Author Topic: D.C. personal protection act (Read 3271 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:10:42 PM »

Quote

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.8

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.9

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.10

In 1994, 35% of the homes with children younger than 18 reported having at least one firearm; 43% of those had at least one unlocked firearm.11 21% of firearm owners keep at least one gun loaded and unlocked in the home.12

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes.13

http://www.washingtonceasefire.org/facts.asp

NUKE · « **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:18:37 PM »

MT, do you own a gun?

NUKE · « **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:29:05 PM »

Quote

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.8

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.9

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.10

In 1994, 35% of the homes with children younger than 18 reported having at least one firearm; 43% of those had at least one unlocked firearm.11 21% of firearm owners keep at least one gun loaded and unlocked in the home.12

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes.13

how does a gun increase the risk of homicide? Does the gun have mind control over it's owner? Does the gun tell people to commit suicide?

I could probably show that the presence of alcohol in the home increases the risk of homocide by 80% over houses without alcohol. Lets ban alcohol.

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:33:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
how does a gun increase the risk of homicide? Does the gun have mind control over it's owner? Does the gun tell people to commit suicide?

Source: # Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.

NUKE · « **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:45:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Source: # Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.

I'll bet homicides in the home are more frequent in homes that have running water as opposed to homes without running water.

Thrawn · « **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2004, 11:50:22 PM »

Rip, correlation does not prove causation. However, it might suggest it.

KBall · « **Reply #21 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:55:00 AM »

The bill will fail in the Senate. The anti-gun Senators will vote anti-gun admendments into the original bill. Just like what happened to the firearm industry protection from reckless lawsuits bill.

lazs2 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:10:41 AM »

so nash... you would say that the 17 or so states that adopted right to carry laws and showed an decrease in crime are proof positive that the pro gun rights crowd is correect? if the crime increased in DC then that would make the only one in more than 30 that show declines.

MT... those stats are a little missleading since....

(1) 9 out of ten murders are by someone in the family or a friend or someone the victim knows... the stat you show includes the just released burglar who lives down the street that the victim has waved to occasionaly it also includes rival gangs or criminals who know each other.

(2) guns are efficient killers but... this stat is also purposley missleading. The stat includes women killing their husbands who are wife beaters and... more importantly... it does not even tie the gun to the crime. It does not say that the gun in the home is used in the homicide... many people buy guns when they feel they may be the victim of a homicide, or, at risk. they stat does not even say the victim is murdered in the home where the gun is at all.

(3) so what? there should be a lot more accidents then right? Wrong... accidents are declining. States with strong gun lock and storage bills are not showing any decrease over those who do not. It is a scam.

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #23 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:21:08 AM »

Giving new meaning to 'chicken fight'

BLUEWELL, W.VA.

Father-and-son fight ends with shots fired, police says

A family meal erupted into a gun battle after a father and son clashed over how to cook chicken.

The two men argued Sunday over the best way to prepare skinless chicken for dinner.

"It started out as a physical confrontation, but it escalated until both of them were shooting at each other," Detective Sgt. A.D. Beasley of the Mercer County Sheriff's Department said Monday.

Beasley said each man fired a .22-caliber handgun at the other. Harley Shrader was struck by a bullet that went through the upper part of his right ear and lodged in the back of his head. He was treated at a hospital and released. The elder Shrader was not injured.

Jackie Lee Shrader, 49, was charged with malicious wounding and wanton endangerment. Harley Lee Shrader, 24, was charged with wanton endangerment.State

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:25:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
so nash... you would say that the 17 or so states that adopted right to carry laws and showed an decrease in crime are proof positive that the pro gun rights crowd is correect?

I just don't know about all those stats, and never really looked into 'em nor know where they come from or anything like that.

What I'm seein' here - if the bill gets passed (and I hope it does) - is the chance for a fresh new look at it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:25:33 AM »

it is obvious that two such well adjusted folk would never have been injured if it weren't for evil 22 caliber firearms.

still... if you ban weapons all the way down to the lowly 22.... you end up with the messy prospect of 9 iron or cricket paddle beatings.

lazs

Dago · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:32:31 AM »

Quote

I won't but I do believe statistics. A few opponents of the Personal Protection Act claim that passing this measure will result in increased shootings, gun violence and crime overall — basically a return to the “Wild West.” However, these same claims have been made before passage of similar bills in other states, and, to date, zero of the 45 states with conceal-and-carry laws have repealed them.

In Minnesota, after the Concealed Carry law was passed and ordinary citizens were able to carry, after one year, there was not one single case of a licensed user violating any law with his weapon.

Quote

And victims just hate armed criminals.

True, but the criminals will be armed regardless of any law.

dago

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:34:30 AM »

nash.. I will agree that every state that passes right to carry is a good thing to watch. The stats on ones that have are readily available. They can be found in both of Lott's books and are highly footnoted and are not in dispute by even the most rabid and neurotic anti gun nut.

I too will look forward to the results if the bill passes. My guess is that like in every other state the crime will go down. If it stays the same or is marginally increased then that will be curious but.... it will still be one state increassing while dozens decreased. Why, would you discount the data from say....Florida, a state that showed a dramatic decrease after adopting snesible right to carry laws?

Further... it is a fact that right to carry licenced citizens are among the lowest for crime of any kind and... to date... of the millions... none has been convicted of a wrongful death... even I would have expected a couple but this is unreal... these guys are saints.

So... in what way does right to carry hurt a state? Most states realize that they have nothing to lose (cc people comit no crimes) and everything to gain (crime drops).

If I could prove to you that concealled carry people were not only not more likely to comit crime but far less likely.... would you then say that concealled carry was a good thing?

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #28 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:36:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
it is obvious that two such well adjusted folk would never have been injured if it weren't for evil 22 caliber firearms.

still... if you ban weapons all the way down to the lowly 22.... you end up with the messy prospect of 9 iron or cricket paddle beatings.

lazs

You have amazing insight into people you don't know or have never met Lazs.

Yesterday you stated that the people in loser's video link "all looked like good people to me. I would bet they were all frioendly and helpful and generous... most gun people are. "

Today you are using sarcasm to refer to these guys as "well adjusted".

You are sure...absolutely positive...that none of those people in that video are not one of these two?

Wow.

Can I borrow your crystal ball man, I may want to play the lottery today?

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** September 30, 2004, 08:38:19 AM »

dago...actually... laws like 3 strikes and increased penalties for crimes commited with a firearm involved have shown to decrease the incence of armed criminals.

The best of both worlds is strong laws and penalties for firearms missuse but much easier access to firearms by citizens. certainly there will allways be psycos and death wish criminals but they are not the majority of the criminal class. Most criminals will not chance using a gun in a crime if the penalties are too high.

lazs