Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by 6Gunner, May 9, 2019.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thus meaning the supposed "evidence" being referred to on the part of yourself is the work of Arthur Kellermann. His paper has been read, and it simply does not state what is being claimed on the part of yourself. His work admitted he specifically selected areas that were known for high minority populations, and criminal activity at the time of the so-called "study" being done. The findings showed those most likely to be victims of firearm-related violence were those who were already engaged in illegal activity.

    Such a point was not raised or otherwise on the part of myself.
     
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for the fact that it does not.

    Thus demonstrating the position on the part of yourself is based on spite and politically-motivated revenge rather than anything else.
     
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then name the supposed "first world developed nations" that have more diversity than the united states, that have greater degrees of firearm-related restrictions than the united states, and far lower levels of firearm-related incidents than the united states.
     
  4. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cities with the most idiotic gun control, have the most homicides. Clearly, liberal facades don't work
     
    An Taibhse likes this.
  5. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    we also have millions who derive millions of hours of recreational value from owning guns. You gun banners never count that
     
    An Taibhse likes this.
  6. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You’re welcome to continue playing with your guns like your cars . Law breakers are not. Are you against making law breakers have a background check ?
     
  7. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is a guy lending his gun to a friend for a hunting trip a "law breaker"

    Background checks don't do anything useful.
     
  8. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again for the upteenth time, if GCAs are so fixated on the issue of background checks, why don’t they lobby to open the NICS to private sellers?
    While in my case, I have NICS access via the FFL I do work for, prior to that when I liquidated my substantial collection over three years, I had my own vetting/requirements/record process/system for prospecting buyers (refused a couple sales as a result). If the NICS was available to me then as a private seller, I would have used it. I know of no private gun owners that would willingly sell to a prohibited person (no real money in it and guns always sell) and having access to the NICS would be welcomed. If the goal is preventing sales to prohibited persons (even as an incremental measure for reducing such sales as many GCAs profess they want) then why not? But, as has been shown, for any UBC to be effective as enforceable and traceable, gun registration would be required), then preventing private use of the UBC is part of a strategy for the holy grail goal of pushing for gun registration as a primary goal while trying to hide true intentions from the public, gun registration intentions which will be vigorously resisted by virtually all gun owners and never happen. So, in denial of the NICS access to private sellers, GCAs are, in effect undermining their stated purpose which is to reduce gun sales to prohibited persons to effect their real goal of universal gun registration and the identification of their political adversaries... gun owners.
    Tax payers pay for the NICS, access is automated, why shouldn’t taxpayers have access?
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since the ATF will pursue prosecution in the majority of cases involving individuals who fail a background check due to a felony conviction, what is the point in even bothering with such?
     
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, you want your personal information open to ANY lackey who pretends to sell a gun ? What a rediculous idea. I thought limited Govt. Intrusion was your thing. Guess again.
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is obvious that there is no legitimacy to be had on the part of yourself in this discussion.
     
  12. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wasn't referencing Kellermann. All I was doing was commenting on a point made by An Taibhse and suggesting that gathering statistics on situations where carrying a firearm resulted in lives being saved is difficult, if not impossible in situations where no-one is killed or wounded because it won't register as 'firearm use'.

    I wasn't even trying to enter the pro/anti gun argument (again) just pointing out that one lot of stats would be higher than another. That said - my main point stands. U.S. domestic violence statistics are readily available on a National and State by State basis and firearm deaths/injuries can be extracted from that data.

    If you want to argue that the number of deaths and injuries inflicted by persons defending their homes/businesses from external threats is higher than the number of person killed inside the home by a 'family' firearm you do the math. I don't need to.

    You might start here;

    1) Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm. (Jacquelyn C. Campbell, et al., “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multi-site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. Pub. Health (July 2003): 1089, 1092)

    2) (Of the 1,352 intimate partner homicides in 2015, 55% were committed with firearms. (April Zeoli, et al., “Analysis of the Strength of Legal Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their Association with Intimate Partner Homicides,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 2017) and

    3) In 2011, nearly two-thirds of women killed with guns were killed by their intimate partners.(Violence Policy Center, When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2011 Homicide Data 6, September 2013)

    Now go away, crunch all the numbers, then come back with figures proving that there is a higher rate of wounding/killings by people defending themselves or others from external threats than there is for those killed or wounded 'domestically'. There will of course be figures for the former group somewhere but no-where have I ever seen figures for that group being quoted as being higher than those for the latter.

    No, it was raised by me.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  13. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s a BS false narrative reason to oppose opening the NICS to private sellers; on a BC NO personal information is provided by the NICS, NONE. I have seen that objection before and further, that the NICS could be used to obtain personal information on anyone. But, it is not possible and is a fallacy that is propagated to those with no clue how a BC is performed by an FFL to confuse those ignorant of the process.
    Information provided by the buyer on form 4473 is completed by the buyer and used for the BC request over the phone. The NICS provides either a Proceed, deny, or a delay date... that’s it. Then, by law, since the NICS program is prohibited by law to create a digital registry database, the 4473 collected information used for the BC is deleted within 24 hrs of the response. No Govt. intrusion, no personal information provided by the NICS. As far as the information provided to the Seller on form 4473, under any BC or UBC program, it must be provided to conduct the BC.
    Private sellers like myself when liquidating my collection, often require a buyer to provide information like copies driver’s licenses, gun permits, etc. for their records. No info for vetting; no sale, no exceptions. So, your objection is based on a misleading narrative, either deliberately, or out of ignorance. I have a record of every private transaction I have every conducted, both buying and selling, including details from every buyer and seller. In every sale conducted by a FFL, the FFL keeps the original completed 4473 and a record of the firearm transaction for 20 years in their possession. My personal records go back over 40 years and for every one of my acquisitions, includes all receipts, bills of sale, etc. If I had private access to the NICS, my records would include a copy of the 4473.
    All the objections I have seen by GCAs to deny private access to the NICS are shill arguments to deny private access, create the narrative that a UBC is needed, and to further the objective of creating a perception for the need of a national registry. Not one objection has had any merit.
     
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope.
    Indeed
    I agree with your goal of limited government.
     
  15. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  16. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A myth. None of your private information is available to anyone unless you provide it via the 4473 form... information you have to provid for a BC anyway. The NICS share nothing back to an FFL other than a simple pass, fail, or delay in response.
    Why don’t you learn how BCs work before you comment? After all, you are an advocate for UBCs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019

Share This Page