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 the OP doesn't like guns, or not, I don't see how that nullifies my opinion.
People keep saying shooting after shooting for years that gun control can't be talked about yet, so when is it time in your opinion that people can even talk about it without it being a knee jerk response from the next shooting? To me saying you can't talk about it yet constantly is just avoiding the subject entirely until people just go away, and it's very disigenuous.
People still murder, rape, drive drunk, and steal...should we get rid of laws that outlaw those things? People are still going to break the law evey day even if we make them illegal.
Sorry, that argument is stupifyingly rediculous. It special pleading that simply doesn't work.
You can find even more by putting "felons buying guns at gun shows" into Google.
It's also hard when people bring up Hitler, Stalin, laws would just be broken anyways so why have them, and all sorts of other crazy arguments when people mention gun control. How about people stop with the crazy arguments on either side and we have a discussion like rational human beings to brainstorm if there is even a way?
There are a couple issues that do seem to bring out the finest invectives. This being one of them. And, certainly, there is no vround gained, on either end, by the use of such. The uselessness of it all doesn't seem to effect folks much though. I guess that human beings have an inate desire to just pizz each other off.
Your freaking article states why Kleck is wrong, and even starts off with the statement "Criminologists concur that the unusual prevalence of guns in America—some 300 million in private hands—makes our violent crime more lethal than that of other countries. "
I mean your article contains both the old claim and the rebuttle to Kleck, which was a self reporting survey that then they extrapolated to huge numbers. That is just bad quantitative analysis.
Nice try.
More lethal goes both ways, for the criminals and for the victims.
Even at the low estimate, the self-defense use of firearm is 1000 times more than children died of firearms.
In my city, self-defense use of firearm is a common event - we see them on the local news weekly if not daily. That's just when someone, mostly the bad guys, were killed.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 07-05-2013 at 12:14 PM..
More lethal goes both ways, for the criminals and for the victims.
Even at the low estimate, the self-defense use of firearm is 1000 times more than children died of firearms.
In my city, self-defense use of firearm is a common event - we see them on the local news weekly if not daily. That's just when someone, mostly the bad guys, were killed.
Okay your chance of being in a violent crime (homicide) is 4.8 per 100k
even before the right to carry laws (lets say 1970s) your rate is still ridiculous low. .and the lion share of those who die by violent murder aren't normal "innocent" but instead those with gang or other affiliated activity.
Even a low estimate is a "low estimate" of those who are wishfull thinking. . .like the time they defended themselves by showing a gun against a bunch of teenagers who were actually just walking down the same street.
So you sit there and claim with a straight face that murders avoided. . when the chance of being harmed in the US is so ridiculously low. . .it is only the most wishfull thinker who can be compeled by that low estimate
low estimate of a self reported and discredited study is still crap
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4 (15–19).
More lethal goes both ways, for the criminals and for the victims.
Even at the low estimate, the self-defense use of firearm is 1000 times more than children died of firearms.
In my city, self-defense use of firearm is a common event - we see them on the local news weekly if not daily. That's just when someone, mostly the bad guys, were killed.
This is where statistical data becomes useless. The stats and studies don't differentiate between criminal use and citizen defensive use, of firearms. Its all lumped together under "death by firearm" , regardless of circumstances. Skewed data is worthless, and death is death, regardless of cause. Percentage of comparisons have been done to ad nauseum, i.e., cars vs guns, and even with the gun numbers stacked with justifiable defensive sbootings, firearms deaths always seem to come in lower against these other, commonly used, comparables.
Yet, drastic action, to disarm the citizenry, or require all manner of safeguards, some of which are downright silly, are touted as "solutions". Statistics are like weather reports. Are you going to listen to the guy on the news, or look out the window and trust your own eyes?
I wonder where your outrage is over the numerous "self defense" posts, i dont' remember you ralling against their propaganda. Perhaps only when you disagree with it
Its not propaganda
cherry picking, vividness bias, etc. . .I would accepted
but Propaganda? I don't think that word means what you think it means
Okay your chance of being in a violent crime (homicide) is 4.8 per 100k
even before the right to carry laws (lets say 1970s) your rate is still ridiculous low. .and the lion share of those who die by violent murder aren't normal "innocent" but instead those with gang or other affiliated activity.
Even a low estimate is a "low estimate" of those who are wishfull thinking. . .like the time they defended themselves by showing a gun against a bunch of teenagers who were actually just walking down the same street.
So you sit there and claim with a straight face that murders avoided. . when the chance of being harmed in the US is so ridiculously low. . .it is only the most wishfull thinker who can be compeled by that low estimate
low estimate of a self reported and discredited study is still crap
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4 (15–19).
For crying out loud!!! People still pull this kind of garbage to push their agenda? Do you have no honesty or ethics?
It takes an elementary school level intelligence to see what kind of garbage this is.
So what is with you? Not enough intelligence or you are dishonest?
If the OP doesn't like guns, or not, I don't see how that nullifies my opinion.
Never said it nullifies your opinion, the OP hates guns....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
People keep saying shooting after shooting for years that gun control can't be talked about yet, so when is it time in your opinion that people can even talk about it without it being a knee jerk response from the next shooting? To me saying you can't talk about it yet constantly is just avoiding the subject entirely until people just go away, and it's very disigenuous.
Can you provide anything to back this up? Where does anyone ask to not talk about guns yet?
Shooting after shooting, what types of shootings are you talking about? Be very specific on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
People still murder, rape, drive drunk, and steal...should we get rid of laws that outlaw those things? People are still going to break the law evey day even if we make them illegal.
No, you should burn their ass, stop coddling people. Do you agree that someone who has been arrested 10+ times should even be in the public?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
Sorry, that argument is stupifyingly rediculous. It special pleading that simply doesn't work.
So, you are saying more laws do work? Then why do people still drive drunk? And why are there not more laws to prevent it.
What a dumb ass video, you really believe that? Was there anything wrong? His language was very "basic." Sorry, but that means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
It's also hard when people bring up Hitler, Stalin, laws would just be broken anyways so why have them, and all sorts of other crazy arguments when people mention gun control. How about people stop with the crazy arguments on either side and we have a discussion like rational human beings to brainstorm if there is even a way?
I guess you don't understand that I'm agreeing with you on this point. Stupidity is rampant on both sides....
Okay your chance of being in a violent crime (homicide) is 4.8 per 100k
even before the right to carry laws (lets say 1970s) your rate is still ridiculous low. .and the lion share of those who die by violent murder aren't normal "innocent" but instead those with gang or other affiliated activity.
Even a low estimate is a "low estimate" of those who are wishfull thinking. . .like the time they defended themselves by showing a gun against a bunch of teenagers who were actually just walking down the same street.
So you sit there and claim with a straight face that murders avoided. . when the chance of being harmed in the US is so ridiculously low. . .it is only the most wishfull thinker who can be compeled by that low estimate
low estimate of a self reported and discredited study is still crap
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4 (15–19).
its only crap because it stand against you
I wonder why the Obama administration isn't touting this recent study done by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, under the directive of the Centers for Disease Control?
Oh, could it because it actually contains facts and actually many of those facts contained in the report are actually positive reasons for gun ownership?
1. Most gun deaths in the US are due to suicide, not violent crimes with guns or accidental shootings. This is a sad statistic, but again, this goes back to mental healthcare, not guns.
“Between the years 2000-2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.” [Source]
2. Mass shootings account for a negligible amount of crime in the US. In fact, mass shootings are one of the rarest forms of violent crime in the country.
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Specifically, since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in a day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” [Source]
3. This one is probably our favorite. The study admits that self defense is a common occurrence and happens at least as much violent crimes involving guns. This is a direct busted myth to the anti gun argument that guns are almost never used for self defense.
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence [...]. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” [Source]
4. Furthermore, on self defense, if you carry a gun and fight back against a violent assailant, you are less likely to be killed or harmed than someone who decided to fight back and employ another self defense tactic or weapon.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns [...] have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” [Source]
I wonder where your outrage is over the numerous "self defense" posts, i dont' remember you ralling against their propaganda. Perhaps only when you disagree with it
Its not propaganda
cherry picking, vividness bias, etc. . .I would accepted
but Propaganda? I don't think that word means what you think it means
its not propaganda, its just showing proof that firearms are tools and are used overwhelming to the defense over lives, liberty, and property. you don't like it because it is based on facts, logic, reason, and common sense, something your argument is not.
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.
