Guns for self-protection cause more harm than good

Quote Originally Posted by a sound mind View Post

if u take out the socially underdeveloped countries (think USA, russia, middle east, some from the southern hemisphere etc.), virtually every home on this planet is gun free - its not a problem anywhere.
quote

You're right. It's not a problem anywhere for the burglar, rapist, kidnapper etc.,
Where are these places that are crime and violence free?

 

Old article with old data that is irrelevant today. That article was written in 1993, the data was from 1987 to 1992. The social/cultural/crime environment is different today. That article was written during a near record violent crime period in this country.

 

Yes, we get it.

Things we need to ban:

Heart Disease
Cars
Guns
Hurtful things people say
Republicans and their free speech
Dogs, we're a cat country now

Think I about covered the liberal agenda

 

Ok, you have convinced yourself that you should not have a gun - so don't have a gun. Don't stay in any house or apt with a gun.

Again, the "study" (junk study) claims that drug addicts shouldn't have guns. That's all it says if you actually read it. I agree. Drug (narcotics) addicts shouldn't have guns.

It should be noted that the OP is arguing that NO ONE should be allowed to have ANY kind of firearm even in their own home. No exceptions.

Very few countries in the world have a total ban on firearms ownership - meaning the OPer's stance is as ultra-radical as it gets. Simply put, the country the OPer advocates the USA becomes in terms of gun laws is North Korea - literally. For his own safety in his view maybe he would be happier moving there.

 

hence i excluded them in my analogy, great reading comprehension!

 

You barely touched the tip of the iceberg of all the freedoms many radical "liberals" (actually "fascists" is the correct word) want to take away.

 

Oh that's right. They want to take away privacy. Obama's last goal as President is to make sure old dudes get to pee with little girls.

 

yes, sure, if u wudnt be allowed to have guns, the US wud be just like north korea - not just similar - literally the same

 

However, in the US most of them still do, and that's because of the insanely huge number of guns we have

No, but I would like to deny it to terrorists, criminals and the insane . Somehow, I don't see that as unreasonable, but many gun enthusiasts do

Even were that so there's no need to, You yourself are the best proof of that indoctrination one could have

Are you talking about the typical gun enthusiast's argument? because a better description of most of them I will never hope to see

Jesu, another citing of John Lott. Isn't he a statistic himself. the most discredited statistician in the world or something?

I have one, most criminals know it really means the home is heavily armed, though in my case it's honest

Weed should be legal, everything else by prescription only. Do you think your kids should be able to buy Fentanyl at the dollar store? Then why should they be able to buy a gun there?

.

Or you could say again that you're probably the best example of the very indoctrination being protested that anyone is able to cite

<Rule 3>

 

That is 100% false. Virtually every country in the world allows some personal gun ownership and has millions of guie. Even strict countries such as Germany has millions of guns in private hands. Millions legally. Millions more illegally.

The OPer is of the false option that most of the world is gun free when it is not. What most countries laws do is make so that criminals with illegal guns vastly outgun people who have legal firearms in terms of firepower of their firearms. For example, in Mexico you can have a .22 or .38. Criminals can an Uzi. Citizens can not be armed in public. Criminals do have guns on the street. As a result, most murders in Mexico do not happen in people's homes.

 

How to lie about "gun violence."

1. Take a real factor that correlates with homicides in the home, "felony/crime commission/illegal gun ownership" (drug use, prior conviction, domestic violence, possession of firearm while in commission of crime, other).

2. Create a lousy methodology that does not ACCOUNT THAT REAL FACTOR OUT... obviously on purpose

3. Fabricate a complete falsehood "Guns for self-protection cause more harm than good" (that of course does not include the qualifier "illegally owned guns, guns possessed while in the commission of crime"... ALL guns owned by felons, either convicted or not, are illegally owned)..

4. Repeat that bogus lie narrative all over the LW sewer pipe and the MSM branch of the Democratic Party. Have it regurgitated by dutiful (but careless and unthinking) leftists in places like this.

5. DID THEY FOOL YOU? They think you are REALLY, REALLY STUPID to peddle such an obviously bogus narrative and expect you to buy it. Asking again, DID THEY FOOL YOU?

The only possible study methodology that would accurately estimate the effects of the presence of guns on homicide rate would FACTOR OUT ALL INSTANCES of gun possession in ongoing or previously criminal environments.

tldr? It's the presence of CRIME, not the gun, and any methodology that doesn't account for that is so faulty as to be an intentional lie. Give us a study of the incidence of homicides in homes where the firearms are in a law abiding environment and then we can BEGIN to analyze the effects of guns on home safety.

 

Re the bolded; They are? Where?

 

So, no study on gun violence is valid unless you can guarantee that no person in any of the instances studied had any connection with any other crime at all? I'm sorry but that's bollocks, the whole idea of statistics is that other factors equal out over several instances. Nothing in statistics is valid for individual instances nor applies to individual people for just that reason.

 

Given that the study does not quantify use of guns for self-defense within the home, there can be no honest claim that guns in the home do more harm than good, as the "good" is not assigned a quantity for comparison with the "bad".

/Thread

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

 

The medical profession should stick to medicine. In a nut-shell, criminals shouldn't have guns according to the article; agreed.

 

Straw man. It would be an easy first step to exclude violent felons, and an easy second step to exclude violent households, domestic violence reports without conviction, drug dealing, etc. But that would ruin the "study" entirely, of which the point is to create a LIE of a headline that is this thread's title and SPAM it all over for IGNORANT people to be fooled by.

Asking again, did they fool you?

 

We don't have a gun problem, we have a Democrat problem.

If democrats would stop shooting people, our gun violence rate would drop 70%.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...micides-democratic-vs-republican-affiliation/

 

Nonsense, Lott just documented the obvious. The fact that more armed citizens reduces crime is self evident.
Gun Free Zones are just playgrounds for sadistic mass murderers.

 

This study fails to show how the gun itself being used as a deterrent to a home invader played a role, without pulling the trigger. That's a million times more common than actually using it. This study only shows the gun after the trigger has been pulled.

Most robbers flee once they see the gun, and those instances you failed to cite. This is just some left wing extremism.

 

No we don't to both statements.

 

It is already illegal for terrorists, criminals and the insane to have guns. However, if you want to pass a law that says "It is a felony for terrorists, criminals and the insane to have a firearm" no problem. Of course, by definition, "terrorists, criminals and the insane" don't really care about laws, do they?

What is so bizarre is the view that a person should be limited to how many guns they can own. A person can only use 2 guns at a time just like a person can only drive one vehicle at a time. The "huge" number of guns in part is due to people who own MANY firearms (like me). I have many hundreds - MANY - dating for the 1700s thru the present. As minor as small pocket pistols to as heavy hitting as a 20mm (WWII - a P47 wing gun). Plus a gzillion rounds of ammo. Most of this I inherited but I have expanded my collection into antiques and relic firearms - plus show quality hunting and sporting log guns (rifles and shotguns). The value of each firearm ranges from under $100 to over $100,000.

So what? Explain ANY difference between my owning 2 firearms or if I had 2,000 firearms in terms of dangers to others? What difference does it make if I have 1000 rounds of ammo or 1,000,000 rounds of ammo?

 

Saved my hide.

I lived in a rough inner-city neighborhood in an older part of the city & testified in open court against some vicious gun thieves, muggers, convicted felons etc. The police warned me against the probable consequences of testifying & the courtroom was crowded with the friends/co-criminals of the people against whom I was testifying.

I would never use deadly force against some simple thief but would & have (wounded) rapists who had cut the phone lines of next-door neighbors (3 nurses) & were in the process of committing that crime.

I've had people curse me, slap me & spit at me. Every time I was armed. If they had deployed a knife or gun in the process of assaulting me, I would have tried to escape first & only used deadly force as a very last resort.

While in the military, I've seen what modern munitions do to human body tissue & it's not like TV.

 

The stat never presented is how many crimes including murders are prevented by firearms - even without a shot fired. In fact, an innocent person is 6 times more likely to be killed by police (ie government) than citizens with firearms - and there are over 50 times more citizens with firearms - meaning citizen are over 300 times (30,000%) safer with firearms than are police with firearms.

Over 1 million felonies are prevented each year merely by the presence of a firearm. There has NEVER been a victim of a domestic mass shooting who was armed - ever. Statistically, if you have ANY firearm your odds of being killed or shot in a mass shooting is 0%.