well of course the number of 'defensive' gun incidents was a steaming pile of BS

[thraashman]

Ahhhhh guns. They're here to stay. The tool of terrorists, police and deer killers alike. So easy to obtain, it's almost like the gun manufacturers and their mouthpiece, the NRA, want you to buy the damn things, and we've fallen for it all in droves.

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is preventing the bad man from getting the gun (one less sale ), which is impossible; guns (and bad men) are too ubiquitous.

So once there are three guns for every man, woman and child in this country I predict that there will be a new and stylish market for 'bulletproof-wear.'

Yep, the NRA doesn't want criminals or terrorists to be unable to get guns, because criminals and terrorists are customers. The NRA is the only legal terrorist organization in this country.

 

[shira]

You can never ever apply statistics to an individual or individual situation. Well perhaps "In the long run we're all dead" where something always, without exception, is universally true.

Unless I really know - based on objective criteria - that I'm an "exception," I apply statistics to myself all the time. For example, the "odds" on PSA screening are about 40-to-1 against. That is, the odds are that you're 40 times more likely to suffer significant harm (up to and including death) from getting tested plus follow-on testing and treatment than that your life will be saved by the treatment. But most men over 50 continue to get PSA tested. To me, unless one is in a higher-risk group for prostate cancer, that's utterly irrational, and I no longer undergo PSA screening.

But how do you convince individuals to NOT go against the odds? How do you convince gun-owners that if the odds are that someone in your home is more likely to be harmed by your gun than saved by it, those odds apply the THEM, not to some theoretical "unsafe gun owner?"

 

[bradly1101]

Its really simple stuff.

Something so simple yet is failed at miserably, constantly.

Any primatologist will tell you that all species of monkey commit murder (it's an instinctual reaction to want to kill a perceived enemy). Why would you let monkeys have guns? Just because they figured out how to build them?

 

[Zaap]

Why would you let monkeys have guns? Just because they figured out how to build them?

Hell yes I'm letting a gun-building monkey keep his weapon.

I ain't making this guy's day.

 

[corwin]

Something so simple yet is failed at miserably, constantly.

Any primatologist will tell you that all species of monkey commit murder (it's an instinctual reaction to want to kill a perceived enemy). Why would you let monkeys have guns? Just because they figured out how to build them?

Why would you let monkeys have freedom of speech? Just cause they learned how to talk?

Makes just as much sense champ

 

[bradly1101]

Hell yes I'm letting a gun-building monkey keep his weapon.

I ain't making this guy's day.

I just hope I'm dead by the time the NPRA takes hold (National Phaser Rifle Association)

 

[bradly1101]

Why would you let monkeys have freedom of speech? Just cause they learned how to talk?

Makes just as much sense champ

Your analogy only works if you take out "freedom of," and speech can't take you out at 20 yards.

If they should have what they built (or learned), then why not let them carry around hand grenades and rocket launchers?

 

[rudeguy]

Your analogy only works if you take out "freedom of," and speech can't take you out at 20 yards.

If they should have what they built (or learned), then why not let them carry around hand grenades and rocket launchers?

You don't think speech kills?

Hitler would beg to differ. I believe he only had one confirmed kill with a gun. 40,000,000 plus with speech.

 

[bradly1101]

You don't think speech kills?

Hitler would beg to differ. I believe he only had one confirmed kill with a gun. 40,000,000 plus with speech.

The speech couldn't kill without the weapons of war including those trained on the oppressed who were shipped off to starve or be gassed.

Ask Jane Goodall, humans and monkeys have identical frailties, jealousies and volatility, but man can invent a better way to kill. That's where we should be able to stop ourselves.

 

[rudeguy]

The speech couldn't kill without the weapons of war including those trained on the oppressed who were shipped off to starve or be gassed.

Ask Jane Goodall, humans and monkeys have identical frailties, jealousies and volatility, but man can invent a better way to kill. That's where we should be able to stop ourselves.

You are saying guns were more to blame than Hitler?

 

[corwin]

The speech couldn't kill without the weapons of war including those trained on the oppressed who were shipped off to starve or be gassed.

Ask Jane Goodall, humans and monkeys have identical frailties, jealousies and volatility, but man can invent a better way to kill. That's where we should be able to stop ourselves.

Better ways to kill...like alcohol and cars

Really your premise kinda sucks

 

[Zaap]

I just hope I'm dead by the time the NPRA takes hold (National Phaser Rifle Association)

You keep trying to take the guns away from hyper-evolved gun-building animals, not to worry. You will be.

Gun-building giraffes are the ones to really watch out for. You can't hide from 'em. They can see over everything.

 

[Blanky]

You honestly think that every single home invasion makes the news?

Or is even reported?

If someone breaks into my house, I want to have the option of defending myself and my family. Going by your logic, you would rather have a crackhead burglar kill you and your family than be a responsible gun owner.

Good luck with that.

Yes, they are so rare that in my area they make the news. There are less than 100,000 home invasions (they are not burglaries) across the US per year. They are skewed to high crime areas and I don't live in one.

A "responsible guy owner" is a meaningless term as it has no formally defining characteristic.

Every gun owner fancies themself above the stats and of course they would never be involved in a stupid accidental shooting, but the fact remains clear the odds of them using their gun in defense of their home are lower than the gun being used to kill a family member, either by mistake or deliberately in do detox violence.

Rude guy your example of your own family and friends not killing each other is like me saying cigarettes don't increase the risk of cancer because I smoke and don't have it.

I don't believe the stats of this issue would ever chane your mind because you will refuse them. If it were shown that for every one home invader killed a thousand family members are you might say yeah but I am a responsible gun owner. A responsible gun owner knows that late at night walking around his house chasing sounds of creaking floor boards increases the risk of shooting a sleep walking 8 year old than not having the gun.

 

[Genx87]

Yep, the NRA doesn't want criminals or terrorists to be unable to get guns, because criminals and terrorists are customers. The NRA is the only legal terrorist organization in this country.

You realize the worlds largest exporter of weapons is the US govt right? Terrorists are armed daily by our govt by the thousands. But you are worried about a US citizen being able to purchase a weapon?

 

[HomerJS]

interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/

 

[corwin]

interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/

Interesting how? That they didn't use the derp line "guns are more likely to kill your family than save them"?

People have committed suicide since the dawn of time, that they use a gun when they can should not be a surprise to anyone and including those in any statistics about gun crime is bullshit

 

[BoberFett]

2,000,000 always seemed high to me. That would mean that 1 in every 170 people uses a gun to prevent a crime every year?

Even if the number is false, I'm still not changing my position. Meh.

 

[Subyman]

What a hack job. Bias is evident in the opening when they used, not just one, but three anecdotes of accidental home defense to set the scene for the travesty of gun ownership. I wish normal people would read just a few academic journal articles so they can know when an article is completely bullshit. Have you ever read an abstract that reads like the beginning of this hack job?

 

[thraashman]

interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/

In addition to suicide being the leading cause of gun death, you are more likely to attempt suicide if you have a gun in the house, and you are more likely to succeed at an attempt if you have a gun. This isn't saying guns make you want to kill yourself (though I personally believe that the type of people who would succumb to the fear that makes you buy a gun are more likely to be emotionally unstable), this is true because someone that might consider suicide often talks themselves out of it before attempting. But with a gun nearby it's so quick and simple people take much less time between deciding to do it and attempting than one would with say pill overdose, jumping off a bridge, or hanging.

What a hack job. Bias is evident in the opening when they used, not just one, but three anecdotes of accidental home defense to set the scene for the travesty of gun ownership. I wish normal people would read just a few academic journal articles so they can know when an article is completely bullshit. Have you ever read an abstract that reads like the beginning of this hack job?

First, calling this "accidental home defense" is inaccurate, it's accidental murder. And the anecdotes were not being used as evidence, they were giving examples of situations in which the statistics presented might occur. The article does a pretty good job of explaining how it came to its conclusions. And I think any average or above average intelligence person should be able to see they're likely correct here. At the very least significantly closer to correct than the obviously completely bullshit statistic the NRA uses.

 

[KB]

I have always doubted the NRA numbers about defensive gun uses. Now if they included police use of firearms in the statistics then it would be closer to double the 2 million the NRA talks about.

Still I don't buy insurance because I think my house will burn down, nor did I buy a gun because I thought I would have to use it. But if I ever have to use either of them, I will be glad I have them.

 

[Subyman]

First, calling this "accidental home defense" is inaccurate, it's accidental murder. And the anecdotes were not being used as evidence, they were giving examples of situations in which the statistics presented might occur. The article does a pretty good job of explaining how it came to its conclusions. And I think any average or above average intelligence person should be able to see they're likely correct here. At the very least significantly closer to correct than the obviously completely bullshit statistic the NRA uses.

Annnnnnd, you completely miss my point. Have fun attacking trivialities though.

It is completely obvious why the anecdotes were used. To use cherry picked stories to set the scene for his general conclusion. In fact, most journal articles start large scale and narrow down to their specific topic. This article is completely reveresed. The only reason the anecdotes are there are to create an emotional impact that colors the rest of the article. There is absolutely zero need for anecdotes in a survey or peer review of a study. Again, look at any academic journal and you will never, ever see that bias beginning.

This article is no better than any gun nutter article.

 

[Blanky]

Interesting how? That they didn't use the derp line "guns are more likely to kill your family than save them"?

People have committed suicide since the dawn of time, that they use a gun when they can should not be a surprise to anyone and including those in any statistics about gun crime is bullshit

Of course you are both wrong and right. Right that suicides happen anyway, utterly wrong to say guns do not--all things equal--increase the rates of successful suicides. They do. It has been studied and conclusively proven. You can pretend people will take pills anyway but they won't always.

The more I learn about guns the more it is apparent both sides both lie and are also willfully ignorant about the data and what it means; how to read it.

 

[Blanky]

Annnnnnd, you completely miss my point. Have fun attacking trivialities though.

It is completely obvious why the anecdotes were used. To use cherry picked stories to set the scene for his general conclusion. In fact, most journal articles start large scale and narrow down to their specific topic. This article is completely reveresed. The only reason the anecdotes are there are to create an emotional impact that colors the rest of the article. There is absolutely zero need for anecdotes in a survey or peer review of a study. Again, look at any academic journal and you will never, ever see that bias beginning.

This article is no better than any gun nutter article.

Good thing it isn't being submitted to a journal then.

Obviously it is done that was to incite a response. It didn't for me because I already knew about this kind of thing. What you are basically doing is an ad hominem argument. You don't like what he said earlier so are incorrectly ignoring his objective data that is presented. Forget his anecdotes and look at the meat.

 

[corwin]

Of course you are both wrong and right. Right that suicides happen anyway, utterly wrong to say guns do not--all things equal--increase the rates of successful suicides. They do. It has been studied and conclusively proven. You can pretend people will take pills anyway but they won't always.

The more I learn about guns the more it is apparent both sides both lie and are also willfully ignorant about the data and what it means; how to read it.

Key word is "successful"...of course if you use a gun your chances of success are better.

Of course if we could magically take all guns away the suicide rate might drop...or you know we could just address the mental health problems in society directly and cut down on suicides and nut jobs who kill others at the same time

And aren't most states working towards assisted suicide and all that anyway? Why should we restrict it to people that are really sick, let everyone make their own choice on whether to keep living or not?

 

[Zaap]

Of course if we could magically take all guns away the suicide rate might drop...

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

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

Yeah, maybe we'll get down to Germany's rate or something.

We sure as heck don't want to be like those overflowing with gun countries like Japan, Greenland, South Korea or anything.