is not correct. If only a tiny fraction of those who used a gun to deter crime were not going to be killed anyway (that is, even if they had no gun), then the defensive value of the gun in saving lives might be less than the risk that the gun would end being used in a crime or a suicide.glorydaz said:
F
follower of Christ
Guest
Who'da thunk? Guns best crime deterrent after all
'People who say bad guys will stop because of 1 more law are full of it'
Posted: February 28, 2008
9:53 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.
The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.
That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the Second Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641
'People who say bad guys will stop because of 1 more law are full of it'
Posted: February 28, 2008
9:53 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.
The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.
That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the Second Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641
Drew
Member
You miss the point. The issue is not whether you know what the outcome will be, it is what the outcome will be regardless of your knowledge.follower of Christ said:Its really funny how some seem to think we should be mind readers and KNOW if some group of thugs is intending on killing us or notglorydaz said:
Apparently we dont need a gun for defense unless the Force has instructed us that we do ;)
.
I will illustrate by example.
Consider society A with gun control:
(1) 1,000 people are murdered in that society by guns.
(2) 80,000 people use guns to deter criminals
Is it possible that only 500 of those people actually would have died if they had not deterred the attacker? Of course it is. In that case, the gun is a net detriment to that society.
It is ironic that you use the "giggle" symbol so often when you are the one who has made an error in reasoning.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
.
Cops Say Guns are a Crime Deterrent
In a recent brief to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, police officers and prosecutors spoke on behalf of the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms. Their conclusion? Gun ownership is the single best crime deterrent that there is.
[LEAA spokesman Ted] Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the Second Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.
[...]
"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."
"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."
My buddy used to say that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Just ask the folks at any of the "gun free" campuses where dozens of people have been shot and killed in the last few years. Could an armed and well-trained citizen have stopped some of those mass murders? Probably.
Gun laws are important.
We need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and those who are mentally incapable of assuming the responsibilities of gun ownership. We need to restrict the sale of guns and ammo to those that have been fully trained in gun handling and the use of force laws of their state. The only thing worse than an unarmed citizen is an armed one that doesn't know what s/he's doing.
Cops confront armed citizens all the time. On rare occasion, those situations go horribly wrong, usually because the citizen did not know how to respond correctly when the badges showed up. But that's why we require armed citizens to attend firearms and use of force training before being allowed to carry a weapon.
And I firmly believe that every stable, law-abiding citizen has the right to safely keep a gun in their home to protect themselves, their family and their property. Where burglars are being shot dead, property crimes suddenly decrease. I think it's that new math that I keep hearing so much about.
Let those who are well trained and so inclined carry a gun. And the next time some PoS with suicide on his mind walks into a campus or a church or a store, maybe the body count can be stopped at one.
Cops Say Guns are a Crime Deterrent
In a recent brief to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, police officers and prosecutors spoke on behalf of the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms. Their conclusion? Gun ownership is the single best crime deterrent that there is.
[LEAA spokesman Ted] Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the Second Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.
[...]
"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."
"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."
My buddy used to say that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Just ask the folks at any of the "gun free" campuses where dozens of people have been shot and killed in the last few years. Could an armed and well-trained citizen have stopped some of those mass murders? Probably.
Gun laws are important.
We need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and those who are mentally incapable of assuming the responsibilities of gun ownership. We need to restrict the sale of guns and ammo to those that have been fully trained in gun handling and the use of force laws of their state. The only thing worse than an unarmed citizen is an armed one that doesn't know what s/he's doing.
Cops confront armed citizens all the time. On rare occasion, those situations go horribly wrong, usually because the citizen did not know how to respond correctly when the badges showed up. But that's why we require armed citizens to attend firearms and use of force training before being allowed to carry a weapon.
And I firmly believe that every stable, law-abiding citizen has the right to safely keep a gun in their home to protect themselves, their family and their property. Where burglars are being shot dead, property crimes suddenly decrease. I think it's that new math that I keep hearing so much about.
Let those who are well trained and so inclined carry a gun. And the next time some PoS with suicide on his mind walks into a campus or a church or a store, maybe the body count can be stopped at one.
G
GojuBrian
Guest
I'm a concealed handgun holder. I live in a gun friendly state and excercise my right to keep and bear arms for many reasons. One reason is goblins, there are lots of goblins out there who whole purpose for existence is to do evil.
I think we can all agree that Drew does not agree with us on this issue and I support his right to disagree, however, it is really of no consequence to us what Drew believes.
Drew,
I believe in my heart you believe what you are standing against is right. Therefore, you may continue to reside in your anti-gun country and live happily ever after no matter what we say, no matter what data we pull, and no matter what facts we present.
Realize that I and others truly believe in our heart that we are absolutely right! I will continue to believe and live the way I do, armed, trained, and prepared to protect myself and my family.
I think we can all agree that Drew does not agree with us on this issue and I support his right to disagree, however, it is really of no consequence to us what Drew believes.
Drew,
I believe in my heart you believe what you are standing against is right. Therefore, you may continue to reside in your anti-gun country and live happily ever after no matter what we say, no matter what data we pull, and no matter what facts we present.
Realize that I and others truly believe in our heart that we are absolutely right! I will continue to believe and live the way I do, armed, trained, and prepared to protect myself and my family.