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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
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.

Good thing gun control is the only thing that makes us different from those countries!

And please don't use Germany as an example of anything good. The only reason that country even exists is because of our kindness. By all rights they should have been wiped off the map after trying to take over the world twice and killing over 40,000,000 people.

And yes I'm German.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81

The article linked from that article is even more fascinating and telling:

Art Kellermann was raised in eastern Tennessee, where his father taught him how to shoot a long gun when he was 10 years old. Kellermann grew up to become an emergency room doctor — and a target for gun-rights groups when he started asking questions like, "If a gun kept in a home was used, who did it shoot, and what were the consequences?"
Kellermann found people turned those guns on themselves and others in the house far more often than on intruders. "In other words, a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense," he says.

Kellermann says the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocates leaned on his then-employer, Emory University, to stop the research. That didn't work.

So, he says, "they turned to a softer target, which was the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], the organization that was funding much of this work. And although gun injury prevention research was never more than a tiny percentage of the CDC's research budget, it was enough to bring them under the fire of the NRA."

The Tiahrt Amendments

Lawmakers — both Democrats and Republicans — held back some money from the CDC and made clear that no federal funds should be used to promote gun control.

Many researchers interpreted that message to mean no public health studies about injuries from weapons.

Then, a few years later, Congress weighed in again, in a slightly different way.

In 2003, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, added language to the Justice Department's annual spending bill. It says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can't release information used to trace guns involved in crime to researchers and members of the public. It also requires the FBI to destroy records on people approved to buy guns within 24 hours.

Tiahrt left Congress in 2011, but he still thinks the idea is a good one.

"It was an issue of privacy; it's an issue of protecting undercover officers, prison guards," he says. "The BATFE was also very concerned because if that information was released to the public, it could affect their efforts to try to get illegal guns and illegal gun sales ... off the street."

Tiahrt says some of his fears about invasion of privacy were borne out last month, when a New York newspaper got local gun permit data and published the names of gun owners.

'Good Data'

Mark Glaze, who directs the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, says he thinks it was "a bad idea that the newspaper did this," but he says the right response to that case is not to shut down the flow of information.

"You can't make good policy unless you have good data," he says.

Glaze is pressing Congress to get rid of the Tiahrt amendments. He's urging the Justice Department to look for patterns involving crooked gun dealers who put weapons into the hands of criminals. And he wants more money for research about how to make safer guns.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House committee that deals with the health budget, puts it this way: "We conduct evidence-based research into car crashes, smoking, cancer, all sorts of accidents and injuries. So why shouldn't we be doing the same kind of research into how to prevent firearm injuries and how to save lives?"

DeLauro says she'll fight to make sure funding limits on research stay out of appropriations bills.

But Tiahrt, her onetime colleague, says that's not the core of the problem.

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."

Public health experts like Kellermann say they're willing to have that kind of broad conversation, but it needs to be supported with a lot more research.
This is an emergency-room doctor who compiled his own set of statistics on who he was treating for gunshot wounds. And he found the ratio of those being shot was 43 "us" to 1 "them." Wow! Ain't it amazing that the NRA tried to shut down his research?
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Even given the numbers that their beliefs are incorrect, most won't change their belief if it means something to them. This is part of what makes them who they are, and will ignore evidence against their beliefs. Or if they do believe it it takes a long time to change their mind as they have to remove that from something that makes them who they are.

Also these stats as always don't tell the whole story, to get more accurate stats on yourself you need similar settings to where you are in life. The gun stats depending on where you live, and mental state will have a huge effect on the numbers.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Even given the numbers that their beliefs are incorrect, most won't change their belief if it means something to them. This is part of what makes them who they are, and will ignore evidence against their beliefs. Or if they do believe it it takes a long time to change their mind as they have to remove that from something that makes them who they are.

Also these stats as always don't tell the whole story, to get more accurate stats on yourself you need similar settings to where you are in life. The gun stats depending on where you live, and mental state will have a huge effect on the numbers.
So wouldn't it be useful to collect much, much more data on gun usage, so the people can make much more informed decisions on whether or not a gun is likely to be a net benefit or a net harm in their own homes? But the NRA doesn't want statistics like that to be compliled. Maybe someone should ask them why.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
Even given the numbers that their beliefs are incorrect, most won't change their belief if it means something to them. This is part of what makes them who they are, and will ignore evidence against their beliefs. Or if they do believe it it takes a long time to change their mind as they have to remove that from something that makes them who they are.
This could be said to apply to either side...
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Freedom of speech has clearly caused far more deaths then it has saved. I mean countless people have died simply for stating their opinion. Yet no one's live has ever been saved by mere speech. Therefore clearly we need to put an end to freedom of speech.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Freedom of speech has clearly caused far more deaths then it has saved. I mean countless people have died simply for stating their opinion. Yet no one's live has ever been saved by mere speech. Therefore clearly we need to put an end to freedom of speech.

Poor argument argued poorly.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
It's the typical tactic of the gun grabbers. So there are a bunch of stupid people with guns who shoot first and ask questions later. It's obviously not that big an issue given the sheer numbers of firearms divided by the numbers of these types of incidents.

A lot of defense gun statistics are inflated simply due to the fact that people need to justify their purchase of a firearm. And also to appear heroic or to simply have a somewhat believable story to brag about. The key fact remians that crime statistics correlate inversely with gun ownership. This article isnt going to make Chitcago a safer place. What these people want is for every street to be like the streets of Chicago. NO ONE is to be armed except for the corrupt police and the drug gangs. (Which by the way are armed largely by the same government trying like hell to delete the 2nd amendment.)

Where is the Politico article describing the tens of thousands of deaths due to government trafficing weapons to mexican drug gangs?

And furthermore, the reason so many people get shot by accident in the middle of the night like that hatchjob describes, is because there are a lot of frickin stupid ass people out there! So its better to be safe than sorry. I mean if you are surrounded by people who refuse to do anythign about this criminal rogue government poisoning and drugging the food and water, shipping drugs in and giving weapons to drug gangs, etc etc etc ad naseum x100, then who can blame them for having an itchy frickin trigger finger? That isnt the fault of the guns. It is the fault of all the stupid braindead zombies out there who reduce people's faith in their countreymen down to a grain of rice. If you want to do something good, then start doing something about this rampant institutionalized criminality instead of trying to take away the one frickin thing that helps people sleep at night amidst all this bullcrap.
 
Last edited:

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
It's the typical tactic of the gun grabbers. So there are a bunch of stupid people with guns who shoot first and ask questions later. It's obviously not that big an issue given the sheer numbers of firearms divided by the numbers of these types of incidents.

A lot of defense gun statistics are inflated simply due to the fact that people need to justify their purchase of a firearm. And also to appear heroic or to simply have a somewhat believable story to brag about. The key fact remians that crime statistics correlate inversely with gun ownership. This article isnt going to make Chitcago a safer place. What these people want is for every street to be like the streets of Chicago. NO ONE is to be armed except for the corrupt police and the drug gangs. (Which by the way are armed largely by the same government trying like hell to delete the 2nd amendment.)

Where is the Politico article describing the tens of thousands of deaths due to government trafficing weapons to mexican drug gangs?

And furthermore, the reason so many people get shot by accident in the middle of the night like that hatchjob describes, is because there are a lot of frickin stupid ass people out there! So its better to be safe than sorry. I mean if you are surrounded by people who refuse to do anythign about this criminal rogue government poisoning and drugging the food and water, shipping drugs in and giving weapons to drug gangs, etc etc etc ad naseum x100, then who can blame them for having an itchy frickin trigger finger? That isnt the fault of the guns. It is the fault of all the stupid braindead zombies out there who reduce people's faith in their countreymen down to a grain of rice. If you want to do something good, then start doing something about this rampant institutionalized criminality instead of trying to take away the one frickin thing that helps people sleep at night amidst all this bullcrap.

Yep.

Think about it. If we used the hyperbole this article does, we could make an even better case for taking away police guns. And then knives. Knives injure and kill way more people than they save. Then we make pen caps illegal. Those things are only meant to kill!

Fucking liberal morons.


EDIT:

Also: why are so many in such a rush to make guns illegal? Its one of the very few things that are explicitly stated as a right in the Constitution. If people are so in favor of restricting that right, does that mean we can restrict the right to vote? How about the right to life? Oh wait...they are already in favor of killing babies.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
Yep.

Think about it. If we used the hyperbole this article does, we could make an even better case for taking away police guns. And then knives. Knives injure and kill way more people than they save. Then we make pen caps illegal. Those things are only meant to kill!

Fucking liberal morons.


EDIT:

Also: why are so many in such a rush to make guns illegal? Its one of the very few things that are explicitly stated as a right in the Constitution. If people are so in favor of restricting that right, does that mean we can restrict the right to vote? How about the right to life? Oh wait...they are already in favor of killing babies.

It's almost amusing how remarkably dumb this post is. But I guess dumb posts is par for the course for you.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
And then knives. Knives injure and kill way more people than they save.

Unless you consider eating part of saving a life... in which case knives have that important function as a food processing implement, rather than as a weapon.

Slippery slope argument... so slippery!
 

Blanky

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 2014
2,457
12
46
It's the typical tactic of the gun grabbers. So there are a bunch of stupid people with guns who shoot first and ask questions later. It's obviously not that big an issue given the sheer numbers of firearms divided by the numbers of these types of incidents.

A lot of defense gun statistics are inflated simply due to the fact that people need to justify their purchase of a firearm. And also to appear heroic or to simply have a somewhat believable story to brag about. The key fact remians that crime statistics correlate inversely with gun ownership. This article isnt going to make Chitcago a safer place. What these people want is for every street to be like the streets of Chicago. NO ONE is to be armed except for the corrupt police and the drug gangs. (Which by the way are armed largely by the same government trying like hell to delete the 2nd amendment.)

Where is the Politico article describing the tens of thousands of deaths due to government trafficing weapons to mexican drug gangs?

And furthermore, the reason so many people get shot by accident in the middle of the night like that hatchjob describes, is because there are a lot of frickin stupid ass people out there! So its better to be safe than sorry. I mean if you are surrounded by people who refuse to do anythign about this criminal rogue government poisoning and drugging the food and water, shipping drugs in and giving weapons to drug gangs, etc etc etc ad naseum x100, then who can blame them for having an itchy frickin trigger finger? That isnt the fault of the guns. It is the fault of all the stupid braindead zombies out there who reduce people's faith in their countreymen down to a grain of rice. If you want to do something good, then start doing something about this rampant institutionalized criminality instead of trying to take away the one frickin thing that helps people sleep at night amidst all this bullcrap.
You know it is indeed possible to have a gray view on this stuff. Like I said, my intent is to buy a shotgun soon. However, I'm also quite a smart person, and well educated. I have digested some of the statistics on crime, some of the statistics on gun use in self-defense, and believe that keeping it in a self defense capacity is a bad idea. More people need to think about that, too. It has nothing to do with taking their guns away, but offering them some other perspectives that may be of benefit to them.

---

A lot of people, and in this thread you all know who you are, seem incapable. Literally fucking incapable of discussing this argument without going back to the same low brow shit you always do that is based in nothing but insane hyperbole and conjecture.

The supposition that guns in the home increase the odds of a family member being killed by a gun does not automatically mean anybody wants to take all your guns away. This automatic response from some people is really paranoid. As I've said elsewhere, stupid idiots with guns are gun rights activists' greatest fear. Women who let their toddler shoot them, guys who shoot their teenagers sneaking back into the home. These are the people who are a threat to your guns more than anybody else, because people look at them and are like what the fuck, this is stupid.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
It is high time we followed in Britain's footsteps and made some "common sense" regulations on knives. Think of the children!

3084176591_1989e1f8dd_b.jpg
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Read the whole thing. Didn't see any mention of guns doing more harm than good other than in the title.

Rather than do another study to refute the one in question, the article thinks of ways it could be false. Why not actually look at the hard numbers? Probably because every time that is done, it proves that article is totally wrong.

False and the fact the author is extremely biased and has an agenda based on all his writings below.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/author/defilippis/
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
The boogieman is coming for your guns, y'all!

I heard that Obama is...right now...assembling a force of LGBT DeathPanel™ agents, along with Agenda21 agents, to come and get yer guns!

The DeathPanel and Agenda21 agents will of course be escorted by teacher union thugs and hispanic preteens inoculated with ebola and trained by ISIS in central America.

All of this is true, because it just came in through the crown in my right molar. If I had heard this through my fillings, I'd be a little more apprehensive about saying all of this, but my crown never lies.

#Freedumb
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,095
30,038
146
Obama wanted the CDC to show that guns were more dangerous than supposed. Remember that? Well, you don't hear much about that because what he wanted people to think wasn't the case. Oops.

No he didn't. He wanted the CDC to be able to investigate gun use. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why is the Gun Lobby the only institution that has been allowed to investigate and release gun use data over the last ~2 decades? That makes no fucking sense.

It's like making the tobacco lobby the only legal institution for reporting health data related to tobacco use.

why does the NRA have any political power in the first place? It's a fucking hobby club. It makes no goddamn sense.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
why does the NRA have any political power in the first place? It's a fucking hobby club. It makes no goddamn sense.

Scaring the rubes into thinking the gub'mint is about to come door-to-door to round up their guns + Money = Political Power.

All you need for real political power is to scare the cowards into giving you their votes and money.

Since, like, forever.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,765
52
91
Why is the Gun Lobby the only institution that has been allowed to investigate and release gun use data over the last ~2 decades? That makes no fucking sense.

It makes no sense because that's not true.

why does the NRA have any political power in the first place? It's a fucking hobby club. It makes no goddamn sense.

Because I like guns, and fuck you. That's why.

The NRA didn't have political power until the gun grabbers made gun ownership a political issue. The NRA has political power because of retards like thraashman who think a large number of American citizens are terrorists for participating in a "hobby club":

The NRA is the only legal terrorist organization in this country.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
The article linked from that article is even more fascinating and telling:

This is an emergency-room doctor who compiled his own set of statistics on who he was treating for gunshot wounds. And he found the ratio of those being shot was 43 "us" to 1 "them." Wow! Ain't it amazing that the NRA tried to shut down his research?

He found that for every justifiable homicide, there were 38 suicides and 5 murders. He did not consider defensive firearms uses where the assailant lived, or where the firearm was not discharged (the majority case). Even if it's accurate (or was accurate; the data is 30 years old), it's not a particularly useful statistic.

The methodology of the study was criticized, and Kellermann has long since backed away from referencing it. In 1993 he released a case-control study that again investigated the issue. That study found that the highest risk factors for being shot were drug use, renting instead of owning a home, and living alone. Owning a firearm increased the risk of homicide by 2.7 times, but the study attributed the entirety of that risk to being murdered by a family member or close friend. Solution: Don't associate with homicidal maniacs.

Anyway, the OP article is correct in criticizing the Kleck self-defense study, which I have long assumed to be wildly inaccurate. However, debunking that study doesn't automatically prove that "guns are more likely to do harm than good," and the article provides no evidence to support its conclusion. Additionally, the article's claim that "more guns means more homicides" is objectively false. Over the past two decades, the homicide rate has dropped by more than half, the number of firearms in the country has doubled, and firearm laws have become considerably less strict. I don't know whether the author is dishonest or just lazy, but I wouldn't trust anything he writes without independent verification.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Freedom of speech has clearly caused far more deaths then it has saved. I mean countless people have died simply for stating their opinion. Yet no one's live has ever been saved by mere speech. Therefore clearly we need to put an end to freedom of speech.
Articles in this thread have provided evidence that guns in homes actually cause more harm than good. But here you're just making a sweeping statement that the sole criterion for the value of free speech is "saving lives," and made the unsubstantiated claim that free speech has never saved lives.

First, there are clearly huge benefits of free speech completely independent of saving lives. The same cannot be said of guns in the home, where the stated purpose of having the gun is to defend the home.

Second, your claim that free speech doesn't save lives is absurd. Do you really want to deny that a free press - which as able to freely perform investigative journalism into (for example) dangerous practices and products of private compaines - has never saved lives? Do you want to deny that, for example, the free speech which made possible the civil rights movement didn't save lives?

Your argument is truly lame.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
Articles in this thread have provided evidence that guns in homes actually cause more harm than good. But here you're just making a sweeping statement that the sole criterion for the value of free speech is "saving lives," and made the unsubstantiated claim that free speech has never saved lives.

First, there are clearly huge benefits of free speech completely independent of saving lives. The same cannot be said of guns in the home, where the stated purpose of having the gun is to defend the home.

Second, your claim that free speech doesn't save lives is absurd. Do you really want to deny that a free press - which as able to freely perform investigative journalism into (for example) dangerous practices and products of private compaines - has never saved lives? Do you want to deny that, for example, the free speech which made possible the civil rights movement didn't save lives?

Your argument is truly lame.
Even if there is evidence that guns in the home lead to accidental shootings/deaths far more often than they lead to actual defense situations, you have to remember that conservatives practice faith-based politics, where narrative trumps evidence, always and forever.

Hence, even pointing out something negative about guns, without actually calling for/supporting/wanting Obama-For-America Brownshirts going door-to-door to take away their guns, is the same exact thing.

So, their faith-based politics goes into full paranoid throttle. Pointing to actual numbers doesn't matter. What matters is an abstract concept that guns equal freedom and any criticism of guns, or any possible regulation of gun ownership, is a clear abridgment of their freedoms. Even just mentioning it.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Freedom of speech has clearly caused far more deaths then it has saved. I mean countless people have died simply for stating their opinion. Yet no one's live has ever been saved by mere speech. Therefore clearly we need to put an end to freedom of speech.

Poor argument argued poorly.

And yet his comment and the article share just as much relevance, just a different Amendment... in other words, none. Unless anyone is suddenly mistaken that freedoms are actually free.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Even if there is evidence that guns in the home lead to accidental shootings/deaths far more often than they lead to actual defense situations, you have to remember that conservatives practice faith-based politics, where narrative trumps evidence, always and forever.

They do not:

Some details regarding gun deaths are known, collected and reported. We know how many gun deaths occur in a given year, which makes sense, because when people are shot and killed, there are death certificates and there are reports by medical examiners, and national reports can conclusively come up with a number. (There were 32,351 such deaths in 2011, according to the CDC.) We know how many gun deaths were declared accidental (591 in 2011, the CDC says). And we know that 102 people killed in these accidental gun deaths in 2011 were younger than 18, according to Vernick, with half of these children younger than age 13.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ntionally-shoot-and-kill-people-we-dont-know/

BOTH sides of the argument tailor their wordings to suit their agendas. What it should REALLY come down to is risk versus reward. There are ~30,000 gun deaths a year on average. About half of those are suicides. I don't care about those, you want to kill yourself that's fine with me. 500-800 of those deaths are "accidental" gun deaths. That's a shame, but that's a pretty low number, more people die while swimming every year than that.

That leaves ~10,000 of those deaths as homicides by gun. Am I ok with 10,000 murders by gun per year? Are you?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states