Guns Save Lives

Hero teacher back to school after using firearm to capture assailant who shot police officer

Originally ran here as:
"Hero teacher back to school after shooting"
by Jeff Theodore, Staff Writer
New Jersey Journal
May 10, 2002

JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY -- Any lessons that James Ahern may have tried to get across to students in the history classes he teaches at Jersey City's Dickinson High School were forced to take a back seat yesterday.

Inside Room 104 at the school, students pressed Ahern for details of his role in a story that appeared on the front page of several newspapers yesterday morning.
 
* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
 
Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."
 
That's because Vermont is the least populous state in the U.S. Gun ownership has nothing to do with it.
 
Look it up for yourself. You will find that Vermont is number 50 out of 50 States in population. It's not surprising that Vermont's crime rate is lower than other states when its population is less than most cities. The presumption that the low crime rate is based on an armed populace, petitio principii, only begs the question that gun ownership it is an objective measure in the first instance. If there is any lack of support for the argument, it is in this presumption; which is not evidence, much less proof. Indeed, it is fallacious; just as gun ownership can be made to assert the false premise that it is responsible for more crime. Think about it.
 
Look it up for yourself. You will find that Vermont is number 50 out of 50 States in population. It's not surprising that Vermont's crime rate is lower than other states when its population is less than most cities. The presumption that the low crime rate is based on an armed populace, petitio principii, only begs the question that gun ownership it is an objective measure in the first instance. If there is any lack of support for the argument, it is in this presumption; which is not evidence, much less proof. Indeed, it is fallacious; just as gun ownership can be made to assert the false premise that it is responsible for more crime. Think about it.

not the way it works nemo....you made a claim, it is up to YOU to back it up. don't like it....perhaps debate is not for you.
 
I did back it up. It's you who havn't supported the claim with evidence. Statistics based on false premises prove nothing.
 
Look it up for yourself. You will find that Vermont is number 50 out of 50 States in population. It's not surprising that Vermont's crime rate is lower than other states when its population is less than most cities. The presumption that the low crime rate is based on an armed populace, petitio principii, only begs the question that gun ownership it is an objective measure in the first instance. If there is any lack of support for the argument, it is in this presumption; which is not evidence, much less proof. Indeed, it is fallacious; just as gun ownership can be made to assert the false premise that it is responsible for more crime. Think about it.

so not only are you saying that more guns does not equal less crime, you're also saying that less guns doesn't equal less crime as well? so it really isn't about the number of guns out there after all. cool.
 
I did back it up. It's you who havn't supported the claim with evidence. Statistics based on false premises prove nothing.

you OPINION is evidence? seriously....when you make a claim...back it up or else declare -- this is my opinion

don't pass your opinions off as facts little nemo dune
 
One more time: The hypothesis (viz., gun ownership or armed populace reduces crime) is a false premise; i.e., it can be used both to assert that guns are the problem, as well as that guns are the solution to the problem of crime. Second, the statistical sample (Vermont) is too small. (It is like saying that Baptists are unpatriotic, and pointing to the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church as proof.) Even if the premise were true (which it is not), the sample hardly proves the point - one way or the other.

One thing, sir, is certain from this discussion: you do not know what you are talking about.
 
It is you who have not provided any evidence. Posting propaganda does not benefit your cause; it only reflects discredit on all gun owners. Are you for or against gun ownership? I doubt you even own a gun.
 
That's because Vermont is the least populous state in the U.S. Gun ownership has nothing to do with it.

Really... Wyoming appears to have less population, it is even less for the entire state than that of the District of Columbia... While Vermont has more than D.C. it does have a small population, just not the "least"...
 
why are the rabid anti gun nuts so afraid to admit guns save lives? i have no problem with discussing regulation, but to madly cover your ears and act as if all guns are bad, is plain dumb and doesn't help anything. in fact, it makes others get into a defensive position and want to completely ignore your good intentions.

i know a certain troll will ignore this, because then he can't spout hate, he would have to actually discuss the issue.
 
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
 
Back
Top