Active Self Protection
Nevada Shop Owner Stabs Robber 7 Times In Altercation

" only racists view the "active self protection" channel."

Newt your such a load.

At least they didn't kidnap then drag him with their truck until his head came off.

Reading the comments on the yt page, and every one is a racist diatribe, like only racists view the "active self protection" channel.

Not surprising Bob found this.

Cry me a river.

I couldn't care less if the guy that just stole my car stereo has a hard time in jail.

IMO minor crime should be treated like baseball. You get 3 strikes and then you're out. If you're not stealing for food you're a selfish scumbag and society would be far better off without you.

(and of course violent crime has no place in modern society at all, and I know there's cases which aren't black and white, but many cases are, video evidence and everything, if we at least got rid of the people who without a doubt violently assaulted someone, then we'd be better off...

You only have to watch a few videos on the Active Self Protection channel to see how many people are just straight up scum, and it's little wonder the police in the US are trigger happy - there's piles of videos where people just straight out fire at the police when asked to show their license)

/rant

WTF?!?
"A crowdfunded poem"?!?!?
REALLY?!? People crowd fund POEMS?!? And awful poems about ignoring her gullibility and lack of self protection that paint any helpful person as an evil attacker? Huh?


OK, it's true that SOME people wishing to hurt you try to trick you by saying they want to help you somehow, but to say that anyone trying to help protect you is really trying to harm you is just paranoid to the extreme.

Most people who ask if you need/want help are simply trying to help.
If someone INSISTS on giving you 'help' that you didn't ask for or don't obviously need....beware.
If you're walking down the freeway with a can of gas and someone stops to offer a ride, that doesn't mean they're trying to kidnap you.

US gun deaths since 1968: 1.5 million
Deaths in *all* US wars: 1.4 million
Congratulations, the NRA is officially a bigger enemy of the US than the NAZIs.
This has nothing to do with 'rights' or 'self protection'. This is all about gun manufacturer profits.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

"In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

Is that the "gun" the kid had and was point / waving? A colt 1911. A great hand gun to have, no orange tip? Where is parental control on this?


video of the incident
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police



It seems to me that since the cops pulled up directly on the kid they had not choice except for self protection.

That being said the cops should not have pulled up that close but close enough to have a stand off and have the kid surrender the weapon.

The problem with guns as self protection is it is wrong kind of approach to crime. It's essentially the mutual destruction situation, "I won't rob a house, rape someone, or murder, because they have gun/weapon of some kind." What really needs to be done is address the issue of why people are committing these crimes. If crime becomes less of an issue, then you'll have less of a reason to waste your money on guns.

the Biden clips, if I recall correctly Biden wasn't suggesting one "menaces" a neighborhood. In the clip he says if someone is *giving you a problem* (which would warrant a use of a weapon), fire your weapon. He didn't say once you get your weapon just fire rounds from your porch to declare to the neighborhood "I've got a gun."

On another note, do people really want to get in fire fights?! Or does it seem like dick waving to me? Sure you can scare someone with a gun, but regardless of whether a person is armed or not, and why they are robbing your house, do you really want to potentially kill a person? Are people that indifferent to human life that they would kill a person to save a T.V.?! No random person you don't know is going to want to come into your house and kill you, unless they were some crazed serial killer, and if that is the case you've got bigger problems.

I maintain that they best thing to do is hide until the burglars are gone, the last thing you want is a confrontation.

Lastly, my house was broken into several weeks ago, when they thought people were gone (a gun in the house is not going to do you any good when it gets robbed and no one is there). They saw my house mate, and fled. No gun required.

This is a very unusual argument, I have never heard that gun ownership is in anyway directly related towards adhering to American sovereignty, this is basically a sophisticated reinvention to the old argument of individuals being 'Un-American' if they want to restrict gun laws, or guns themselves. The main pro-gun argument has always been A) to stop tyrannical governmental power or B) self-protection, never "It is just cultural, therefore you must respect our ways". which the Chinese do not even adhere to.

Furthermore, China had a decade-long ban on fireworks which was lifted in many major Chinese cities in 2005 and 2006 & is currently being considered for re-installment this year due to this practice adding to China's extreme air pollution which has far reaching consequences on the entirety of the population (remember China & other Eastern cultures are collectivist and hold the benefit of the many in high regard). So even though fireworks usage IS indeed cultural for the Chinese, it is still open to higher regulatory oversight or even outright bans if needed, which is not the case when compared to the U.S. due to the cultural significance & power garnered towards the infallibility of the Constitution regardless of its numerous amendments.

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

Just like @bareboards2, I didn't give an opinion or say anything about gun laws. I am just stating facts.

The woman (in the article I linked) used a gun for self protection. The gun was used to shoot her attacker in her own home.

Those are facts.

If you think that there is something to conclude from those two facts, go ahead and make your own conclusions.

In case you didn't notice, all I did was copy and paste @bareboards2's post and change a few words to reflect the article I linked. I don't see you lecturing @bareboards2 about anecdotal evidence. The difference is that @bareboards2's story fits with your opinion and mine doesn't.

You certainly are an expert in anecdotal evidence as you gave me a prime example when you said: "Problem is, when you count ALL the cherries, the reality is that domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved." Actually I wouldn't even call that anecdotal evidence, it's more like anally extracted evidence because it's neither evidence nor factual.

Here are some real facts, no opinions:

70 million Americans own guns (NRA 2010)

45% of American households have a firearm in them (Gallup 2011)

Homicides by firearm in 2010 = 11,078 (CDC)

Average homicide by firearm 1999-2010 = 12,807 (CDC)

The 2008 US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported 5.3 million violent crimes (simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders), with 430,000 (8%) committed by an offender armed with a gun. Just looking at murder alone, 67% of the murders were committed with a firearm (this number doesn't separate how many of these homicides are gang related or committed with illegally obtained guns). The NCVS also reported that guns were used for self defense 116,000 times.

There are no records kept for when a gun is used in self defense. The NCVS report only counts reported self defense cases during the survey. Other studies have been done to attempt to get a more accurate estimate on the use of guns for self defense. These studies show estimates ranging from 500,000 (CDC) to 2.5 million (1995 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology) times per year. A couple of other studies both estimate around 1 million times per year (2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology).

You claim "domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved," but look at the numbers. Even the lowest estimated use of guns for self defense per year, 116,000, is still greater than the number of murders committed with a gun per year. That is at least 116,000 assaults, robberies, rapes and murders prevented by civilians with a guns.

You think that is opinion and not fact?

A gun bought for self protection from unknown intruders is used to kill you? Isn't that the exact opposite result the gun owner intended?

Okay. If you say that is "opinion." I'd say that that is your "opinion."

"Either way, gun in the home for self-protection? >>>Not so much<<<"
That right there is where you injected your "opinion" as it wasn't a fact.

I went out of my way to say I have nothing to say about gun laws. I am just stating facts.

The woman had a gun for self protection. The gun was used to kill her in her own home.

Those are facts.

If you think that there is something to conclude from those two facts, go ahead and make your own conclusions.

It was a confiscation policy. All guns that were banned HAD to be handed in. This was easily enforced by our mandatory gun registration laws in most states (except in Tasmania where the massacre that trigger this scheme occurred). People could hand in any gun they wanted even if it wasn't banned. I am not sure if there was compensation involved.

One stupid outcome was that many antique and rare guns were destroyed rather than rendered inopporeable or transferred to museums etc. My neighbour handed in a very valuable double barrell shotgun that was destroyed despite it being legal. He didn't want it anymore and like manny citizens took advantage of the amnesty to dispose of it.

You can still own pump action and semi-auto guns. You just need a special license for them. To get the license you need an especially good reason to need such weapons. There are strict regulations surrounding their storage and use. That said, my brother got a job as a pest controller for a class D license which enabled him to have grenade launchers if he wanted.

tl:dr - Australians have a very sensible approach to guns. You didn't see any whining about self protection in this vid did you?