Yes, this is an NRA site but the clock is maintained by another party WITH references.
http://calnra.com/lifeclock/
2007-04-17 07:31:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I sometimes feel I will never find unbiased information on that subject.
But I understand that John Lott is a noted (and, I'm sure, controversial) author who has allegedly documented the effects of adopting concealed carry laws (lowering crime) and gun confiscation laws (raising crime), as well as discussing and examining statistically the defensive use of weapons. Many people, including women who are stalked, etc., carry guns for protection when they do not consider relying solely on the police to be sufficient. (This is not a criticism of police; many officers themselves will say that there's no way for them to get to a shooting site on time.) It has also been said that in defense situations, merely brandishing, rather than firing, the gun is frequently enough to ward off an attack. I'm not sure how consistently this is reported. It is also possible that criminals would bypass areas where it is likely they would encounter a gun owner and concentrate on "gun free" zones. I suppose the only empirical evidence of this would be a negative inference from crime stastics.
I don't think that's the only benefit, though. Many of the societies that have outlawed guns are totalitarian states that we would not want to emulate. And it's an express constitutional right for a reason. Whether cause or effect, the amendment is a reflection of our culture and the wishes of the people. People feel passionately that gun ownership is their right, and any attempt to limit that right will be met with fierce opposition. (Remember what I said a few days ago, in another context, about a law that is not respected by a large portion of the public being unenforceable; in other words, "if gun ownership is outlawed, people will still have guns.") Certainly we've all debated various rights people feel strongly about, on this site. This is one of them. We all live together with a wide diversity of viewpoints (the "red state/blue state" divide), and have to understand each other's views and get along.
But if there are compelling reasons to amend the Constitution and change the law, there are certainly also a large number of people who would welcome the opportunity to try, as is THEIR right. (Even if the answer to your question would dictate far more stringent gun control, there's the issue of what the Constitution presently guarantees, which I have asked about myself today.)
Maybe someone who is more of an "advocate" has posted, or will post, useful information. But maybe looking up Lott, and his critics, would be a start.
I would personally prefer a world in which there was no need for guns. But there are a LOT of things I wish were not necessary, but which are not realistic to wish away. Our country is also been comprised of vastly different types of "terrain," and I would imagine that police response times are understandably long in rural and/or "frontier" areas, like the plains states.
Another long answer! :)
2007-04-17 08:08:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
you can get a definite answer on how many have died due to guns.. you can't, however, get a definitive answer on how many have been saved... nor can you say how many would have lived/died if guns had never been invented or if they had always been heavily regulated... too many variables in the hypothetical's I'm afraid :( but in the end we can say this much.. mankind has always been driven to find a better tool... whether it be a spear, bow, gun, cannon or bomb we will continue to find more effective tools for killing.... and when we do eventually the public is going to get their hands on a piece of that technology.... so we need to start focusing on how to find and help people who are about to snap like this... as well as try to figure out what it is about our society that is creating these people who feel the need to snap in the first place.
2007-04-17 07:37:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by pip 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
For a Start Bush's gun program in Iraq has saved all of Islam from the radicals that want to hijack the religion of Peace.
The Guns of Bush, in and around Badgag will stand as a monument to the Saved to Death.
Go Team Bush Go
2007-04-17 07:52:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I doubt you will find a credible source but I think if you just take the police department, you could say lives are saved by their weapons (and that would be hard to show just them carrying a gun is preventing some crimes/murders).
2007-04-17 07:34:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by az 4
·
5⤊
0⤋
Well lets see, consider the hunter who relies on food for his 7 kids and has to go out deer hunting to do it, because his 7 dollar an hour job isen't enough to keep food on the table..
Yeah right, go get an education and become as smart as you.. Make lots of money and feed your kids the right food..
Guns aren't killing anyone, it is people with an opinion that causes anger.. Why not try to go make peace with your friend who took your ex away??. That is how your going to save lives..
Good Luck ..
2007-04-17 07:38:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by tiny b 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
Cops bear arms. And other hero's. Guns are a part of life. Just like machetes. They have their purpose. Like any tool.
2007-04-17 07:34:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Handy man 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
You can't put a number on the amount of people saved by guns.
It happens every day. How can there be a statistic on this?
2007-04-17 07:31:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
I'm sorry but you must not be a good thinker. If we do get rid of guns do you think CRIMINALS who DON'T follow the law are going to listen and just hand in their ILLEGAL guns. No they are going to have a field day because they know that nobody can defend themselves. Try to think before you come up with these questions.
2007-04-17 07:34:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by joe d 4
·
5⤊
4⤋
good luck finding credible information on how many people were ''saved by'' guns.
2007-04-17 07:30:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋