More guns keeping us safe.......

[westwall]

Dodge.

The fact is that people who legally carry a concealed weapon are the least likely to commit any crime

People who carry guns are most likely to use them

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

Guns are already safe, and they are the most regulated product there is. 20,000 laws so far. How many more do you need?

How about we attack those things that give the best, fastest and largest impact on needless deaths.

 

[rightwinger]

People who carry guns are most likely to use them

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

 

[Rustic]

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

There is nothing more cowardly than suicide, but it does take care of itself....

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

thhat depends on what drug you use,,,

 

[Blues Man]

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

Irrelevant.

You assume too much.

Those that really want to die use a gun and it's still their choice not yours

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But but but..........................with all those guns the US should be safer. And the stats show that it isn't. Why is that?

You've been shown statistics, probably a dozen times in this thread alone that the U.S. IS safer after a dramatic increase in the number of guns in private hands. You continue to ignore the facts and spouting the Progressive party line.
Are you just ignorant, or simply stupid?

What’s been shown dozens of times in this thread are post hoc fallacies – not ‘statistics.’

The fact is that the U.S. IS NOT safer after an increase in the number of guns in private hands, ‘dramatic’ or otherwise:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

The NRA's theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

Consequently, you’re in no position question anyone’s ignorance or stupidity.

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

 

[westwall]

You've been shown statistics, probably a dozen times in this thread alone that the U.S. IS safer after a dramatic increase in the number of guns in private hands. You continue to ignore the facts and spouting the Progressive party line.
Are you just ignorant, or simply stupid?

What’s been shown dozens of times in this thread are post hoc fallacies – not ‘statistics.’

The fact is that the U.S. IS NOT safer after an increase in the number of guns in private hands, ‘dramatic’ or otherwise:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

The NRA's theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

Consequently, you’re in no position question anyone’s ignorance or stupidity.

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Kleck has not been proven unreliable. Provide a link that does.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

Japan has a suicide rate higher than ours....as do many European countries....how much time to you have to change your mind if you jump off of a building or in front of a bullet train?

 

[2aguy]

You've been shown statistics, probably a dozen times in this thread alone that the U.S. IS safer after a dramatic increase in the number of guns in private hands. You continue to ignore the facts and spouting the Progressive party line.
Are you just ignorant, or simply stupid?

What’s been shown dozens of times in this thread are post hoc fallacies – not ‘statistics.’

The fact is that the U.S. IS NOT safer after an increase in the number of guns in private hands, ‘dramatic’ or otherwise:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

The NRA's theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

Consequently, you’re in no position question anyone’s ignorance or stupidity.

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Why do you have to be such a moron......I list the study by the Centers for Disease control....anti gun, 1.1 million defensive gun uses.....I use the Department of Justice, anti-gun 1.5 million.......

Dr. Kleck...an anti-gun supporter at the time he did his research 2.5 million.....which is what started the CDC and the DOJ research....and their numbers.

Kleck has never been proven to be a liar....the anti-gun extremists have tried their best to smear his work but haven't been able to touch it.....

 

[Ernie S.]

A lot of fake stats on this issue. I would have more respect if you guys could be honest about it.
You love your guns and dont care how many people die as long as you keep them.

The fact that we don't agree with you, doesn't make us dishonest. It makes you look stupid for insisting our data is flawed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What’s been shown dozens of times in this thread are post hoc fallacies – not ‘statistics.’

The fact is that the U.S. IS NOT safer after an increase in the number of guns in private hands, ‘dramatic’ or otherwise:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

The NRA's theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

Consequently, you’re in no position question anyone’s ignorance or stupidity.

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Kleck has not been proven unreliable. Provide a link that does.

Here we go again. Enjoy the ride. 2boy brings this crap up about once every few months hoping everyone will forget.

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey2-Results.pdf

That should be enough.

A Normal Sillyvillian is more likely to give his gun to a criminal as a gift rather than use it to deter the crime in the first place. Yah, I know, we all think we are all Rambos but truth be told, it's a friggin movie. Almost 500K of guns in the home for home defense are stolen in a 5 year period by criminals. Many of those break in artists didn't have a gun before the break in. But thanks to the thoughtful home owner, they are after the break in. If you bother to read the URLs you will find that Klecks math is so outrageous that in that 5 year period, about 2.3 million defensive gun duels happened. That would be over 1260 per day in the US. If that doesn't at least prick your ears a little. That's not a problem, that's an epidemic. In a matter of a month, we would run out of criminals and have to import them to fill the void. Other countries would start complaining because we would be draining their supply of criminals. The Crossfire would be dropping innocent bystanders by the droves. I don't know about you but I doubt you could pay me enough to deliver for UPS. Just the travel time from the truck to the front door would mean having to shoot at least 2 bad guys dead and then bag 2 on the way back. That would be a tough 20 feet. Going grocery shopping would be a new adventure.

Your Hero is a nutcase.

 

[2aguy]

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Kleck has not been proven unreliable. Provide a link that does.

Here we go again. Enjoy the ride. 2boy brings this crap up about once every few months hoping everyone will forget.

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey2-Results.pdf

That should be enough.

A Normal Sillyvillian is more likely to give his gun to a criminal as a gift rather than use it to deter the crime in the first place. Yah, I know, we all think we are all Rambos but truth be told, it's a friggin movie. Almost 500K of guns in the home for home defense are stolen in a 5 year period by criminals. Many of those break in artists didn't have a gun before the break in. But thanks to the thoughtful home owner, they are after the break in. If you bother to read the URLs you will find that Klecks math is so outrageous that in that 5 year period, about 2.3 million defensive gun duels happened. That would be over 1260 per day in the US. If that doesn't at least prick your ears a little. That's not a problem, that's an epidemic. In a matter of a month, we would run out of criminals and have to import them to fill the void. Other countries would start complaining because we would be draining their supply of criminals. The Crossfire would be dropping innocent bystanders by the droves. I don't know about you but I doubt you could pay me enough to deliver for UPS. Just the travel time from the truck to the front door would mean having to shoot at least 2 bad guys dead and then bag 2 on the way back. That would be a tough 20 feet. Going grocery shopping would be a new adventure.

Your Hero is a nutcase.

Moron....Kleck's most recent defense of his work...and again...his work is one out of 17 studies on gun self defense...you moron........including the CDC and the DOJ....you moron.

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

If DeFilippis and Hughes could refute any of our rebuttals, that would be news worth attending to. They do not, however, identify any problems with our refutations, such as errors in our logic, or superior evidence that contradicts any of our rebuttals. Instead, they just pretend they are not aware of the rebuttals, even though our first systematic dismantling of Hemenway’s speculations was published in the exact same issue of the journal that published Hemenway's 1997 critique, on the pages immediately following the Hemenway article.

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces. Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFilippis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.

Like Hemenway, DeFilippis and Hughes fail to understand the most fundamental logical issue regarding whether surveys under or overestimate the frequency of defensive gun use. The point at issue is not whether there are “false positive” responses, i.e. respondents saying “yes, they used their gun defensively” when the correct answer was “no.” No one has ever disputed that there are some false positives in these surveys. But this by itself can tell us nothing about whether DGU estimates are too high or too low overall. Even if false positives were numerous, false negatives (when a respondent falsely denies a DGU that actually occurred) could be (and, according to extensive research, are) even more common. In that case, survey estimates of DGU frequency would be too low, not the enormous overestimate that DeFilippis and Hughes believe in. Since neither of those authors nor Hemenway—nor any other critics for that matter—have ever made the slightest effort to estimate the number of false negatives, they cannot possibly know whether false positives outnumber false negatives and therefore have no logical foundation whatsoever for their claims that erroneous responses to DGU questions result in an overestimate of DGU frequency.

The authors’ discussion of possible flaws in survey estimates of DGU frequency is conspicuously one-sided, addressing only supposed flaws that could make the estimates too high—but none that could make the estimates too low. As mentioned above, they say nothing about the well-documented failure of many survey respondents to report criminal victimization, gun ownership or their own crimes. Likewise, they do not mention that our estimates did not include any DGUs by adolescent crime victims, even though adolescents are more likely to be crime victims than adults, and just as likely to carry guns, albeit illegally.

 

[2aguy]

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Kleck has not been proven unreliable. Provide a link that does.

Here we go again. Enjoy the ride. 2boy brings this crap up about once every few months hoping everyone will forget.

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey2-Results.pdf

That should be enough.

A Normal Sillyvillian is more likely to give his gun to a criminal as a gift rather than use it to deter the crime in the first place. Yah, I know, we all think we are all Rambos but truth be told, it's a friggin movie. Almost 500K of guns in the home for home defense are stolen in a 5 year period by criminals. Many of those break in artists didn't have a gun before the break in. But thanks to the thoughtful home owner, they are after the break in. If you bother to read the URLs you will find that Klecks math is so outrageous that in that 5 year period, about 2.3 million defensive gun duels happened. That would be over 1260 per day in the US. If that doesn't at least prick your ears a little. That's not a problem, that's an epidemic. In a matter of a month, we would run out of criminals and have to import them to fill the void. Other countries would start complaining because we would be draining their supply of criminals. The Crossfire would be dropping innocent bystanders by the droves. I don't know about you but I doubt you could pay me enough to deliver for UPS. Just the travel time from the truck to the front door would mean having to shoot at least 2 bad guys dead and then bag 2 on the way back. That would be a tough 20 feet. Going grocery shopping would be a new adventure.

Your Hero is a nutcase.

Oh...I see....you used that crap......where they asked people who don't do gun research what they think the answer should be......you really are a moron...

Survey in gun column was incomplete -- John R. Lott, Jr.

David Hemenway’s guest column last Sunday, "Scientists reach consensus on guns," claimed a consensus on gun research based on a survey he conducted. But he conveniently fails to mention that another similar survey of peer-reviewed researchers was released two months ago.


That survey found the exact opposite. Gary Mauser, a professor who specializes in polling at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, conducted it for the crime Prevention Research Center. Mauser surveyed 53 economists who published in the area over the last 15 years. Among the questions: an overwhelming number -- 83 percent -- noted guns are more likely to be used in self-defense than in crime. Further, 74 percent said concealed handgun laws reduce murder rates and 69 percent said guns in the home don’t cause more suicides. Also, 83 percent said gun-free zones attract criminals.


Hemenway fails to note that the people he surveyed only had to mention “firearms” in their research. They didn’t have to actually conduct empirical work on guns.

There were also problems in the recording of his responses. For instance, I was supposedly one of the researchers surveyed. Yet, my responses weren’t recorded. When I emailed Hemenway about this technical problem, my emails were ignored.

 

[westwall]

Still the same, I see, Clayton. I figured even you might learn to read something that doesn't toe the party line. Not the first time I've had misplaced faith in evolution.

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Kleck has not been proven unreliable. Provide a link that does.

Here we go again. Enjoy the ride. 2boy brings this crap up about once every few months hoping everyone will forget.

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey2-Results.pdf

That should be enough.

A Normal Sillyvillian is more likely to give his gun to a criminal as a gift rather than use it to deter the crime in the first place. Yah, I know, we all think we are all Rambos but truth be told, it's a friggin movie. Almost 500K of guns in the home for home defense are stolen in a 5 year period by criminals. Many of those break in artists didn't have a gun before the break in. But thanks to the thoughtful home owner, they are after the break in. If you bother to read the URLs you will find that Klecks math is so outrageous that in that 5 year period, about 2.3 million defensive gun duels happened. That would be over 1260 per day in the US. If that doesn't at least prick your ears a little. That's not a problem, that's an epidemic. In a matter of a month, we would run out of criminals and have to import them to fill the void. Other countries would start complaining because we would be draining their supply of criminals. The Crossfire would be dropping innocent bystanders by the droves. I don't know about you but I doubt you could pay me enough to deliver for UPS. Just the travel time from the truck to the front door would mean having to shoot at least 2 bad guys dead and then bag 2 on the way back. That would be a tough 20 feet. Going grocery shopping would be a new adventure.

Your Hero is a nutcase.

Are you retarded? The "study " you link to is an OPINION poll, of 150 people!

You really need to do better, dude.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One small problem, in this one small thing, Clayton is correct. While he isn't correct all the time, he is on this one. There is NO proof one way or another that the increase in the number of guns in the civilian world has had any affect over gun violence. No matter what the NRA tries to present. Both competing sides are just full of yourselves. But we do have to worry about having too few guns (subject to discussion) and too many guns (not subject to discussion as history has shown us).

Clayton has based his argument on discredited studies. 2aguy has not. Sorry, I'm going with the facts. Do we know for sure? Nope. We just base our opinions on solid data collected in an unbiased manner. In my opinion, Clayton is a tool. It always has been and now that has been reconfirmed

2boy uses Kleck as his source as does almost every other gunnutter article that has ever been written about this subject. Kleck has already been proven unreliable. In fact, he's already been proven to be a liar or, at best, a fabricator of data. Just because it agrees with what your personnally believe doesn't make it any more real. 2boy still clings to that false information. The fact remains, no study has EVER been done that shows, on way or another, that more or less guns make any difference in the prevention of crime rate. You are stating a personal opinion. I can accept that. 2boy claims he is stating a scientific fact but it's based on false data. If your personal opinion is based on 2boys opinion, guess what, you would be incorrect. If that were the case, the Earth is flat and the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Kleck has not been proven unreliable. Provide a link that does.

Here we go again. Enjoy the ride. 2boy brings this crap up about once every few months hoping everyone will forget.

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey2-Results.pdf

That should be enough.

A Normal Sillyvillian is more likely to give his gun to a criminal as a gift rather than use it to deter the crime in the first place. Yah, I know, we all think we are all Rambos but truth be told, it's a friggin movie. Almost 500K of guns in the home for home defense are stolen in a 5 year period by criminals. Many of those break in artists didn't have a gun before the break in. But thanks to the thoughtful home owner, they are after the break in. If you bother to read the URLs you will find that Klecks math is so outrageous that in that 5 year period, about 2.3 million defensive gun duels happened. That would be over 1260 per day in the US. If that doesn't at least prick your ears a little. That's not a problem, that's an epidemic. In a matter of a month, we would run out of criminals and have to import them to fill the void. Other countries would start complaining because we would be draining their supply of criminals. The Crossfire would be dropping innocent bystanders by the droves. I don't know about you but I doubt you could pay me enough to deliver for UPS. Just the travel time from the truck to the front door would mean having to shoot at least 2 bad guys dead and then bag 2 on the way back. That would be a tough 20 feet. Going grocery shopping would be a new adventure.

Your Hero is a nutcase.

Are you retarded? The "study " you link to is an OPINION poll, of 150 people!

You really need to do better, dude.

Do you mean that Klecks claim that over 2.3 million defensive gun incidences happened in a 5 year period actually happened? That there is over 1000 of them happening daily? That means that there are 4 times the number of armed and ready defensive shooters than criminals out there. Are they authorities now giving hunting licenses with game tags for criminals to civilians these days and I wasn't notified? Is my neighborhood the only place that it's safe to go outside without being hit by a stray bullet from all these "Rexall Rangers"? Your Hero, Kleck, just doesn't add up. When the jokers are thrown out on both sides, the real fact remains, there has been ZERO studies done that conclusively proves that more guns (or fewer) has any affect on the rate of gun violence. And we all would have to be retarded to believe otherwise.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

You see, that is your decision, not the gun's.
Guns don't have the capability to kill people. They just lie there until someone picks them up. I will grant you, guns are a more efficient way to take your life, but why are fuel efficient cars good and guns bad?

 

[Ernie S.]

You post an opinion poll to contradict real numbers? This shit is comical. The left should be well over believing opinion polls by now, or is HRC actually POTUS and I've been living in a dream for 2 1/2 years?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You post an opinion poll to contradict real numbers? This shit is comical. The left should be well over believing opinion polls by now, or is HRC actually POTUS and I've been living in a dream for 2 1/2 years?

I posted using the real numbers from a report that is used as the basis for all you rightwinggunnutters put out by Kleck. That report has been used as the basis for almost all opinions since it was first published. And those numbers are so outrageous that it's beyond anyone wildest imagination. Your whole cult has been based on a lie. It's right up there with the Flat Earthers and the Fake Moon Landers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

You see, that is your decision, not the gun's.
Guns don't have the capability to kill people. They just lie there until someone picks them up. I will grant you, guns are a more efficient way to take your life, but why are fuel efficient cars good and guns bad?

Fuel effeficient cars help in many ways not just in invironment. I won't bother listing those benefits. But a perfectly efficient weapon only has one reason to exist. A Bot action works just as well for hunting purposes. A Pump action works just as well for hunting purposes. An Over Under works just as well for hunting purposes. If you need 30 rounds or more to defend your home, you are living in a war zone and probably don't have a big enough gun or not enough people to defend your home. You will need an army and you live in a war zone. Don't you think it's time to move to a safer location? Your family just might agree.

 

[hunarcy]

Wrong again

People who LEGALLY carry use their firearms extremely rarely if at all.

Once again I'll tell you that people who LEGALLY carry a firearm are the most law abiding citizens in the country therefore they do not use their handguns in anything but a legal manner specifically self defense or defense of another.

If you were right ( and you're not) then there would be millions of shootings every day

33,000 a year

Any other nation with that carnage would be outraged and demand action

Japan has a highe suicide rate and they don't use guns and I see no outrage.

Let Japan take care of their own problems

When 20,000 Americans start killing themselves by falling down stairs, we can start making stairs safer

People have the right to choose whether they live or die

Guns do not cause suicides anymore than they cause crime

If I choose suicide by an overdose, I have over an hour to change my mind
If I chose a gun, I have a split second to change my mind

And, if you jump off a building, you have NO time to change your mind.