Guns for self-protection cause more harm than good

Huh. I wondered why he -assumed- you are white.

 

It has always seemed clear to me that most anti-gunners 1.) grew up in very sheltered lives, 2.) are very naive and 3.) are cowards who want an excuse to never come to the aid of anyone else under assault - and want to hide that cowardice by trying to outlaw anyone else being able to do so too.

- - - Updated - - -

^ Exactly. The overwhelming bulk of racist is now among Democrats and so-called progressives.

 

Exactly. The more the better.

 

And as always they debunked themselves by quite willfully leaving out many important factors.

This myth has been around a long time and it is simply false. The data was clearly manipulated to support a predetermined bias rather than letting the evidence lead to a logical conclusion.

For example homicide is not necessarily wrongful death. How many of these homicides which they measured were actually incidents of self defense from an attack by a family member or friend? The study is silent on this issue. The fact is that if anyone is victim of a violent crime they are likely to know the attacker to one degree or another. It may be a someone barely familiar to the victim or someone the victim is closely related to but either way it is irrelevant. for example date rape or acquaintance rape is far more common than violent predatory rape by a complete stranger. But either way it is a violent crime.

The study makes no mention of these facts and ignores them because it is looking for a specific outcome

- - - Updated - - -

No they do not some people simply believe it because it is cherished myth

- - - Updated - - -

It has never been statistically disproven it is in fact soundly supported by any honest statistical measurement.

No one supports guns they support the right to own them which is support of human rights. More guns and more gun ownership does not equal more deaths of innocent americans

 

Citation needed

 

Untrue.

Violent crime is decreasing while gun ownership surges.

So, "more guns" can have only one of three effects on violent crime:

a) they can INCREASE violent crime, or
b) they can have NO EFFECT on violent crime, or
c) they can DECREASE violent crime.

Since there are more guns, and there is less violent crime, we can strike option A from the possibilities.

So, they can only DECREASE, or HAVE NO EFFECT. All we have to do is show ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a citizen thwarting a violent criminal with his firearm, and we have our answer; More guns = Less crime. There are literally thousands such examples.

Simple deductive logic... eh?

 

Even liberal studies on DGU show about 100k defensive uses per year.

Since we have 10-12k murders per year in which a gun was use, this means guns save about 8-10 times more people than are killed with them.

Their argument is bunk in many ways.

 

FYI, that racism is rationalizable doesn't make it rational and legitimate, and I'll again point out that by including it in your argument for preserving the legal ownership of firearms you're certainly not helping to support the validity of gunism.

 

Your OP. Did you read it? It basically said violent people who use drugs *gasp* have a high rate of firearm violence. Duh.

No. The point is that someone who is bent on committing murder doesn't care about the penalties for a 30 round magazine or a bayonet lug. If "reduced violent crime" is the point of gun laws, clearly they are not going to prevent murder when the penalty is already life in prison.

Making it hard to legally obtain a firearm does not stop criminals in any way, since it is already illegal for them to buy one in the first place. If they are going to ignore the larger penalty of "felon with a gun", then what makes you think they will observe (again) lesser laws?

 

I'll again point out that you take exception to the truth because you do not believe the truth to be relevant.

 

If we list Japan's gun deaths they can fill a football team (one side only). If we list ours we can fill the stadium.

 

Alas, this is apparently the best response that you can manage.

 

Not just that, but a perfectly sound response that you know you cannot meaningfully counter.
Else, you would have addressed my response, rather than me.

 

You know for every atomic weapon on the planet only two have been used to kill people. That guy is hilarious.

 

never heard a more laughable claim on this website

 

They're also the weapon of choice for stopping crime.

 

How are things going in Chicago with some of the toughest gun laws around ?

 

Don't get me started on private swimming pools. Those death traps for unsuspecting children

 

Thankfully chicago is an impenetrable island where no guns could ever get in from about an hour away.

 

So you admit the gun laws dont work ? Your almost safer in Aleppo

 

i u were less subtle u wud notice yourself how u are failing

- - - Updated - - -

who is talking about gun laws?

 

When do you leave? Be sure to write!

 

I would not go to either of those cities

 

It is quite established and proven whether you laugh or not.

 

NATIONAL gun laws work. There are very few deaths by fully auto weapons because they are NATIONALLY restricted.