# Defensive gun ownership myth (article)



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership - Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes - POLITICO Magazine


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Unless I missed it, they don't talk about the deterrent factor that reduces crimes that don't take place out of fear of "gun ownership" "guns in the home" for protection/hunting that will not show up in their statistical analysis.

Make the laws "mandatory life in prison" while Using a gun during the commission of a crime might be a necessary federal / state law. Who would protest stricter gun laws for the criminal element. I wouldn't. 

It's when you start making laws that directly impact the law abiding element and hope that it'll trickle down to impact the criminal element is what does not make sense to the law abiding gun owners

I would go even further to make the mere possession of an illegal gun mandatory 10-20 year jail time terms. 

Publicize as a campaign style media coverage of the strict new gun laws effective immediately , this will hopefully only impact the criminal element and not the law abiding.

They also mention 200,000 reported guns stolen without any further details.
In fact without the details or specifics of the stolen guns I would hope that very harsh gun laws would reduce that number.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

pic said:


> I would go even further to make the mere possession of an illegal gun mandatory 10-20 year jail time terms.


The problem there is who you let define 'illegal gun.' Gun owners are already being beat over the head with that.

I'm philosophically opposed to laws that 'pile on' to laws already on the books. They always serve to open the door for something else that nibbles away at gun rights. Murder, for example, is already a heinous act, punishable by death, so in a practical sense, it doesn't improve by piling on to it with calling it a 'hate crime.'


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm of the mind that there should be no such thing as an illegal gun. No thing can be illegal. Only actions are illegal. I don't care who carries what, as long as they behave according to the laws of the land. Too many people say that we can't let just anyone carry a gun. Well...who do you think is regulating the bad guys? Here's a clue folks. No one! They are already carrying guns, illegally. Has the law stopped them? No. So I contend that it does absolutely no good passing laws prohibiting the carrying of ANY type of weapon. You punish people for actions, not things for what people do with them. Guns never killed anyone and only law abiding citizens obey the law, but bullies fear the good guys who will stand up to them. Arm yourself and defend yourself!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

pic said:


> <snip>
> Who would protest stricter gun laws for the criminal element. I wouldn't.
> <more snip>


SouthernBoy would. That's infringement, pure and simple.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

You can make statistics conclude pretty much whatever you want them to. To me it all boils down to two options, do I want to face a threat armed or unarmed...........

I believe in keeping it simple.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Bisley said:


> The problem there is who you let define 'illegal gun.' Gun owners are already being beat over the head with that.
> 
> I'm philosophically opposed to laws that 'pile on' to laws already on the books. They always serve to open the door for something else that nibbles away at gun rights. Murder, for example, is already a heinous act, punishable by death, so in a practical sense, it doesn't improve by piling on to it with calling it a 'hate crime.'


See, we agree on things like this, which leads me to believe we agree on far more than we disagree.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Philco said:


> You can make statistics conclude pretty much whatever you want them to. To me it all boils down to two options, do I want to face a threat armed or unarmed...........
> 
> I believe in keeping it simple.


Agreed. I don't care how stupid anybody else wants to be, just don't tell me I can't use my weapon for an advantage against any intruder, armed or not.

and what about all the unintentional police shootings of bystanders when they are in a gunfight with an armed foe? Are they supposed to give up using guns because there is unintended collateral damage? Agreed, I don't want it to be me, but I can't see how society can expect any LEO to give up his advantage when attempting to apprehend a criminal because there "might" be unintended consequences.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Is it an issue..... Yes..... However giving the number of people that have permits to carry a weapon and those that own a firearm(s) what the article cites is a very small percentage of incidents.......

Many other things take lives.... Some are:
2015 Real Time Death Statistics in America


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> SouthernBoy would. That's infringement, pure and simple.


Are you nuts? I'll await your apology.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

J


Bisley said:


> The problem there is who you let define 'illegal gun.' Gun owners are already being beat over the head with that.
> 
> I'm philosophically opposed to laws that 'pile on' to laws already on the books. They always serve to open the door for something else that nibbles away at gun rights. Murder, for example, is already a heinous act, punishable by death, so in a practical sense, it doesn't improve by piling on to it with calling it a 'hate crime.'


Well obviously it will take some work to come to a workable solution that would not affect the law abiding.

We have multiple daily shootings by the criminal element, the solution to do nothing will only take rights away from the law abiding. The anti gun people will not sit idle, they will create laws to crucify the law abiding.

So to answer your question " who will define illegal gun?" The pro gun representatives, You, them, and I.

It's finally started happening , creating more current legislation, we have been dragging our feet. While the fear mongers have been nibbling away at our rights while we whine about it.

If we as pro gun people show how serious we are about illegal guns in the hands of criminals, it would give credit to our "rights to legal carry"

We all know about the 2nd amendment, what the founding fathers wanted. 
We didn't have drug gangs , multiple shootings, cops getting shot. 
If the founding fathers were alive today, how would they address the issues of today.
Thanks pic
:smt1099


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

pic said:


> So to answer your question " who will define illegal gun?" The pro gun representatives, You, them, and I.


If a Ferrari or Lamborghini will top out at 200 mph, do you outlaw them? No, because we already have speed limits that prevent driving them that fast on a public thoroughfare. If they want to go to a race track or the salt flats and drive them 200 mph, more power to them. If a thief grabs one and drives it 200 mph through a schoolyard, do we then outlaw muscle cars? No, we prosecute the thief for grand theft auto, violating traffic laws, assault, and murder.

Does it matter that he did it because he hated children? No, because the punishment for capital murder is the same, either way, and no possible reason he could give would change the punishment, if found guilty. Giving him 15 life sentences accomplishes no more than giving him one, without parole, or the lethal injection is not loaded with anything that will make him more dead, because he had hate in his heart when he committed the crime.

With regard to the founding fathers, I think they would see to it that someone was charged with a mandate of diligently and relentlessly tracking down criminals and punishing them for their crimes. I hope they would say that such action was sufficient, because banning the tools they used to commit those crimes would punish the very people that those crimes were committed against.

The law only serves liberty when it is enforced equally, and when politicians keep adding emotionally satisfying laws to appease a minority of the population, it never results in an increase of liberty, or delivers 'more' justice. It results in another politician deciding which of the laws will be enforced, and who they will be enforced against, at the expense of the majority.

Basically, it is an underhanded form of tyranny that usually goes unnoticed and unaccounted for. You can say, "..yeah, but.." what do we do, right now, about this problem that is out of control? We enforce the laws we already have very vigorously, without regard for the circumstances that are outside of those laws, and leave the social work to the social workers, so that the law of the land is not corrupted beyond all repair.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

B


Bisley said:


> If a Ferrari or Lamborghini will top out at 200 mph, do you outlaw them? No, because we already have speed limits that prevent driving them that fast on a public thoroughfare. If they want to go to a race track or the salt flats and drive them 200 mph, more power to them. If a thief grabs one and drives it 200 mph through a schoolyard, do we then outlaw muscle cars? No, we prosecute the thief for grand theft auto, violating traffic laws, assault, and murder.
> 
> Does it matter that he did it because he hated children? No, because the punishment for capital murder is the same, either way, and no possible reason he could give would change the punishment, if found guilty. Giving him 15 life sentences accomplishes no more than giving him one, without parole, or the lethal injection is not loaded with anything that will make him more dead, because he had hate in his heart when he committed the crime.
> 
> ...


I'm with you, Btw , what laws are you referring to that are not being enforced ?
:smt1099


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

pic said:


> J
> 
> If we as pro gun people show how serious we are about illegal guns in the hands of criminals, it would give credit to our "rights to legal carry"
> 
> ...


While this sounds good it is rather meaningless.... Of course most gun owners care about criminals having guns..... Fact is making more so called fix laws have been proven not to work since criminals have no regard for laws.....

Thinking that if we show people how we are concerned about this is nothing more than being naive..... We all need to understand that those we are trying to show we are credible about our right to carry means nothing to them...... These people are anti gun and the main goal for them is to ban all weapons for civilians in America no matter what they claim to the contrary........


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Cait43 said:


> While this sounds good it is rather meaningless.... Of course most gun owners care about criminals having guns..... Fact is making more so called fix laws have been proven not to work since criminals have no regard for laws.....
> 
> Thinking that if we show people how we are concerned about this is nothing more than being naive..... We all need to understand that those we are trying to show we are credible about our right to carry means nothing to them...... These people are anti gun and the main goal for them is to ban all weapons for civilians in America no matter what they claim to the contrary........


Well , then you actually support that we need is to create an agenda other then the typical whining and references back to our founding fathers and deal with real life issues. 
Name a real life issue, do you know any that we have established other then the founding fathers over 200 year old right to arms. 
That right to possess arms is infringing on my right to liberty. Our founding fathers need help here mister. What do you offer?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> <snip>
> These people are anti gun and the main goal for them is to ban all weapons for civilians in America no matter what they claim to the contrary........


I'm glad someone knows what those folks are thinking better than they themselves do. Kudos - care to teach us that trick?


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> I'm glad someone knows what those folks are thinking better than they themselves do. Kudos - care to teach us that trick?


It's a theory, like Darwin's.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> I'm glad someone knows what those folks are thinking better than they themselves do. Kudos - care to teach us that trick?


Are you implying that is not there goal?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Are you implying that is not there goal?


I'm implying that you state that you know their intentions, "no matter what they say to the contrary..."

Quite a trick.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Cait43 said:


> Are you implying that is not there goal?


That would be a more rational way of thinking, to imply otherwise is along the lines of paranoia. To suggest every plan is a negative could be destructive to what you're trying to preserve


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Come on Sail... where's the apology?


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> I'm implying that you state that you know their intentions, "no matter what they say to the contrary..."
> 
> Quite a trick.


If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong........


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> I'm implying that you state that you know their intentions, "no matter what they say to the contrary..."
> 
> Quite a trick.


Actually, you are employing the same tricks defense attorneys use to defend guilty clients -find somebody else to put on trial, so you don't have to defend your client. Most rational and honest folks, for the purpose of furthering a friendly debate, would stipulate to the likelihood that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Liberals, however, tend to question the obvious to avoid having to deal with the bigger questions.

My comment, "_It's a theory, like Darwin's_," was intended to be an example of how circumstantial evidence can often make somebody conclude that a theory is proven fact, if they are already inclined to believe it, anyway. Most liberals will argue the theory of evolution as though it were established fact, in my experience.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Come on Sail... where's the apology?


Don't hold yer breath.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Don't hold yer breath.


Didn't think so with you.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

3 Ways to Hold Your Breath for Long Periods of Time - wikiHow


----------

