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.
It seems like when I tried to research this issue I found very agendized and biased studies on both sides. I'd like to know the truth. I don't want to know what you THINK. I want an unbiased study (not from some anti-gun group or the NRA...) that actually provides some evidence.
Just cause you like/dislike guns doesn't make them safer or unsafe.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns... The only thing they are good for is killing people. However, I support the constitutional right to bear arms... but also agree that there needs to be limits on automatic weapons, etc..
Pick your poison, although I suspect from your post you're searching more for validation of your feelings than research.
Having said that you can see a large disparity in numbers. The NRA numbers are probably as good as any, by the way. Each month the NRA magazines devote a page to news stories of people using a firearm in sef-defense, using during a home invasion.
It seems like when I tried to research this issue I found very agendized and biased studies on both sides. I'd like to know the truth. I don't want to know what you THINK. I want an unbiased study (not from some anti-gun group or the NRA...) that actually provides some evidence.
Just cause you like/dislike guns doesn't make them safer or unsafe.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns... The only thing they are good for is killing people. However, I support the constitutional right to bear arms... but also agree that there needs to be limits on automatic weapons, etc..
Accident is the answer, the statistics prove it. That said it is more due to **** poor gun management than any other reason. Guns are tools and do nothing with out a human to control them, one should not leave their table saw running and waiting for a child or drunk to come along and play with either. I know many are against gun ownership and that is their right, just as it is the right of others to own them, the qualifier is that those that do own them should do so in a responsible manner and should be held accouintable for doing so, especially if an "accident" does occur. Some may never be in a situation where a firearm is needed, I hope that it stays that way for them, I for one have not been that lucky and was glad I, or in one case another person was armed, to deal with the situation. So, like em or not guns are here to stay, lets do it in a responsible manner and fewer accidents will happen.
Casper
Last edited by Casper in Dallas; 02-10-2010 at 05:45 PM..
It seems like when I tried to research this issue I found very agendized and biased studies on both sides. I'd like to know the truth. I don't want to know what you THINK. I want an unbiased study (not from some anti-gun group or the NRA...) that actually provides some evidence.
Just cause you like/dislike guns doesn't make them safer or unsafe.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns... The only thing they are good for is killing people. However, I support the constitutional right to bear arms... but also agree that there needs to be limits on automatic weapons, etc..
While you are doing your research, check out the existing limits on automatic weapons. P.S. automatic weapons can also called machine guns.
If y'all are going to have a discussion about this please get the terminology correct.
Rarely are their "accidents" with firearms. There are unintended shootings that result from negligence but they are not "accidents". We call these negligent discharges.
Examples of negligent discharges: cop shoots himself in the foot while drawing his firearm on the training range, child shoots another child because Daddy didn't keep his firearms out of the child's reach, military personel discharge a weapon while cleaning it.
Each person owns or handles a firearm is legally, morally and financially responsible for the terminal resting point of every round that leaves the chamber of the firearm. As such, unintended discharges are a result of negligence and are not "accidents".
The term "accident" releases one from personal responsibity. Negligence holds the firearm owner/handler responsible for anything that happens with their firearm while it is in their possesion or out of it.
Criminals do not care about existing firearms laws. Therefore, legislating more strict limits on firearms and ammunition ownership/possesion will have no effect on criminal activity. It will only limit the law-abiding citizens, who, by definition, are inclined to respect and adhere to current firearm laws.
It seems like when I tried to research this issue I found very agendized and biased studies on both sides. I'd like to know the truth. I don't want to know what you THINK. I want an unbiased study (not from some anti-gun group or the NRA...) that actually provides some evidence.
Just cause you like/dislike guns doesn't make them safer or unsafe.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns... The only thing they are good for is killing people. However, I support the constitutional right to bear arms... but also agree that there needs to be limits on automatic weapons, etc..
I dont know where to find stats for both of these on one website, but a dot gov site would be least biased. Googling tends to direct toward the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cdc dot gov. Maybe somewhere at the doj's website? Good luck finding your information, though!
It is in the interpretation of the person who reveals the statistics. Understand that shootings categorized to include those under the age of 21 include a significant percentage of "gang-bangers" who have intentionally and illegally discharged weapons of which they were not legally possed.
How many people, especially those involved in gangs, lie about minor gunshot wounds when they seek medical treatment?
Was it Twain that said it? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." An internet search prominently reveals NRA supported studies like the much discredited Kleck study and from propagandists like the CATO Institute. I recall a DOJ release from a few years back that revealed one was more likely to be gun injured by yourself or a family member than as a crime victim. I recall the NRA cried foul because the statistics included suicide by gun. Good luck finding hard data. I did find one reference to the DOJ study but upon clicking on the link found it had been removed. It is as hard to get good data on guns as to get balanced perspectives and facts on Israel/Palestine conflict. I don't know which is more powerful, the JDL or the ARA.
Here is a thought. Picture yourself confronted by a intruder and tell us whether you would rather be armed or not? Tell us if you think your gun will more likely be used in a accident by you or not?
Out of my many years of knowing or known many gun owners personally I only recall one accident where a son who inherited a handgun who wasn't use to handling firearms accidently shot off a round that went through several walls of the house.
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.
