Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My next door neighbor shot himself after the police refused to confiscate his gun after a failed earlier attempt.
Umm... yeah, guns in the home are more dangerous to the people in them. Every collected stat has confirmed this.
But the gun makers are making big money, and that's the important thing.
One anecdote does not mean evidence. Fail.
So why aren't you holding skullhead to that same standard.
We had 16,000 gun suicides and 11,000 gun murders last year.
and only 201 cases of homicide in self-defense.
Ten Gun Myths Shot Down in a Hail of bullets
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. (chart)
Myth #2: Guns don't kill peoplepeople kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more peoplewith guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates...
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without... Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5. Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home... Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument. Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers...
Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
(chart/resource in link - wont behave here)
Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population... Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each... Myth #10: We don't need more gun lawswe just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally. Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.Links for substantiation of all points, charts, further point narratives at the article link here.
An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check...
Here's one of them pertaining to Myth 2, particularly illustrative:
Also worth a look is this chart from one of the resources, listing the world's countries ranked by rate of gun ownership (i.e. how armed we are). Take a look at how far ahead we are.
Topic armed and dangerous, unlocked and loaded. Bring it on.
Your fact checks leave a lot to be desired.
You understand, the fact checks are done by the author (Dave Gilson) not by me. I didn't write any of that; it's copied verbatim from the article. And you also understand that within the article, each point is documented with links?
Now if you have specifics, let's have 'em, but I"m afraid simple gainsaying doesn't make a point.
Your fact checks leave a lot to be desired.
You understand, the fact checks are done by the author (Dave Gilson) not by me. I didn't write any of that; it's copied verbatim from the article. And you also understand that within the article, each point is documented with links?
Now if you have specifics, let's have 'em, but I"m afraid simple gainsaying doesn't make a point.
I have plenty of statistics, but, since you didn't actually do any research, I see no reason to do any myself.
My next door neighbor shot himself after the police refused to confiscate his gun after a failed earlier attempt.
Umm... yeah, guns in the home are more dangerous to the people in them. Every collected stat has confirmed this.
But the gun makers are making big money, and that's the important thing.
One anecdote does not mean evidence. Fail.
So why aren't you holding skullhead to that same standard.
We had 16,000 gun suicides and 11,000 gun murders last year.
and only 201 cases of homicide in self-defense.
) and about the same suicide rate as Great Britain which hs a total gun ban, however, Great Britain is a far more violent nation than the US ( also in the same post ) because crimes committed with guns are much higher.
20 points for the catch phrase de'jour.Talk about a bunch of bull shit, the author can't even address conflicting stats with reality so I'm only going to point out one that jumped out at me but there are many more.
From your link:
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Also from your link:
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Using their stats, if 1% (3.2 million) of the population used a gun in self defense and for every such use there are 7 assaults or murders, that would be 22.4 million assaults or murders, 11 suicides, that would be 35.2 million suicides and 4 accidents would equal 12.8 million accidents.
According to the CDC there are 11,032 homicides and 55,534 assaults by firearms which is no where close to the claimed 22.4 million.
According to the CDC there are only 19,392 gun suicides in the US no where close to the 35.2 million your author claims with his cherry picked stats.
The latest data I could find from the CDC on accident was for 1998 was about 15,000 once again no where close to the 12.8 million the author would indicate.
So your myths seem to myths themselves, care to try again?
Oh, stop it!!!
MotherJones said it so it's FACT
I hate that this is so predictable -- I hate predictability-- but I just knew when I put this up that someone would be in to poison the well. Actually I'm impressed that it took this long. Anyway for anyone who chooses to actually read the article, all those points are linked to documentation from the NIH and medical studies like this and so on.
I've got to say, I've raised this issue before, both here and other boards, and it's always striking that the responses are so emotionally-based, as if bringing up the gun culture is tantamount to insulting someone's mother. Some people really object to the term "gun fetish", and object on an irrationally distraught level, but all this emotionalism just affirms that description. A fetish is gut-level emotional.
There's no reason we can't parse out these points rationally without emotional meltdown. It's something we need to do. And we've been putting it off. Those who insist on continuing to put it off with ad hominem or poisoning the well, rather than confronting the issues head-on, just prolong the problem. The primary problem being one of understanding.
(/rant off)
20 points for the catch phrase de'jour.Oh, stop it!!!
MotherJones said it so it's FACT
I hate that this is so predictable -- I hate predictability-- but I just knew when I put this up that someone would be in to poison the well. Actually I'm impressed that it took this long. Anyway for anyone who chooses to actually read the article, all those points are linked to documentation from the NIH and medical studies like this and so on.
I've got to say, I've raised this issue before, both here and other boards, and it's always striking that the responses are so emotionally-based, as if bringing up the gun culture is tantamount to insulting someone's mother. Some people really object to the term "gun fetish", and object on an irrationally distraught level, but all this emotionalism just affirms that description. A fetish is gut-level emotional.
There's no reason we can't parse out these points rationally without emotional meltdown. It's something we need to do. And we've been putting it off. Those who insist on continuing to put it off with ad hominem or poisoning the well, rather than confronting the issues head-on, just prolong the problem. The primary problem being one of understanding.
(/rant off)
A more accurate description would be 'entitled culture' or 'victim culture' or even the 'poor me culture'.
Or, how about, 'I have no respect for human life culture'??
The problem is bigger than the gun
Thank you. That's been my whole point here.
You understand, the fact checks are done by the author (Dave Gilson) not by me. I didn't write any of that; it's copied verbatim from the article. And you also understand that within the article, each point is documented with links?
Now if you have specifics, let's have 'em, but I"m afraid simple gainsaying doesn't make a point.
I have plenty of statistics, but, since you didn't actually do any research, I see no reason to do any myself.
Yeah uhh... if you're unsure how "quotes" work, that's a response to Steve Hanson. Either way, neither of you refute anything specifically, so the points must stand.
Which is fine, there's been a shitload of empty arguments today already. Might as well pile on crowing "me too".
I have plenty of statistics, but, since you didn't actually do any research, I see no reason to do any myself.
Yeah uhh... if you're unsure how "quotes" work, that's a response to Steve Hanson. Either way, neither of you refute anything specifically, so the points must stand.
Which is fine, there's been a shitload of empty arguments today already. Might as well pile on crowing "me too".
No, it was a response to you. You didn't do anything in this thread but cut and paste a stupid article and then whine about getting negged. Anyone that wanted to correct the multiple errors involved would be forced to teach you basic research skills and critical thinking before they could possibly address all the stupidity in the OP.
I have to comment on the tactics of some gun supporters to these threads.
Pogo mentioned being neg repped by posters who hadn't commented on the thread - I also got neg repped by Darkwind (who I haven't seen posting on the thread) for my apparently wanting to confiscate guns. In fact, I don't recommend confiscating guns, and would not support such a move.
In all, I've been neg repped 5 times on this thread, and yet everything I have posted has been linked, sourced can be confirmed elsewhere.
I'm also amazed how many simply fatuous arguments we have seen here - insisting the US can not be compared to Germany, the UK or France - and then comparing the US with Switzerland. Presenting UK crime figures - from 1997. Posting material without links or sources.
Any neutrals reading through these threads would do well to consider what this all means....
I have to comment on the tactics of some gun supporters to these threads.
Pogo mentioned being neg repped by posters who hadn't commented on the thread - I also got neg repped by Darkwind (who I haven't seen posting on the thread) for my apparently wanting to confiscate guns. In fact, I don't recommend confiscating guns, and would not support such a move.
In all, I've been neg repped 5 times on this thread, and yet everything I have posted has been linked, sourced can be confirmed elsewhere.
I'm also amazed how many simply fatuous arguments we have seen here - insisting the US can not be compared to Germany, the UK or France - and then comparing the US with Switzerland. Presenting UK crime figures - from 1997. Posting material without links or sources.
Any neutrals reading through these threads would do well to consider what this all means....
I have to comment on the tactics of some gun supporters to these threads.
Pogo mentioned being neg repped by posters who hadn't commented on the thread - I also got neg repped by Darkwind (who I haven't seen posting on the thread) for my apparently wanting to confiscate guns. In fact, I don't recommend confiscating guns, and would not support such a move.
In all, I've been neg repped 5 times on this thread, and yet everything I have posted has been linked, sourced can be confirmed elsewhere.
I'm also amazed how many simply fatuous arguments we have seen here - insisting the US can not be compared to Germany, the UK or France - and then comparing the US with Switzerland. Presenting UK crime figures - from 1997. Posting material without links or sources.
Any neutrals reading through these threads would do well to consider what this all means....
Keep whining about the negs and you will get more negs.
I haven't read the , but I am willing to bet that any source you have that supports gun control is full of bullshit studies and statistics.
Care to take the bet?
Yeah uhh... if you're unsure how "quotes" work, that's a response to Steve Hanson. Either way, neither of you refute anything specifically, so the points must stand.
Which is fine, there's been a shitload of empty arguments today already. Might as well pile on crowing "me too".
No, it was a response to you. You didn't do anything in this thread but cut and paste a stupid article and then whine about getting negged. Anyone that wanted to correct the multiple errors involved would be forced to teach you basic research skills and critical thinking before they could possibly address all the stupidity in the OP.
Yeah yeah, you already made clear that you have no answers. I got that. Your vote that this dialogue should be shut down is noted and logged. Thanks for playing, however uninvolvedly. Moving on...
I give you two cities
, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.
What's going on here?
One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.
Pertinent to this thread, I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)
And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.
People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)
704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.
What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.
Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats
(2) Freep.com 1/3/13
A Tale of Two Cities
Murder-Free Two Years
I have to comment on the tactics of some gun supporters to these threads.
Pogo mentioned being neg repped by posters who hadn't commented on the thread - I also got neg repped by Darkwind (who I haven't seen posting on the thread) for my apparently wanting to confiscate guns. In fact, I don't recommend confiscating guns, and would not support such a move.
In all, I've been neg repped 5 times on this thread, and yet everything I have posted has been linked, sourced can be confirmed elsewhere.
I'm also amazed how many simply fatuous arguments we have seen here - insisting the US can not be compared to Germany, the UK or France - and then comparing the US with Switzerland. Presenting UK crime figures - from 1997. Posting material without links or sources.
Any neutrals reading through these threads would do well to consider what this all means....
Keep whining about the negs and you will get more negs.
I haven't read the , but I am willing to bet that any source you have that supports gun control is full of bullshit studies and statistics.
Care to take the bet?
Negger, please. This thread isn't even about gun control.
Looks like you should have read the " ". Whatever that is.
No, it was a response to you. You didn't do anything in this thread but cut and paste a stupid article and then whine about getting negged. Anyone that wanted to correct the multiple errors involved would be forced to teach you basic research skills and critical thinking before they could possibly address all the stupidity in the OP.
Yeah yeah, you already made clear that you have no answers. I got that. Your vote that this dialogue should be shut down is noted and logged. Thanks for playing, however uninvolvedly. Moving on...
Is that supposed to be a word?
If you go back and read my first post in this thread yu will see I commented on the fact that your idiot copy and paste job included the "myth that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't recall exactly what he said there, but it involved people with guns killing people, which is not, believe it or not, guns killing people anymore than people with knives killing people is knives killing people. If you had done more than copy and paste an entire idiotic rant you would have processed that contradiction, and might have saved yourself a few neg reps for being extremely stupid.
The worst thing about this whole thing is you think the fact that you didn't read the crap before you posted it somehow absolves you from responsibility for posting it.
I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.
What's going on here?
One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.
Pertinent to this thread, I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)
And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.
People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)
704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.
What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.
Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats
(2) Freep.com 1/3/13
A Tale of Two Cities
Murder-Free Two Years
Gee, let me think, what are the differences between Detroit, an urban wasteland that has been destroyed by years of Democratic politicians robbing the city to fund their personal parties, and Windsor, which has none of those problems?
I can't imagine why anyone would be stupid enough to try and argue that they are the same just because they are close to each other on a map. Only someone who had never been to an international border and seen what a difference that imaginary line makes in the real world could possibly confuse the issue.
Keep whining about the negs and you will get more negs.
I haven't read the , but I am willing to bet that any source you have that supports gun control is full of bullshit studies and statistics.
Care to take the bet?
Negger, please. This thread isn't even about gun control.
Looks like you should have read the " ". Whatever that is.
No, this thread is about the idiocy that passes for intellectual argument form the gun control crowd, specifically the argument that guns kill people if people are using guns to kill people.
Yeah uhh... if you're unsure how "quotes" work, that's a response to Steve Hanson. Either way, neither of you refute anything specifically, so the points must stand.
Which is fine, there's been a shitload of empty arguments today already. Might as well pile on crowing "me too".
No, it was a response to you. You didn't do anything in this thread but cut and paste a stupid article and then whine about getting negged. Anyone that wanted to correct the multiple errors involved would be forced to teach you basic research skills and critical thinking before they could possibly address all the stupidity in the OP.
Yeah yeah, you already made clear that you have no answers. I got that. Your vote that this dialogue should be shut down is noted and logged. Thanks for playing, however uninvolvedly. Moving on...
__________________________________________________________________
I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.
What's going on here?
One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.
Pertinent to this thread, I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)
And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.
People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)
704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.
What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.
Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats
(2) Freep.com 1/3/13
A Tale of Two Cities
Murder-Free Two Years
Strawman. Pro-gun law-abiding citizens use guns to prevent violence. If guns didn't exist, there would be more violence. Guns are the great neutralizer.
Since guns = violence, should police be disarmed?
.
I live in a country where the police do not carry firearms. i was standing in front of my house today talking to two of them, just so happy to think that we live in a country where this can happen. Could you imagine the police in America not carrying firearms? Would you not like to live in a country where the police do not have to carry firearms?
Criminals could come up to me chop my head off with a meat cleaver and the police could beat me over the head with a nightstick. Yes, what a lovely society I could live in.
I remember back 500 years before guns existed, there was no violence, the world was a peaceful utopia because there were no guns.
Oh wait, that's just a Liberal fantasy with no basic understanding of history.
.
If you go back and read my first post in this thread yu will see I commented on the fact that your idiot copy and paste job included the "myth that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't recall exactly what he said there, but it involved people with guns killing people, which is not, believe it or not, guns killing people anymore than people with knives killing people is knives killing people. If you had done more than copy and paste an entire idiotic rant you would have processed that contradiction, and might have saved yourself a few neg reps for being extremely stupid.
The worst thing about this whole thing is you think the fact that you didn't read the crap before you posted it somehow absolves you from responsibility for posting it.
Nope. I like the fact that the Cops are armed and I like the fact that I am armed at home and on occasion when I'm out and about. My wife keeps a compact 9mm in her purse always which I also like very much. It makes me feel very good about her safety. I'm not sure what country you are from but I am genuinely glad that you feel good about your homeland.
I am an American living abroad for the past 16 years. I have no problem with guns for hunting or target shooting. My father was a cop and I was target shooting when I was 6. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, my kids and I target shoot. I do have a problem with people carrying guns in public. I do not believe that the answer to gun violence is more guns and more violence. There should be a limit to what you can own. If you want the thrill of shooting an assault rifle you should be able to go to a shooting range and rent one. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who feels that they have to carry a firearm to be safe.
well you can't carry a loaded assault weapon down the street so what is it you are really all bent out of shape about then
