"Gun Appreciation Day" Didn't Work Out So Well,..

[Ringel05]

That is a GOD DAMN LIE.

No, Dragonlady is entirely correct, and this has been proven in extensive studies.

Link?
And make it an FBI link to keep it honest, especially since I've never even heard of these "extensive studies" you're referring to.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Everyone on this forum knows full well that if all guns were to disappear from the US overnight, the homicide rate would drop by 80% or 90%.

Nope. About a 1/3. Per FBI figures.

12,664 homicides in the US in 2011.

8583 were with guns

= 4081 not kiled by guns

 

[Dubya]

The right too keep and bear arms can't be taken away
Canadians don't have that right

I did say both of these things in my post.

But just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't make it a good idea to own a gun. In fact, statistically speaking, gun ownership increases your chances of getting shot. Incidents of people shooting criminals are relatively rare. People shoot other accidentally far more often than people shoot real criminals.

But just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't make it a good idea to own a gun.

Who the fuck are you to dictate one way or thew god damn fucking other?

In fact, statistically speaking, gun ownership increases your chances of getting shot. Incidents of people shooting criminals are relatively rare.

That is a GOD DAMN LIE.

Just calling something a lie doesn't prove anything, particularly when it's the word of a gun nut.

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US. In the US the overall firearm death rate was 10.2 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 4.1 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 6.0 per 100,000, with firearm homicide rates highest persons 15 to 24 years of age

Source: FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Can you even make it through a gun show without shooting yourselves?

 

[Saigon]

And make it an FBI link to keep it honest, especially since I've never even heard of these "extensive studies" you're referring to.

I have linked it on this forum a couple of times in the past, although some of the information is in book form, and that you'll need to pay for.

The research was conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, from memory.

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Firearms Research

 

[Saigon]

Everyone on this forum knows full well that if all guns were to disappear from the US overnight, the homicide rate would drop by 80% or 90%.

Nope. About a 1/3. Per FBI figures.

12,664 homicides in the US in 2011.

8583 were with guns

= 4081 not kiled by guns

Um....isn't 8583 closer to 2/3 of 12,664 than 1/3?

Either way, I'd accept 2/3 as perhaps a more realistic figure than 90% - you make a fair point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And make it an FBI link to keep it honest, especially since I've never even heard of these "extensive studies" you're referring to.

I have linked it on this forum a couple of times in the past, although some of the information is in book form, and that you'll need to pay for.

The research was conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, from memory.

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Firearms Research

That is not an FBI link try again.

 

[zeke]

Hey wasn't it some dude named Keller who said 2.5 million time a year someone stops a crime with their personal weapon. 6849 times a day. PROVE IT. With FBI stats.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I did say both of these things in my post.

But just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't make it a good idea to own a gun. In fact, statistically speaking, gun ownership increases your chances of getting shot. Incidents of people shooting criminals are relatively rare. People shoot other accidentally far more often than people shoot real criminals.

Who the fuck are you to dictate one way or thew god damn fucking other?

That is a GOD DAMN LIE.

Just calling something a lie doesn't prove anything, particularly when it's the word of a gun nut.

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US. In the US the overall firearm death rate was 10.2 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 4.1 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 6.0 per 100,000, with firearm homicide rates highest persons 15 to 24 years of age

Source: FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Can you even make it through a gun show without shooting yourselves?

MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

 

[squeeze berry]

The far right gun nuts thought a "gun appreciation day" would be a good idea to "stick it to Obama and da libs" though it backfired on them big time, literally.

Six different people were shot during the right winger's gun spank fest.

Keep it going GOP! 2014 keeps looking better and better!

"Gun activists designated last Saturday “Gun Appreciation Day” in an attempt to highlight their opposition to gun safety laws. The PR stunt proved to be more of an embarrassment, however, when 5 people were shot at 3 different gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day.
On Friday afternoon, an Iowa gun dealer closed out the week by becoming the sixth person shot at a gun show. The man claims he was “showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded when he slid the action of the gun.” The gun was not unloaded, and a bullet went through his left palm."

For The Sixth Time In One Week, Man Shot At Gun Show | ThinkProgress

worked alright for me.

I purchased a Remington model 6


It shoots to point of aim

 

[Ringel05]

And make it an FBI link to keep it honest, especially since I've never even heard of these "extensive studies" you're referring to.

I have linked it on this forum a couple of times in the past, although some of the information is in book form, and that you'll need to pay for.

The research was conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, from memory.

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Firearms Research

Oh.... yeah..... those "statistics"..... Have you taken the time to actually study how their compilations were done? How they "assessed" their data, lumping entire categories together that provide a very skewed view? The devil is in the details which is why I rely on the FBI stats. At least half of all firearm related deaths are due to gang related violence and the vast majority of gang owned firearms were not legally purchased.

 

[Dragonlady]

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the "10 Myths of Gun Control" brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.

This is a reprint of a 1994 NRA brochure.

Once again, you've proven you will believe any piece of propaganda published with those with a financial interest in promoting guns.

I also want to note in this thread that the NRA appropriated Martin Luther King Day as "Gun Appreciation Day". Dr. King was a man of peace who was assassinated by an armed gunman. Despicable.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Once again, you've proven you will believe any piece of propaganda published with those with a financial interest in promoting guns.

Yes I didnt want a gun to protect myself.

The propaganda of the financial interest in promoting guns pushed me to break out my debit card.

You should see what the financial interest in promoting high quality optics pushed me to buy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once again, you've proven you will believe any piece of propaganda published with those with a financial interest in promoting guns.

Yes I didnt want a gun to protect myself.

The propaganda of the financial interest in promoting guns pushed me to break out my debit card.

You should see what the financial interest in promoting high quality optics pushed me to buy.

This^^^^^^^^^
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.

 

[Dragonlady]

This^^^^^^^^^
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.

And exactly how many times have you needed to use that gun to defend yourself? I'm guessing zero, which means you've been carrying this gun around all of this time, just to ease your own paranoia.

You may not be a victim, but you're coming off more and more like a guy with a tiny dick who carries a gun to make up for his shortcomings.

 

[Saigon]

Oh.... yeah..... those "statistics"..... Have you taken the time to actually study how their compilations were done? How they "assessed" their data, lumping entire categories together that provide a very skewed view? The devil is in the details which is why I rely on the FBI stats. At least half of all firearm related deaths are due to gang related violence and the vast majority of gang owned firearms were not legally purchased.

Yes, I have taken the time to read this research. At the moment, that makes one of us.

Read the research with an open mind, and get back to me when you're done. Not before.

Why anyone would attack research he hadn't even looked at it beyond me.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And exactly how many times have you needed to use that gun to defend yourself? I'm guessing zero, which means you've been carrying this gun around all of this time, just to ease your own paranoia.

Never used my fire exinguisher. Still makes sense to keep it in my kitchen.

 

[JoeB131]

The right too keep and bear arms can't be taken away
Canadians don't have that right

Actually, it can be taken away any time the majority thinks it's a good idea.

There are no rights, only privilages, and you guys abused the privilage for the last time.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, you've proven you will believe any piece of propaganda published with those with a financial interest in promoting guns.

Yes I didnt want a gun to protect myself.

The propaganda of the financial interest in promoting guns pushed me to break out my debit card.

You should see what the financial interest in promoting high quality optics pushed me to buy.

This^^^^^^^^^
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

 

[Dubya]

Who the fuck are you to dictate one way or thew god damn fucking other?

That is a GOD DAMN LIE.

Just calling something a lie doesn't prove anything, particularly when it's the word of a gun nut.

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US. In the US the overall firearm death rate was 10.2 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 4.1 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 6.0 per 100,000, with firearm homicide rates highest persons 15 to 24 years of age

Source: FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Can you even make it through a gun show without shooting yourselves?

MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

That's a nice unbiased study "he estimates." I don't know of one incident in my whole life of someone protecting themselves or others by having a gun. I'm not talking about anecdotal cases that make it into the nation's news, I'm talking about an actual case in the areas I've lived in.

What burglar in his right mind is going to try to go through a door with a growling English Masiff and Lab/Boxer mix on the other side? Why wouldn't he just go somewhere without dogs?

Without having a gun in the house, I have zero chance of a child or adult ever finding it and hurting themselves or others. I still have my Ka-Bar.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, you've proven you will believe any piece of propaganda published with those with a financial interest in promoting guns.

Yes I didnt want a gun to protect myself.

The propaganda of the financial interest in promoting guns pushed me to break out my debit card.

You should see what the financial interest in promoting high quality optics pushed me to buy.

So you admit to being easily manipulated by consumerism?