Gun control / Anti gun control

[3ft]

So yea gun ownership is a deterrent to the government.

Where would Apache helicopter, fighter jet, and tank ownership fall?

 

[Xander]

More guns in the right hands make us safer.

Well that certainly puts in the toilet all that crap Harvard put together. Pffft, what does Harvard (unbiased) know that the NRA (extremely biased) doesn't?

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

Other notable points (for those who aren't bothering to follow links):

• Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
• Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
• Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
• Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens
• Owners of semi-automatic guns are more likely to binge drink than other gun owners.
• The public favors most sensible gun policies, policies the U.S. does not have
• NRA members support many regulatory proposals (but are more likely to own 6+ guns)
• Adolescents carry guns for protection--against other adolescents carrying guns
• Adolescents overestimate peer gun carrying and thus are more likely to carry themselves.
• Social disorder increases the likelihood of adolescent gun carrying
• Increased gun carrying reduces community feeling of safety.
• Motorists with guns are more likely to act aggressively (Study done in Arizona)
• Motorists with guns are more likely to engage in types of road rage (USA)
• Batterers with guns are more dangerous than batterers without guns.
• Where there are more guns there is more homicide
• Across states, more guns = more homicide
• High rates of homicide followed by suicide in U.S. likely due to firearm access
• Across states, more guns = more violent deaths to children
• Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths
• Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
• Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.
• An armed society is not a trusting society
• Less lethal and less dangerous weapons need to be developed for civilians and for the police

Note that none of the above are my opinions but derived from empirical evaluations from people who have gotten an ejumacation in book lernin and have read more than an NRA website.

Maybe it's not that some people here are "anti-gun" (I used to be a marksman and shot .22s competitively) but are "pro-public safety".

Edit: for the "TL;DR" crowd, try this.

 

[TechLady]

Note that none of the above are my opinions but derived from empirical evaluations from people who have gotten an ejumacation in book lernin and have read more than an NRA website.

Maybe it's not that some people here are "anti-gun" (I used to be a marksman and shot .22s competitively) but are "pro-public safety".

And here's what you're going to hear next:

1) TL;DR
2) That's made up bullcrap by the LIBRUH MEDIUH!
3) LUV IT OR LEAVE IT, commie!
4) I learned everything I need to know in HIGH SCHOOL! I don' need to listen to no egghead fools with doctorates! Wut the hayll d'they know. Nuthin! FACTS iz jus another name fer LIBBIE BULLCRAP!
5) Etc. etc.

 

[Xander]

That's funny because I did vote communist in my last municipal election. Me and 90 other people

And I added a link for the TLDRers. Found it on a wise woman's G+ page.

 

[oldtech]

I almost hurt myself laughing at the Harvard "findings". Seriously? Empirical??

Maybe next time you can post it unedited as below:

I am a particular fan of the "detainee" questionnaire methodology /facepalm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate's new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.



8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com


9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

 

[oldtech]

Where would Apache helicopter, fighter jet, and tank ownership fall?

Well - last I checked you can privately own any one of those. You might want to spend some time reading up on private security firms and just what kind of hardware they're sporting these days.

As to their effectiveness?

Hmm I don't know off hand - maybe you should ask the guys in Afghanistan how much of a force multiplier those are when employed against the nationals there.

 

[Xander]

I almost hurt myself laughing at the Harvard "findings". Seriously? Empirical??

Maybe next time you can post it unedited as below:

I am a particular fan of the "detainee" questionnaire methodology /facepalm

Were you confused by the use of the word "points"? Did you expect anyone to post pages copied verbatim when anyone could follow the links posted for themselves? Which of these studies did you read in their entirety that you question them? Here's one of them including the full PDF but, since it's on your government's site, I'm sure one would need to pre-don one's tin foil trucker's cap before clicking.

Which of them do you think are less empirical than key points from Cletus T. Mudskipper's manifesto/colouring book for the NRA?

 

[oldtech]

No I was laughing at your moronic use of the word empirical.

Why make someone follow links when simply posting the full text was easy enough? Possibly because the points without the methodology description painted the picture you desired?

+1 on your comeback though, and total commitment on your part to avoid responding to the actual points I made through the use of condescension and derision . Been reading a bit of Alinksy?

At any rate it's time for bed - us old peoples needs our restuses so's we can gets us up in the mornins and reads us our NRA thoughts for the day - dayum.

Un-f*cking-believeable. What a *****

 

[Martyn]

Please keep the personal bits out of the debate. We are all entitled to our opinions no matter how different to our own. One can see how these debates go rapidly downhill. Please re-read your own posts and take out the personal stuff before I get the time to do it.

 

[NETWizz]

Well that certainly puts in the toilet all that crap Harvard put together. Pffft, what does Harvard (unbiased) know that the NRA (extremely biased) doesn't?
.

Newsflash... Colleges and Universities have some of the most liberal idiots out there. Just because someone has a Doctorate, is smart, or highly educated doesn't make that person street-smart or have common sense.

You say Harvard is Unbiased, but I strongly disagree. In fact, I would say they ARE very biased. Yeah, the NRA is biased, too, but at least we admit it.

**************************
Other notable points (for those who aren't bothering to follow links):

• Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

They don't have to necessarily be used... Often times just the sight of a gun is enough, but that "intimidates" to use another buzzword... Excellent.

• Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Yeah. In that the sight of a gun is often all that is needed... Thank god people don't generally have to shoot though it is nice to be able to if needed!

• Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Unfortunatly, you are probably righgt though admitedly a LOT of people are intimidated by the mere sight of a gun. I know people who won't step foot in my home because I a gun on a table or something... Were they intimidated? Sure. Is that my problem? No

• Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

This is something I hope gets fixed. I hope we can get that statistic up to where a LOT more criminals are shot by law abiding citizens... It would save the tax payer's a bunch of money and stop crime.

• Owners of semi-automatic guns are more likely to binge drink than other gun owners.

... and owners of shotguns for clay pidgin shooting are more likely to be tabacco users right?

• The public favors most sensible gun policies, policies the U.S. does not have.

Not sure I would describe with the sheepeople want as sensible.

• NRA members support many regulatory proposals (but are more likely to own 6+ guns)

As long as thos regulatory proposals don't take our gun rights we are all for helping out if we can. Currently, I own only 5 guns Plan on getting that number up to at least 11 next year.

• Adolescents carry guns for protection--against other adolescents carrying guns

Or for protection against bullies, etc. Why do you think NRA members carry guns? Personal protection IS the primary reason. Should adolescents be carrying guns? NOT until they become responsible, but I understand their reasons; since, they are the same as mine.

• Adolescents overestimate peer gun carrying and thus are more likely to carry themselves.

• Social disorder increases the likelihood of adolescent gun carrying

True simply because it is atypical for adolescents to carry.

• Increased gun carrying reduces community feeling of safety.

Since when do my right get trumped by the way the community feels? This isn't a damned democracy. I don't carry to make the community feel safe. I carry for my OWN safety. If the community has a problem with it, they can barracade themselves at home, get over it, or carry themselves.

• Motorists with guns are more likely to act aggressively (Study done in Arizona)

Only because they are not afraid of other drivers... I am more apt to be nice because I don't want a confrontation.

1. Motorists with guns are more likely to engage in types of road rage (USA)

As long as they are not shooting other motorists.

• Batterers with guns are more dangerous than batterers without guns.

• Where there are more guns there is more homicide

If there weren't guns, people would kill each other with steak knives. Look at China!

• Across states, more guns = more homicide

Strange how places like Washington D.C., which outlaw guns have the highest crime rates.

• High rates of homicide followed by suicide in U.S. likely due to firearm access

This tends to be the trend.

• Across states, more guns = more violent deaths to children

In China, 22 children were killed with knives, but I don't necessarily dispute this one.

• Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths

Amazing because a LOT of femals I know are packing heat, and I encourage it

• Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

It is people that kill each other not guns... A gun is just the right tool for the job; I guess..

• Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.

They should be packing heat!

• An armed society is not a trusting society

True. I would rather not trust than be a victim...

• Less lethal and less dangerous weapons need to be developed for civilians and for the police

Pepper Spray and Tazers have limited use. Find something that works as effectively as a gun, and I am all for it.

 

[Xander]

So, here it is again -- bring up results of studies and not one counter-point study is offered. There is no data that guns are good. It's all "my rights", "my 2nd amendment", "stinking libtards". No regard to how one's neighbours are affected, just a phenomenally selfish view tainted by fear and paranoia.

That one twitter example poses an interesting question: What would the public reaction be if someone were to just mow down an entire NRA assembly? People equipped to defend themselves. Especially if it were done without guns (e.g. blocked doors and fire or lethal gas).

Edit: I think I've answered my own questions -- the gun enthusiasts live in fear; couple that with a culture where "might makes right", media that put killers on pedestals, and where mental health issues are shoved under a table and you will inevitably end up with people who walk into elementary schools with guns a'blazin. Self-fulfilling prophecies.

I'm done here.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Edit: I think I've answered my own questions -- the gun enthusiasts live in fear; .

LMFAO! yeah OK. I live in "fear".
Not the fact that
*I enjoy a mans sport..have been since...oh, my dad taught me around age 10.
*I enjoy have the opportunity to escalate my ability to defend my home and family if need be, done properly of course. I'm a firm believer in the "castle doctrine". I am not a believer in all in the rights of someone doing harm to my home or especially to my family. Nothing wrong with being a man, not a timid sheep. Has nothing to do with fear...it has to do with the mans right to have the responsibility to protect....to be the "man of the house." If you don't want that responsibility...fine, that's your choice. But I prefer to have the right to do it...it's my choice. And if I take that choice...it's my responsibility to do it properly, legally, safely.

Perhaps news of another tragedy made it up your way....Dr William Petit and his family. Also about an hour away from where I live. His wife and daughters brutalized, raped, tortured..while he was beaten but still alive...forced to watch and listen..helplessly. Oh..and then they were killed in horrific manners....and then burned...while he was still there. I opt for the choice to escalate my castle doctrine rights...and have at least a chance to "raise the bar to protect my beautiful wife and daughter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Safely and properly is the big thing many people miss.
I am pro "right to bear arms"
I am also pro gun control..key word being "control". See all of my prior points about making effective control.

 

[TechLady]

Since when do my right get trumped by the way the community feels? This isn't a damned democracy. I don't carry to make the community feel safe. I carry for my OWN safety. If the community has a problem with it, they can barracade themselves at home, get over it, or carry

This is a very, very sad attitude. You live in a society with other people and enjoy all the benefits of society, yet don't feel any obligation whatsoever to said society/community.

And actually, it is a democracy...which is why we are even having this discussion.

Anyway, here's why we are never going to agree: http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.61c886c438708471a9f4ea23070fa70c.3a1

And on that note, I am done also.

 

[Screwloose]

People can post all the links they want....shootings, murders, tragedies....Yet...we rarely see lots of links about people that righteously defended themselves and/or their loved ones with guns. Oh yeah..they do happen. Rarely see that in the news, or media...because it's typically low scale...involves just one or two or a just several people. Not "newsworthy".

Here is a story about a school shooting that was halted by an assistant Principal and his .45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

 

[Screwloose]

Also something to note ... Norway shootings .... strict gun control laws. They allow hunting weapons and some pistols depending on the caliber ( they do not allow high caliber ones ). In 2011 a man who planned this tragedy for nine years and killed 69 people! Most of them children at a camp where NO ONE else had a gun!

I do not care what laws you enact to control guns if some nut job wants to get a gun he will .... if they take guns away from the people we will merely be sheep for the slaughter of some criminial or nut job. Careful what you wish for.

 

[NETWizz]

Here is a story about a school shooting that was halted by an assistant Principal and his .45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

It does not say that... Well at least not when I read it...


Went to look at the history, and apparently someone edited that key fact out of there.

 

[Screwloose]

It does not say that... Well at least not when I read it...


Went to look at the history, and apparently someone edited that key fact out of there.

Ah I should have read through that account ... I remember when it happened and the details but apparently someone did not post the entire incident in the Wiki. If you Google it then you will find the entire account and where the vice Principal held the shooter at gun point until the Police arrived. Here is a more in depth report.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

 

[coffee]

In all of human history there have been those with and those without guns. Those that had no guns suffered the most and most often. To be caught in a situation without any means of protection is humility at its best.

It is easy to sit back in such a society as ours and enjoy such things as a meal every day, A warm bed to sleep in, A home that is yours that you do as you please. A place to work and worship as you feel fit. Those are the things of freedom that we value in America. Those are the rights that our forefathers, Grandfathers, and Fathers fought for and died for. So that you can sit back and say how terrible guns are. Guns built this country of mine and they also keep it safe. Whether the guns are in the military or in the civil defense of each and every citizen. To take away the right to bear arms is to weaken the nation as a whole.

There are those out there that hate our country for which it stands for. The freedom that we so much enjoy. They hide behind the laws of our country working tirelessly to corrupt and bring down the great society we have built. They wish to create a "greater nation" but have no real understanding of what it takes to build great nations. They chip away at our laws and our rights to weaken us and to push the Lord our god out of our society.

Those that want to take our guns away should learn a simple fact - That we should reject the idea that every time a law is broken it is the fault of the society and not the individual lawbreaker.

These shootings all took place in public areas where guns are not allowed - schools, Churches and political gatherings, Sporting events. Clearly, Those situations point out a very important fact. Should the people had been better defended it would have turned out different. How can anyone think the opposite is beyond me.

We have guns for home defence. Should anyone try and break into my home I have no problem what so ever in arranging a meeting with God. This scares you? This causes you grave concern? Good. Then you are learning already how guns save lives.

For those that do not learn then just remember how Hitler, Mao, and the others treated the gunless.

 

[16k_zx81]

Not going to weigh into the debate

Seems to me like every time an 'inflammatory' subject like this is posted, the most prominent result is animosity. Doesn't really benefit anyone. Members get ****** off, flame each other. No one really changes their position, just get more entrenched in what they already think, and the lesting effect is that people who formerly liked and respected each other, no longer do.

There are plenty of 'politics' and 'religion' forums on the Net. Seems to me these would be a better platform for those wanting to hone their arguments.

Just saying.

 

[Vicenarian]

Here's the solution to everything:

Give everybody a taser