http://news.yahoo.com/spokane-grandmother-shoots-intruder-gets-badge-192120315.html

The gun did the job in this case.

http://www.scoop.it/t/littlebytesnews-e ... tion+China

the gun did the job in this case (an AR15 no-less)

Ok some bad gun stories for you...


http://freakoutnation.com/2013/03/31/in ... r-old-son/
http://www.chronline.com/news/article_b ... f887a.html
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-dro ... sband.html
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jan/0 ... enexa-res/

I'm sorry Freeman2, I thought with all the bad gun stories that make the news, some equal press could be used. Do we really need to bring up alternative views of "bad gun stories" I would think that the media glut would be enough.

Thanks for the input.

Is there a media 'glut' because there are more of the bad ones than the good ones?

Doubt it.

On what basis? Are there more bad than good, more good than bad or (and this seems unlikely) a roughly equal level? What would be your evidence?

The good is seldom talked about. I give this maxim as evidence:

"If it bleeds, it leads"

We can both provide plenty of instances of good and bad. I do not want to get into a battle of who can provide the "most" stories. I was only giving evidence that gun ownership can provide benefits. It is the choice of the gun owner as to balance the benefit/risk decision.

And people who don't own a gun - do they get a choice?

uhhhh, not owning a gun IS their choice. I own no gun, that's my choice and my decision to not own one should not be forced upon others. If my choice were forced upon others then they would have none themselves, that choice is part of our rights.

Hmmm. But they can't choose a less armed society without moving. It's not just about individuals weighing up the risks (and individual humans are rubbish at evaluating risk), but the nation/state as a whole. If other people's choices affects the risk to you, do you not think you should have a say too?

There you go, they can't chose a less armed society, I agree but that is part of our rights, they also can't chose a society that does not allow free speech or one that will restrict your religious freedoms, or one that does not allow women to vote. These are also rights we have that you would not dream of doing away with. Because you do not agree with a certain right does not make it wrong. I do not think these people have any rights greater than those we are entitled to in our bill of rights. If a neighbor of mine chose to become a member of the KKK, that would possibly be a risk to me and it's certainly something I do not want anywhere near me, something I want no part of in my neighborhood or community but it is his right to join, same here. No, other people do not have a "say" when it comes to ones rights.

tom

There you go, they can't chose a less armed society, I agree but that is part of our rights, they also can't chose a society that does not allow free speech or one that will restrict your religious freedoms, or one that does not allow women to vote

Actually, through political action, and recourse to legal remedies, your rights can be changed. The right for women to vote didn't occur till 1920.
And the actual enforcement of the civil rights of millions of Americans didn't occur till the 1960s...
Therefore you should not assume that the interpretation of the "Right to Bear Arms" is set in stone. Nor that the right is entirely unassailable.

Don't be silly, ricky - the US Constitution is immutable.

Interesting that gay marriage is being fought so hard over.

Women's suffrage - 19th Amendment
Civil Rights - 14th and 15th Amendments

Great idea in changing the Constitution... Perhaps that should be given a try.

http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html

I provided a link to help speed this along