Who Will Murder You?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yesterday was the anniversary of John Noveske's death. Yes, it is on topic. Those who have read his last Facebook post know why.

Don't pursue it here. It's not a forum for cranks or conspiracy theorists.
 
A CPL carrier will AVOID dangerous areas, AVOID confrontation, and have situational awareness.
Physical self effacing, being "invisible" is the hallmark of CPL holders.
CPL carriers also have a greater respect with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Not that those who don't have a CPL don't have a respect for firearms. However, carrying one "steps up" that responsibility to a very serious degree.
So I would say that CPL holders are probably the safest people on the streets. And allowing cleared citizens to have a CPL creates doubt in criminal minds-they have no idea who is armed and not thus I would say that crime would go down versus up.
Since I have had a CPL I am way more aware of potential "traps" (like covered garages) and avoid as an example parking my car between two vans or trucks! Common sense and situational awareness will insure that my firearm hopefully is never deployed in a self defense situation.
I think that more women should have CPLs. Women can be targets in a variety a ways to include domestic situations which sadly results in many murders/murder suicides.
CPL holders are the safest on the streets. Who could attempt to kill you? One never knows and I refuse to live in fear that someone may accost me and pull a weapon-chances of that are rare especially if one avoids dangerous areas of town.
 
I don't know what it is with upper rank big city cop officials; maybe there's mercury or lead leaking from all that brass on their lapels affecting their brains.

Its due to a difference in the nature of the position. Police chiefs are at the service of the mayor and have to play along with politics. Sometimes, as with the chief in my town, a pro-gun chief has to work under an extremely anti-gun mayor.
 
Given that those who say, "only police should have guns" use death statistics as their justification, pointing out that there are other killings that are more numerous is relevant.
 
It's probably media bias, but there sure have been a lot of news stories about legal gun owners killing people who, honestly, shouldn't have been shot.

Here's one from this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html

Synopsis: Guy 1 was texting in a movie theater during the trailers. Guy 2, seated behind Guy 1, told Guy 1 to stop. Guy 1 refused request, tossed popcorn. Guy 2 shot Guy 1 dead.

Reason given? "he was in fear of being attacked,"

This is ridiculous. More armed people should follow shootingthebreeze's (and THR's general) advice of de-escalation and avoidance. Fear is a powerful motivator, and frankly we're seeing a lot of frightened people buying and carrying guns. These folks need to be trained to cool down, take the high road, and if at all possible engage Flight instead of Fight.

Killed over popcorn. Jesus Christ.
 
I live in Boulder County, Colorado, just outside the crazy part of that city. The sheriff is an elected Dem, only reason for that, is so he could get elected. This sheriff is about as PRO GUN Republican as you can get. A good friend, gunsmith I use, said the sheriff once told him, "I'd like to be able to hand these CCW permits out right here in my office if I could, other than the classes and background checks keep me from that." I submitted my app on a Tue. , Oct 15, the next Wed., Oct 23, I had it in hand. I might live in this far Left county, but stay out of its city limits at all costs, I didn't lose anything there !
 
Who will murder you?
If you believe the stats, you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know than by someone you don't know. Being murdered by a LEO or CCW holder happens, but it is so uncommon it probably isn't worth discussing.

Discussing murder rate is somewhat meaningless. Folks should be focused on the aggravated assault rate - which is the rate in which people are *trying* to kill each other. Advances in medical technology and the availability of hospitals is keeping the murder rate artificially low.

Considering CCW prevents 3 million assaults per year w/o needing to fire the gun, I would say the benefit of CCW outweighs the ~11,000 murders per year, most of which are neither CCW nor LEO related.
 
See post #10.

Folks, medical malpractice, highway deaths, and any other sort of non-murder homicide are not relevant to the discussion.

ALSO, how is this information going to be put to use in RKBA?
 
well, then

you must also count all the "mere" woundings" caused by guns, as well as the property damage, heart attacks, car wrecks, etc, caused by guns. It works both ways, you know. If you are going to count the assaults warded off by guns, you can't leave out the crimes/damage committed with guns, with the exception of murder. Since those numbers DO get adjudicated ( quite often) are you sure that you want to go there? :) And it's not 3 million, its probably not more than 1 million x per year that guns stop attacks without firing a shot. It does happen, a lot, tho. I've done it myself, several times now.
 
McDonald's is going to murder me.

Getting the numbers out there on really how many people are murdered (not suicide) or killed accidentally by guns in comparison to heart disease would help RKBA imho.

Note, however, that our right to own guns really isn't related to rates of death. If mental heath care was vastly improved so that all types of suicides plummeted, healthy eating became the norm so heart attacks plummeted, and self-driving cars all but eliminated traffic fatalities, I'd still believe in my right to own guns.

However, pointing out the real death rates can redirect an anti.
 
McDonald's is going to murder me.

I question your definition of murder....


However, pointing out the real death rates can redirect an anti.

If by "redirect" you mean "distract from the indisputable fact that the #1 method of murder by a HUGE margin over any other method is firearms" then yes, this is a tactic I have seen used many times by pro-gun ppl.

If you get murdered in the US, there is a two to one chance it was with a gun.
 
If by "redirect" you mean "distract from the indisputable fact that the #1 method of murder by a HUGE margin over any other method is firearms" then yes, this is a tactic I have seen used many times by pro-gun ppl.
No, by "redirect," we mean "wake up and smell the coffee." Anti-gun people are obsessive, and like most obsessions, there is no logic to it.
 
I just ask them how they figure on getting my gun? :) Cause I aint giving them up, and I won't wait for Big Bro to come to me, either. I'll go find him first. He's well-proven to be an inept coward, not fond of sleeping while wearing a gas mask, living in a bunker, and traveling in a tank. So it aint like he'll be hard to reach, or "convince" that he's in the wrong part of the world.
 
To the anti-gun wusses: I don't obsess. I know I will eventually die. I have no reason or want to hurt anyone.

But I'll be damned if I'll make it easy for a thug to hurt or kill me for no good reason.

I'll be damned if a nut-case is better armed than me... and they always will be if I'm too afraid to own a firearam.

Be a coward if you want. That's not me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top