Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If some guy wants to rob a liquor store or mug an old lady, and then notices there is someone with a gun nearby and decides not to do it, how do we count that as "a life saved"?
Nothing happened. No threats made, no shots fired, nobody got robbed, nobody frightened, nada.
Yet there definitely could have been a "life saved". And if that happens a thousand times over the course of a few weeks in all the major cities in the country, we can be almost certain that some lives were saved by guns, that would have been lost if the law-abiding folks hadn't had them.
But you'll never see them on TV or in the papers, never see any police reports about it, won't even hear about it over the back fence as gossip.
Yes these are "lives saved by guns", as surely as the guy who had some guy pull a gun on him and demand his wallet, and pulled his own gun and made the criminal run away or surrender.
Except that they are probably MORE numerous.
The biggest benefit of having law-abiding citizens carry guns whenever they want to, is that a lot of crimes that would have happened, aren't even tried. In other words, deterrence.
Self-reported stats are mostly garbage. While some here would have many problems with basing estimates of the incidence of racial discrimination on the job based on self-reports, the same folks will have no problem basing conclusions about guns used for self-defense based on self-reports.
I can't wait for a reference to John Lott's numbers.
ok you wont accept john lotts number, despite the fact that he was an anti gun person until AFTER his study was done, try these;
If little cometclear is afraid to accept John Lott's numbers, that doesn't reflect anything on John Lott.
It only reflects on little cometclear.
i agree, but he wants proof, just not lotts numbers. i try to give the proof they want. chances are though he isnt going accept any of the evidence, which means that he really isnt interested in knowing the information, just arguing and the other will see him for what he is.
No, I have an issue with any study that relies on self-reported incidents. That John Lott's numbers have been debunked is important, but the larger point is that we should not rely on self-reported incidents for such statistics.
Would you be comfortable with quoting statistics on the prevalence of racial discrimination based upon self-reported incidents?
Self-reported stats are mostly garbage. While some here would have many problems with basing estimates of the incidence of racial discrimination on the job based on self-reports, the same folks will have no problem basing conclusions about guns used for self-defense based on self-reports.
I can't wait for a reference to John Lott's numbers.
"...........but if they save the life on just one child then it's all worth it"
i agree, but he wants proof, just not lotts numbers. i try to give the proof they want. chances are though he isnt going accept any of the evidence, which means that he really isnt interested in knowing the information, just arguing and the other will see him for what he is.
Correct, I am uninterested in studies that rely upon peoples' perceptions. If you have studies in which an independent entity has investigated and determined that what people claim actually happened, then I am interested. This is my same stance when it comes to other issues, beyond guns.
No, I have an issue with any study that relies on self-reported incidents. That John Lott's numbers have been debunked is important, but the larger point is that we should not rely on self-reported incidents for such statistics.
Would you be comfortable with quoting statistics on the prevalence of racial discrimination based upon self-reported incidents?
so then you didnt even bother to read the articles in the links i posted? fine, that means you are not interested in reality or facts, just emotion.
Lets do a count....how many sets of bare hands have rescued a person in distress ...or have saved a persons life....then compare to the figures on how many hands holding a gun have saved the life of another? I would say the bare hands win hands down....Guns especially hand guns are specifically designed to kill a human being in close quarters or at close range....Guns will never take the prize as the life safer of the year...it is impossible for a tool that is designed to kill human beings to take the position as the savior of human beings...it defies logic ...and reality in general....
Guns will always be used MORE to kill than to save lives. I like guns but I am no so deluded to think that a world with out guns is more dangerous than one with guns..guns are dangerous...end of story.
"...........but if they save the life on just one child then it's all worth it"
That depends on what is being proposed. I agree that things that amount to a minor annoyance for gun owners are worth it. I don't agree that taking away the right to own guns would be worth a single life. As with most issues, this one requires an ability for nuanced thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
