Gun deaths in 2016

Doesn't it occur to you that while it might (or might not, more like - depends upon prejudices, agendas, and statistics sources!) be decreasing 'today', it could begin increasing 'tomorrow'?

 

Ok let's see your Google-Fu. Half the time I'm able to use your own links against you.

Common household chemicals are responsible for accidental deaths at at ratio of 75:1 for firearms in the US.

In Australia incompetent doctors and nurses kill 18,000 people a year in your country which is well over our total firearm homicide rate per year in this country.

The ridiculous "studies" you like to throw up here are, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

The only way such a study could come to that conclusion would be to have one group of households with guns, and a control group without guns, and then follow them for decades to get any kind of valid conclusion. Your ridiculous "study" did not do that.

Since accidental gun deaths are 0.4% of all accidental deaths in the US, you would need a ridiculously large group to do any kind of valid study. I won't even get into how you would verify the veracity of those in illegal possession of a firearm for purposes of such a study.

You're welcome to go argue with the CDC report on self defense, which found:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Even if you take the lower estimate of 108,000 annual defensive gun uses, than means more violence was prevented by guns than committed by them.

That's the bottom line.

 

Ironic since you are allowing your own confirmation bias do your "thinking" for you!

Do you always go to bed absolutely 100% sober? Do you always wake up immediately for any strange sound? How often do you practice rolling out of bed, grabbing, aiming and firing your rifle?

According to your Hollywood scenario you are the one with imaginary superpowers and intruders are the bumbling idiots. They don't always come in the door because they also know how to climb through windows. They watch to see when you are home and when you are out. They could break in and be waiting for you when you came home.

In other words the false sense of security your guns give you only exists because you want it to exist. The reality is that it doesn't happen the way you expect it to happen which is why the statistics reveal the actual death toll.

It is up to you as to what you want to do but having to defend yourself with a gun is just putting yourself in needless danger. An alarm and/or a dog will do far more to protect you than your gun ever will even in the one on a gazillion chance that it happens exactly the way you imagine that it will.

 

If someone wants a firearm and is able to get one, nothing on this earth will stop them. Guns make them feel good and 'in control'. but they're too stupid to realise how soon they could lose that control in adverse circumstances. in other words, for every action there's a re-action.

 

Assuming that a home intruder is dumb enough to ignore the warning signs and try the first thing that will happen will be that the alarm will go off waking up the entire neighborhood and triggering an alert for armed response from the nearest vehicle thus immediately reducing the amount of time the intruder has to break into my house.

If they then persist in trying to break down a door or come through a window they will have to deal with the angry dogs defending their turf as soon as they poke their head inside.

If they manage to somehow overpower the dogs they will then have to deal with a house where everyone is fully awake and ready to defend themselves.

The clock never stops ticking and the armed response is on it's way and will be there shortly.

If the intruder wants to persist past this point he is probably on drugs and will be dealt with accordingly.

You need at least 2 seconds to wake up and take action to defend yourself and you have no backup if you fail to wake up in time or are slow getting your gun or you have been rushed by the intruder.

My defenses start BEFORE they even try breaking in and then I have layers of protection and backup.

My sense of security is based upon knowing that most intruders will try softer targets because dealing with alarms, dogs and armed response without even knowing what they face once they are inside is far more trouble than it is worth to them to even try.

 

So it's better to allow yourself to be a victim of the first guy so you won't get victimized by his family and friends later?

 

That will work until 3 or 4 thugs with knives and baseball bats kick in your door while your family is eating dinner. Or maybe they will wait for you as you leave for work in the morning. Maybe you will get carjacked.

 

Fanciful scenarios.

Here is someone taiking about how they would do a Dirty Harry and who is dismissing research done in the real world on real people and identified incidents and they think WE are indulging in "fanciful scenarios"

((((((((((Sigh))))))). One of the biggest differences between America and Australia is that the American right tends to believe fervently in government conspiracies to control the populace whereas Aussies believe fervently in Murphy

We absolutely believe that the perversity of the universe tends to a maximum AKA "Murphy's Law" "Whatever can go wrong will - at the worst possible time"

Therefore you will NOT be able to reach your gun when you need it or it will jam or misfire or it will be the night you had juuuust that extra drink and now could not hit the side of a barn

See WE do not think you NEED a gun to defend yourself - you are better off relying on what you will always have with you - yourself

- - - Updated - - -

So where are all these victims in Australia and the UK? I mean if living without a gun means you are going to be killed = why are there not more deaths here than there?

 

If that happens even one gun will not help

BTW that scenario is bloody rare here and mostly happens to drug dealers - how common is it there?

 

Lots of numbers not one link or validation; And I KNOW the one about Aussie Doctors and Nurses is wrong because if there were that many "sac 1" incidents there would be a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

And I am sorry but what CDC report used the term "fishy" in relation to research?

Making up answers is not "winning arguments"

 

Yes but you can make it more difficult - it is not as if you can walk around city streets here yelling "Gun! Wanna buy me a GUN!!"

 

Over and over again this idiotic argument of because of self-defense of the family against evil criminals!
Instead of turning on the brain and wondering how to make the access to weapons for these criminals difficult (it can never be prevented), the up arming argument always comes!
Nothing to be really surprised when other people actually argued after the last school massacre, all teachers have to teach gun armed to safe their students … and this requirement not even find as something strange … instead asking to prevent subjects to do such massacres!

But no wondering about a country where an 18 year old person is not allowed to drink alcohol in a bar or buy in a shop, but can have since 2 years a driving license, can buy an arsenal of guns legally and can even become a soldier and go to war.

 

Yet there are plenty of data showing successful armed resistance from criminals. Your scenarios are very specific in their limitations, and don't account for what can and has happened in the real world. Yes, if everything goes wrong, resistance is futile. Statistically, it's rare that everything goes wrong.

That would explain why sexual assaults increased from 12k in 1993 to almost 20k in 2013 - those Shielas can just rely on their muscles to fight off those drunk, ravaging blokes.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html

Murphy's Law isn't actually a law, and isn't supported by anything but anecdote. Do your police carry firearms?

For the US: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf 1 million home invasions, 260k injuries and deaths.
For the UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html
For Oz:

Strawman. No one has claimed that living without a gun means you're going to be killed.

 

These aren't mutually exclusive goals. You also forgot making access to victims difficult for criminals with successful and effective prosecutions and complete prison terms for violent crimes. I'll entertain discussion of laws to make getting guns difficult to get for criminals that are Constitutional, effective, enforceable and necessary.

Strawman. No one has claimed that all teachers need to be armed - only that there be some armed resistance available should the oh so rare school mass shooting occur. What exactly can we do to prevent such massacres without confiscating every firearm and the means to make more?

Yeah, our drinking age and driving age should both be 18. Exactly how many weapons constitute an arsenal's worth?

 

And so...?

 

Both of these violate our constitution; neither of these things will prevent criminals from getting and using guns.
Feel free to offer something legally viable and effective in operation.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an oft-repeated falsehood, based on a flawed study with parameters chosen to produce a desired result.
But, you know this.

 

So when you sit down to have a "family dinner" you are always "packing heat"?

I don't live in an area where there are gangs of thugs.

I don't drive in areas where I am likely to be carjacked either.

Not my problem if you live in an area where those crimes are a frequent problem.

 

Why wouldn't a single gun help?

Still fairly rare. It costs nothing to be prepared for it, though.

 

I really don't have any use for foreigners' comments that have no semblance to reality. I am well versed with the proposed schemes of the anti rights coalition and their pretense that crime control motivates their anti gun proposed legislation. All the proposals mainly impact those of us who are not causing problems with guns. The chance of a legally owned handgun being used in violent crime such are armed robbery or murder is less than one in a thousand.

 

your country's history is one of the best arguments against gun control

 

The least biased analysis I could find: http://www.adf.com.au/publication-90-quality-in-australian-health-care-study-examined-or-exposed-

 

According to the rabidly anti-gun VPC, guns are used to stop a crime >67k times per year.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
This is more than twice the number of people killed with firearm, and 8.2x more than the number of people murdered with firearms.
Thus, your statement must be wrong.

 

So you agree - gun registration has nothing to do with your MFP officers not worrying about a firearm at a traffic stop.

Without falling back on your usual post hoc fallacy, show that your lower rates are because of your gun control laws.

 

30rd magazines loaded with green-tip SS109.

 

Oh? Armed response? Armed with what? A gun perhaps?

Tick tick tick tick tick

The man with a gun is rushing to save you and your family. Will he make it in time?

Tick tick tick tick