An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hüsker Dü
DA
. . . and I know how you people want anything but. You people just don't do "genuine".
Bruddah IZ
DA
Now if we can just come up with a plan to mobilize national guardsman in the most high risk states like FL, that has no waiting period for rifle sales we would be addressing the problem directly. Peace through superior fire power.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I just did.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Defensive Gun Use Is More Than Shooting Bad Guys
It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
That statement grosslymisleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead theperpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess thebenefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime andinjury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”
Likewise, a 1995 paper in theJournal of Criminal Law andCriminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed byvictims. Killing a criminal is not abenefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”
It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
That statement grosslymisleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead theperpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess thebenefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime andinjury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”
Likewise, a 1995 paper in theJournal of Criminal Law andCriminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed byvictims. Killing a criminal is not abenefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”
Wez
DA
So you cut and paste five replies?
Hüsker Dü
DA
You probably know way better than I why that is unfeasible in many ways. Do people pulled away from their livelyhoods receive full compensation for their efforts? Will we simply surround every school with National Guardsmen or just deploy a limited number? Who gives them their directions and who will give the order to use force, deadly or otherwise? Will these National Guardsmen also intervene in other school disturbances such as fights, practical jokes from rival schools or student protests?
Bruddah IZ
DA
National Guardsman serve for two weeks on Active Duty annually as a part of their contract and are fully compensated for that time as well as their 1 weekend a month obligation. Not all units do their annual training simultaneously. They could rotate at least 26 units. Modified Rules of Engagement would be employed with deadly force authorized to remove lethal threats from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hüsker Dü
DA
Seems not to be a good idea, it is an idea, it just seems disruptive (to too many in too many ways), without congruity and with so many variables . . . amount of training, how recent that training was, threat recognition, etc.
Seems ripe for another, They didn't enter the building until it was too late" scenario. I'm not sure the National Guard is filled with ready, willing, able and discretionary enough individuals? We always had what we referred to as "Narc's" that patrolled the high school I attended, they were "Teacher's Aides", college students who always tried to keep me from leaving school to go surf, but even though unarmed, manned with cell phones at least they could sound the alarm. Not a great idea either, but again, an idea.
Kent State.
Wez
DA
The NRA, like nutters here, will say anything to try and push their world view.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Yeah, I said that.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The National Guardsman take an oath to serve and to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. They are also less disruptive then a shooter. The funding for their training and commitments are already in place. Have you ever served?
Hüsker Dü
DA
How many times will you ask me that question but not the plumber, nono, Lion or lil joe (the bots way in) or even The Donald and family?
Hüsker Dü
DA
The National Guard does seem like a good option for those in need of continued structure in their lives, a way to pay for an education and to continue playing soldier.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Seems like a good way to fullfill their solemn oath to protect our school children from enemies foreign and domestic. Have you ever served in the military?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Because he knows us.