is it safer to own a gun or not own a gun
own a gun
23.9% (116)
23.9% (116)
not own a gun
52.4% (254)
52.4% (254)
there both equally safe
12% (58)
12% (58)
no opinion...more bacon?
11.1% (54)
11.1% (54)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: is it safer to own a gun or not own a gun

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

BaronIveagh:

loc978:

If you live in an apartment complex in an urban area, owning a gun... even knowing how to use said gun and being a master of combat tactics... will not save you from criminals out to take your life with guns. Your only hope then involves the police. You are not a movie action hero.
Also, if someone comes into your apartment to steal something... and you shoot that person to death, you are generally considered a murderer.
Do I think people living in apartments shouldn't own guns? No. If you want a gun safe in your apartment and you like hitting a local indoor range, go for it... I just think you shouldn't try to keep them handy as home defense weapons. The police have your back, urbanites. Call 'em up.

You don't know urban areas that well, do you? There are places in most major metropolitan areas that the police take a half hour to arrive, not because they're far away, but because it took them that much time to round up 'enough' cops that they feel safe entering it. (Homewood in Pittsburgh immediately springs to mind, though Compton out west I'm told is similar.)

Also, I might point this out but, depending on the state in the US, home invaders can be legally shot.

And, frankly, if you really want to kill people, there's no end to human inventiveness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

True. I guess I just don't have much experience with really bad urban areas outside of TV. "Good" urban areas are bad enough that they made me want to move out to the middle of nowhere rather quickly.
Still, all living there leaves you with is no good option at all... so yeah, better to be armed than unarmed if they're out for your life, better to let 'em steal from you than try to play the hero if they're just out for your possessions, though. Hope you can make that call with a gun close to hand.

As for improvised weapons... it is easy enough to take someone's life with almost anything made of metal, but fewer people are prepared to think they can do so with a pair of fingernail clippers than a firearm (though when it comes down to it, a firearm in most people's hands may as well be a pair of nail clippers that can cause random destruction if handled improperly).

FelixG:

Tipsy Giant:
Owning a gun is never safe, who knows what you'll do when you are drunk and something major aggravates you.... Best to not bother

I am a little depressed that no one has called bullshit on this post.

Seriously, if you get drunk and something aggravates you that bad then a hammer or knife will do just as well, and better in some cases, than a gun. To think you need a gun to kill or hurt someone while you are drunk and annoyed is brainless.

Also, I am digging the new captchas.

For example in my city last year gang violence mixed with mistaken identity got an innocent bystander killed, this wouldn't of happened had the shooter been close enough to see the innocent girls face.

Guns are too impersonal, they are a cowards weapon

IF, and only if, you know what you're doing then I'd say you're better off with a gun. It's unlikely that you'll be confronted and need it, but if that situation arises then you'll be prepared.

If you're stupid and careless you'll just blow your own foot off before you ever see a crook.

Tipsy Giant:

FelixG:

Tipsy Giant:
Owning a gun is never safe, who knows what you'll do when you are drunk and something major aggravates you.... Best to not bother

I am a little depressed that no one has called bullshit on this post.

Seriously, if you get drunk and something aggravates you that bad then a hammer or knife will do just as well, and better in some cases, than a gun. To think you need a gun to kill or hurt someone while you are drunk and annoyed is brainless.

Also, I am digging the new captchas.

For example in my city last year gang violence mixed with mistaken identity got an innocent bystander killed, this wouldn't of happened had the shooter been close enough to see the innocent girls face.

Guns are too impersonal, they are a cowards weapon

Unless of course they came up behind her and stabbed her a half dozen times in the side, you know like people do when they want to kill someone and avoid a fight.

I am not going to address that you call gun users cowards because I would end up getting a warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Even though America has very high gun ownership, it's not particularly safe relative to average wealth. In general wealth and education is inversely proportional to crime. On an international scale America breaks that correlation, though if you look at individual American communities relative to each other the correlation holds. In places without firearms civilians will still find ways to kill each other, and when civilians are armed people still kill each other.

However, if anybody cares to produce data, I'd love to see how effective guns are at preventing crime.

Guns are harder to aim than you think, and owning a gun will not help you defend yourself from a gunman unless you can, at any time, whip a concealed weapon out from nowhere and shoot a guy between the eyes. Easier, perhaps to stick a knife in him? You know your house better than they do.

My belief, in any case, is that it's much more likely to cause an accident than save you from anything.

Own one, know how to use it, keep it locked away safe, and don't treat it like a toy.

If you don't like them, it's because your scared of them; and for that, i'm really sorry. They are beautiful things, they really are.

If I am the only one who owns the gun, then yes its safer for me to own a gun. If everyone else has one, then it is safer for me to own a tank.

if you are properly trained.
I read that in most cases when people are forced to use a gun (like in let,s see a burglary) they are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot instead of shooting the burglar.
so only when you know how to use one.

Statistically speaking, families that own one gun are about 4-5X more likely to be involved in some sort of violent crime.

Multiple guns, strangely enough, actually reduce that risk, probably because enthusiasts know a bit more about gun safety and proper handling (ie they may have police or military training, they are more likely to use gun safes/lockers, and more likely to have more experience)

I really wish I could give some better statistics, that's just what I read in my Criminal Justice textbook and you can't google search gun control and get a non-biased analysis :/

Never owned a gun, never needed to own a gun.

I have been held up before once and the incident has not motivated me to consider purchasing a gun.

The reason why I survived that night is because I used my words and my wallet. If I pulled some Rambo shit, I'd be splattered on the sidewalk.

Truth.

It's a loaded question. It's like a corporation that wants to pollute tries to convince us by saying "Is it cheaper to pollute, or not pollute?"

bpm195:

However, if anybody cares to produce data, I'd love to see how effective guns are at preventing crime.

I would argue that the presence or absence of guns is irrelevant in comparison to socio-economic and cultural conditions. But here are a few numbers to mull over-

Idaho- Gun ownership rate 64%- Murder rate 1.3 per 100,000

UK- Gun ownership rate 6.4 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.2 per 100,000

Jamaica- Gun ownership rate 8.1 per 100 people- Murder rate 52.0 per 100,000

Norway- Gun ownership rate 31.3 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.7 per 100,000

Sweden- Gun ownership rate 31.6 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.3 per 100,000

Lithuania- Gun ownership rate 0.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 8.7 per 100,000

Serbia- Gun ownership rate 37.8 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.4 per 100,000

China- Gun ownership rate 4.9 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.2 per 100,000

Switzerland- Gun ownership rate 45.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.9 per 100,000

The numbers are all over the place but the one consistent fact is that there are lots of high gun ownership areas that have very low murder rates. You might keep in mind that Washington D.C., Illinois, California, and NYC are some of the strictest gun control areas but also have some of the highest murder rates.

No I am saying that more guns equals less crime. The fact is that socio-economic and cultural elements determine murder rate not the presence or absence of an object. People not objects determine crime rates.

renegade7:
Statistically speaking, families that own one gun are about 4-5X more likely to be involved in some sort of violent crime.

Multiple guns, strangely enough, actually reduce that risk, probably because enthusiasts know a bit more about gun safety and proper handling (ie they may have police or military training, they are more likely to use gun safes/lockers, and more likely to have more experience)

You are right about multiple guns being a sign for less danger but you are wrong about the reason. Most suicides with guns occur within the first few months of purchase. Why? Because people buy guns in order to commit suicide. If you have multiple guns then you did not buy them to commit suicide or murder a person etc. You likely bought them for target shooting, hunting, etc. In other words long time gun owners, like myself, are not in any particular danger. But that fact does throw a wrench into the idea of spontaneity since most of those kinds of murders and suicides are premeditated.

In addition you fail to take into account not only the time factor but the why factor. Why did they buy the gun? Perhaps it was in response to a perceived threat that eventually materialized.

There are other elements as well but I find it a little difficult to believe that your textbook didn't mention any of those facts.

Here is a bit of advice, never ever take statistics at face value.

farson135:

bpm195:

However, if anybody cares to produce data, I'd love to see how effective guns are at preventing crime.

I would argue that the presence or absence of guns is irrelevant in comparison to socio-economic and cultural conditions. But here are a few numbers to mull over-

Idaho- Gun ownership rate 64%- Murder rate 1.3 per 100,000

UK- Gun ownership rate 6.4 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.2 per 100,000

Jamaica- Gun ownership rate 8.1 per 100 people- Murder rate 52.0 per 100,000

Norway- Gun ownership rate 31.3 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.7 per 100,000

Sweden- Gun ownership rate 31.6 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.3 per 100,000

Lithuania- Gun ownership rate 0.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 8.7 per 100,000

Serbia- Gun ownership rate 37.8 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.4 per 100,000

China- Gun ownership rate 4.9 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.2 per 100,000

Switzerland- Gun ownership rate 45.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.9 per 100,000

The numbers are all over the place but the one consistent fact is that there are lots of high gun ownership areas that have very low murder rates. You might keep in mind that Washington D.C., Illinois, California, and NYC are some of the strictest gun control areas but also have some of the highest murder rates.

No I am saying that more guns equals less crime. The fact is that socio-economic and cultural elements determine murder rate not the presence or absence of an object. People not objects determine crime rates.

renegade7:
Statistically speaking, families that own one gun are about 4-5X more likely to be involved in some sort of violent crime.

Multiple guns, strangely enough, actually reduce that risk, probably because enthusiasts know a bit more about gun safety and proper handling (ie they may have police or military training, they are more likely to use gun safes/lockers, and more likely to have more experience)

You are right about multiple guns being a sign for less danger but you are wrong about the reason. Most suicides with guns occur within the first few months of purchase. Why? Because people buy guns in order to commit suicide. If you have multiple guns then you did not buy them to commit suicide or murder a person etc. You likely bought them for target shooting, hunting, etc. In other words long time gun owners, like myself, are not in any particular danger. But that fact does throw a wrench into the idea of spontaneity since most of those kinds of murders and suicides are premeditated.

In addition you fail to take into account not only the time factor but the why factor. Why did they buy the gun? Perhaps it was in response to a perceived threat that eventually materialized.

There are other elements as well but I find it a little difficult to believe that your textbook didn't mention any of those facts.

Here is a bit of advice, never ever take statistics at face value.

Well I'm not really an expert on the matter, I just wanted to put what I had heard out there.

farson135:

bpm195:

However, if anybody cares to produce data, I'd love to see how effective guns are at preventing crime.

I would argue that the presence or absence of guns is irrelevant in comparison to socio-economic and cultural conditions. But here are a few numbers to mull over-

Idaho- Gun ownership rate 64%- Murder rate 1.3 per 100,000

UK- Gun ownership rate 6.4 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.2 per 100,000

Jamaica- Gun ownership rate 8.1 per 100 people- Murder rate 52.0 per 100,000

Norway- Gun ownership rate 31.3 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.7 per 100,000

Sweden- Gun ownership rate 31.6 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.3 per 100,000

Lithuania- Gun ownership rate 0.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 8.7 per 100,000

Serbia- Gun ownership rate 37.8 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.4 per 100,000

China- Gun ownership rate 4.9 per 100 people- Murder rate 1.2 per 100,000

Switzerland- Gun ownership rate 45.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.9 per 100,000

I am not arguing against you, but could you both provide the sources of your numbers, and if possible break it down into a less vague category if you have access to more numbers. I don't feel like direct murder is really a reliable way of judging anything anymore than you can judge bus drivers from the total number of car crashes every year. I do see the point you are trying to make with these numbers, but I feel like there is a potential for it to be misleading, not that I think you are the one trying to be misleading.

For example:

Muggings.
Accidents involving self or others.
Suicide, as you mentioned.
Etc

All of these aspects of gun ownership.

As for my personal opinion, a gun is designed for only one thing. I do not feel like owning a gun makes you substantially less likely to be a victim of crime when the situation can very easily still be out of your control, all it does is add additional variables for self harm/misuse/accidents.

I do not feel like it makes your life more secure, regardless of whether or not you are responsible and properly trained, so I would personally vote that it makes your life more dangerous.

I am personally glad I live in a country where casual gun ownership is far more moderated.

Tipsy Giant:

FelixG:

Tipsy Giant:
Owning a gun is never safe, who knows what you'll do when you are drunk and something major aggravates you.... Best to not bother

I am a little depressed that no one has called bullshit on this post.

Seriously, if you get drunk and something aggravates you that bad then a hammer or knife will do just as well, and better in some cases, than a gun. To think you need a gun to kill or hurt someone while you are drunk and annoyed is brainless.

Also, I am digging the new captchas.

For example in my city last year gang violence mixed with mistaken identity got an innocent bystander killed, this wouldn't of happened had the shooter been close enough to see the innocent girls face.

Guns are too impersonal, they are a cowards weapon

A population as a whole cannot be held accountable by the lack of judgement from one individual. This holds true in any situation. Guns are perfectly safe in the hands of those who treat and use them responsibly. The gun is just a tool - the weapon is the person pulling the trigger. Any individual can turn an everyday object into a weapon and misuse it. That does not mean the item is dangerous; it means the person is dangerous.

xSKULLY:
snip

First off I would like to throw you in the crowd of idiots who attempt to make a decent intelligent poll or even a "meaningful debate", and the F*** it up by adding a god**** bacon option. you only make yourself look stupid while at the same time making any results of the poll completely pointless.

now to the topic...

not assume you wont shoot yourself. it happens, they call those accidents. and if you have no training with a gun, youre likely to hurt yourself from being unable to control a guns' kick. as for YOU being shot by OTHER people, there is no way to know the odds on that either.

most people will instantly say that owning a gun makes it "blah blah" more likely for it to be used on your family instead of others. yet, every person i know who has had training with guns and practices gun safety...accidents have never been an issue. my own mother grew up in a house where her father had a small arsenal (he was in military), there is not a single instance she can remember where anything bad almost happened. he laid it out all clear that guns arent toys, you DO NOT treat them lightly. and nothing ever happened.

do background research. in almost every case you can find of gun accidents occurring where a kid gets their hands on one and leads to death...the parents probably never once practiced real safety. they get a gun, keep it loaded (fucking dumbest thing you can do), and never told the kid they have one. so the kid stumbles on it, thinks its a toy the parents are hiding and starts playing games.

just owning a gun doesnt increase or decrease your chances of safety. its using effin common sense and a few brain cells that keeps people safe. always at the gun range during camp they would tell us not to rely on the safety that prevents the trigger from being pulled. "its a simple mechanical device, and like other simple mechanical devices it can break. use your head and dont be stupid. keep the gun pointed down range at all times or you will be kicked out of camp."

It all depends on if you know how to properly use it and have a place to keep it stored safe. I am a believer of gun ownership, but only if you know how to use it and keep it out of reach of those who will be or cause harm.

If you can control yourself and know when the correct time to use a gun is then you will be safer with a gun. That means if someone is mugging you you let them have your wallet. If they are breaking into your house, you tell them to gtfo or you will shoot. It doesn't mean you shoot the mailman for knocking on the door or draw your weapon when someone is asking for your cash.

If you cannot control yourself emotionally or you think anything short of a life and death situation is a good time to draw and/or use the gun you shouldn't have one.

Just like if you cannot operate it safely you shouldn't have a car or a power drill. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

In theory if nobody had a gun people would be safer from gun crime. Unfortunately criminals don't usually care about laws. They will either get a gun illegally or, if somehow you make that 100% impossible(short of living in a bubble you can't), they will use something different. There have always been criminals and they use weapons to gain an advantage. Guns simply put everyone big or small, male or female, on equal footing.

Doitpow:
to you as an individual

99% it is safer to not own one. You might have kids, for example. Even in a regular firing range guns can misfire and hurt someone. Shotguns misfire so often it's scary. People breaking into your house see you have a gun cabinet, pick the lock and now they are armed.
1% might be help by having a gun, an armed break in or a mugging can be turned around pretty fast just buy showing one.

to society

I would say it is always safer for civilians to be unarmed.

but what would I know, I'm just a limey communist.

I dunno what guns you are using but the only one I have that has any regularity of misfires is my .22lr pistol and that is just the nature of rimfire cartridges. I've never had any of my shotguns misfire and the only rifle I've had misfire was my buddy's WWII Mauser 8mm which just needed cleaned and it worked perfectly.

If you don't maintain your gun it won't work but that is universal for any mechanical device.

It's defiantly safer for you to own a gun (as long as you aren't careless) but not safer for other people for you to own a gun such as the public or your children.

It is safer for everyone around you as well as yourself, if you do not own a gun.

Like several people have said, if everyone does not own a gun, then everyone is much safer.

study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course gun supporters simply say correlation does not equal causation.

people like farson are great at using misleading stats. for example above he posted countries with higher gun counts against countries with lower gun counts with the murder rates to show that high gun countries can be safe. he completely ignores the fact that norway, sweden etc still have 1/3 the ownership rate of america as well as a very large majority of the guns are from the miltia service and are rifles, not handguns which are far more dangerous. the countries he uses with low guns but high murder are jamaica and lithuania. the figures for jamaica are most likely very wrong, the problems come from illegal weapons shipped in from the US and drugs and gangs that makes the US drugs and gangs look like a school yard fight. ironically one of the biggest drug kingpins controls a group who were trained and armed by the US in the 80s. as for lithuania that stems more from a cultural thing. they have serious racism issues and have a very violent culture (2/3rds of women have apparently suffered from violent attacks). basically if you are not a lithuanian male you either hide really well or get the shit kicked out of you by one of the many violent racist groups.

farson135:
Uh huh.....you want to run that by me again? In Aussieland people are killed by guns in only 1/3 cases. The other 2/3 is by something other than a gun. In Lithuania 7/8 murders are preformed without a gun.

Please stop spreading misinformation, Australia has no where near 1/3 of deaths by firearm.

Australia has less than 3% firearm death rate.

There are very low rates of firearm crime, for example the Western Australian Police have not fatally shot anyone for over 5 years.

According to the ABS 2009 death whether intentional self-harm, accidental, homicide, undetermined intent;

224 of 8,884 deaths were by firearm or 2.5%

6 fatal firearm accidents of 5,322 or 0.1%

164 of 2,132 suicides or 7.7%

30 of 211 fatal assaults or 14.2%

24 of 994 undetermined intent or 2.4%

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/EBA9606492CEFC61CA25788400127CEB?opendocument

PS Remember how you said no one considered your grandfather's .22 target psitol was not a weapon?

TJ Lane used his grandfather's Ruger .22-caliber Mark III target pistol to kill 3 children in the latest US school shooting (something that has not happened in over a decade in Australia).

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2107942,00.html

reonhato:
study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course gun supporters simply say correlation does not equal causation.

people like farson are great at using misleading stats.

Like the studies you mention using the FBI's figures which lump legal self defense and police shooting criminals in the line of duty in with illegal homicide?

ITT: People who have never even touched a firearm are experts on self-defense situations

reonhato:
study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course gun supporters simply say correlation does not equal causation.

Let's say that correlation does imply causation.

If they own guns, probably it's a dangerous area. Therefore, they have a higher chance of being victims of homicide.

And now I ask you...

Correlation implies causation. What causes the gun to attract homicides?

Seriously. If you throw stats at us (that usually count suicides and legitimate self defense as homicide) then at least expose a decent theory you found on google.

FurinKazanNZ:
Guns are harder to aim than you think, and owning a gun will not help you defend yourself from a gunman unless you can, at any time, whip a concealed weapon out from nowhere and shoot a guy between the eyes.

You shoot center mass. Largest target, higher chance of the bullet losing enough energy to prevent anyone else being shot.

Go to wikipedia and compare the number of firearms deaths with the number of crimes prevented by firearms.

Guns won't go off by magic.

loc978:
If you live in an apartment complex in an urban area, owning a gun... even knowing how to use said gun and being a master of combat tactics... will not save you from criminals out to take your life with guns. Your only hope then involves the police. You are not a movie action hero.

Combat tactics? Close one of my eyes, turn my flashlight to strobe, open both eyes, shoot.

My house has a pretty easy layout. I do not need to be a SWAT operative to be able to shoot on the move, cut the pie, etc.

CQB combat tactics are only 100% relevant if you are a group of police officers trying to rescue hostages without anyone being killed.

If you are a person already inside the building trying to stop an invader, they have the short stick.

It's pretty easy to move around the house with a gun. Doesn't matter if you are a fatass or a skinny guy, you can defend yourself even if you are not Rambo.

Also, murder implies premeditation. I can't predict when an armed criminal will enter my house. Therefore, not murder.

Tipsy Giant:
Guns are too impersonal, they are a cowards weapon

Swords, spears and bows are impersonal weapons. Real men go in with their fists and get stabbed 5 times.

GigaHz:
Never owned a gun, never needed to own a gun.

I have been held up before once and the incident has not motivated me to consider purchasing a gun.

The reason why I survived that night is because I used my words and my wallet. If I pulled some Rambo shit, I'd be splattered on the sidewalk.

Truth.

Again with the "Rambo" argument.

If you have a concealed carry some places teach you to throw your wallet.

A lot of unarmed people do it. It distracts the opposition and gives you a chance to run because they want the money. It's not suspicious.

But if they are distracted by a wallet, you can pull off a weapon and shoot in less than a second. A lot of people are able to do it. You don't need to be a Rambo to use a weapon.

But at the same time, picking up a gun won't make you a professional hitman. You need training, and that is why concealed carry involves training.

Don't take this as advice. Personally I don't like this method. There are places that teach you to drop to the ground and shoot, because that way you won't hit bystanders. I personally think it's stupid to have a bullet flying in the air and landing somewhere else.

Also, owning a gun does not imply Concealed Carry. You can only have it at home to defend yourself from intruders.

All this misinformation enrages me so.

BaronIveagh:

reonhato:
study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course gun supporters simply say correlation does not equal causation.

people like farson are great at using misleading stats.

Like the studies you mention using the FBI's figures which lump legal self defense and police shooting criminals in the line of duty in with illegal homicide?

well you are more likely to be shot by police if you have a gun dont you think.

ignoring that a lot of "self defense" you hear about in america is plain and simple murder in the rest of the world (mainly due to the ignoring of duty to retreat in favour of castle doctrines, which is really only a great way to escalate a situation in a very large majority of cases) it is still extremely rare, even in america in 2007 there were only 254 cases of justified homicide for self defense by private citizens and only 391 justified killings by the police. thats a tiny percentage of the total amount of murders.

anyway while i was looking up those numbers i found some great stats that show why having handguns are stupid, and why places like switzerland can have a highish gun ownership without the problems. in california in 2007 there were 1605 firearm homicides, 1374 of those were handguns and only 51 were rifles. shotguns came in at 74 with 106 unknowns. so if you really must have a gun.... get a rifle.

anyway, if all of that has not deterred you, you are either a gun nut or an idiot and i haven't even said anything about suicide yet.

Being in the UK guns are not really that prominent even living in the west country with all them farmers and there guns. Its rare to hear about gun crime, knives not so much but still rarish.

I think the police having access to guns is probably a good thing but all officers carrying them probably isn't just encrouges criminals to carry guns so they are on a level footing.

reonhato:

well you are more likely to be shot by police if you have a gun dont you think.

ignoring that a lot of "self defense" you hear about in america is plain and simple murder in the rest of the world (mainly due to the ignoring of duty to retreat in favour of castle doctrines, which is really only a great way to escalate a situation in a very large majority of cases) it is still extremely rare, even in america in 2007 there were only 254 cases of justified homicide for self defense by private citizens and only 391 justified killings by the police. thats a tiny percentage of the total amount of murders.

anyway, if all of that has not deterred you, you are either a gun nut or an idiot and i haven't even said anything about suicide yet.

Around here you're more likely to be killed by police for being the wrong color and unarmed than you are for being white and holding a gun.

Again, from the FBI report that year, and only included killings to stop a felony. Glen Kleck, University of Florida, rebutted that report on the grounds that this only covered felonies, and not any of the numerous non-felony crimes that can result in a ruling of justifiable homicide.

While that is a small fraction of total murders, it's about 10% of the ones with guns.

And, the reason that I'm not dissuaded by all that is two fold. One, I've owned a gun all my life, my parents made a point to teach me to use one properly starting at a very young age, and Two, I owe my continued life to said gun. Tends to put the debate in a different perspective.

farson135:
Switzerland- Gun ownership rate 45.7 per 100 people- Murder rate 0.9 per 100,000

You also noticed that Switserland has a huge gun homicide rate, and their rate of family slayings with guns is the biggest in Europe, also counting Turkey with it's culture of 'honour killings'.

Then again, that's something the gun sales lobby likes to keep quiet. They'd much rather use selective statistics. Like for instance Portugal used to have loose gun laws and elevated levels of violence because of it.

In the meantime, the US firearm homicide rate is between 6 and 33 times that of EU countries. If you say you're ten times as likely to be shot when you're in the US because of legal guns, you'd actually be making an understatement.

farson135:
The numbers are all over the place but the one consistent fact is that there are lots of high gun ownership areas that have very low murder rates. You might keep in mind that Washington D.C., Illinois, California, and NYC are some of the strictest gun control areas but also have some of the highest murder rates.

And it didn't occur to you that those places are located in a country with more guns than people, with a big acceptance of violence in their culture and free travel between those and other places?

It's crap statistics.

Why not compare something which can be compared? For instance policemen shot by perpetrators. I did some math on that a while back and concluded that, compensated for population, more policemen are killed in the US every month than in the Netherlands in 25 years. This used to be 52 years, but we had a single shooting with a deranged asylum seeker that ended up fatally for an officer responding to it. It made national headlines, as shootings are extremely uncommon and shootings in which bystanders or policemen die even more so. Ussually it's just drug criminals killing one another.

BaronIveagh:
And, the reason that I'm not dissuaded by all that is two fold. One, I've owned a gun all my life, my parents made a point to teach me to use one properly starting at a very young age, and Two, I owe my continued life to said gun. Tends to put the debate in a different perspective.

Let me guess... A suspicious looking person either knocked on your door, or stopped you in the street and asked for money. You stuffed a gun under their nose and threatened them with murder, and now you believe your life was saved back then?

Watching silly pro-violence lobbyists go at it has taught me that when they say their gun has had a use, 99% of the time they're talking about situations in which there was no threat to them, and the presence of weapons only escalated the situation.

BaronIveagh:

reonhato:
study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course gun supporters simply say correlation does not equal causation.

people like farson are great at using misleading stats.

Like the studies you mention using the FBI's figures which lump legal self defense and police shooting criminals in the line of duty in with illegal homicide?

The FBI UCR does differentiate between 'justifiable' and 'illegal' homicides (see first link).

Even if the FBI UCR did not make this distinction, the ~250 jusifiable homicides would not have much effect on the data, given that there are between 15,000 to 13,000 homicides in the US each year (see second link).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

BaronIveagh:
Again, from the FBI report that year, and only included killings to stop a felony. Glen Kleck, University of Florida, rebutted that report on the grounds that this only covered felonies, and not any of the numerous non-felony crimes that can result in a ruling of justifiable homicide.

Kleck is used as an example of how not to do a scientific study.

Kleck's study had less than 2,000 telephone repondents who answered the whole survey, including one woman who reported over 50 DGUs in 1 year.

Compared to the over 65,000 law enforecement reports that make up the FBI UCR each year.

Kleck's study does not exclude law enforcement DGU, military use and DGU against animals.

Kleck also estimated that there should be over 200,000 criminals shot by their intended victims, nearly twice the total number of gunshot wounds in the US each year (including gunshot wounds from suicide, accidents, assaults etc).

Hemenway used Kleck's survey method and showed 6% of all Americans have actually met an alien...

I suggest reading this study;

Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws by Webster & Ludwig:

Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead to more deaths.

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

DGU = 'defensive gun use'

Agayek:

Tanksie:
if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

this is why we have very few firearms crimes in australia.

i would give my opinions as to the americans laws involving guns but last time i tried i was suspended.

If no one owns a gun, they'll just find something else to kill/attack people with. The fantasy that safety comes from banning weapons is just that, a fantasy. The single most dangerous weapon is utterly impossible to ban without making lobotomies mandatory, everything else is just window dressing.

If you want to stop violent crime, the only way to do so is to make nobody want to commit violence, and that's impossible for all intents and purposes.

This is very true. In the UK, gun crime is minimal, because of our restrictive laws on guns. However, knife crime is through the roof compared to other countries. When one type of weapon is banned, those seeking to do harm or have self defense will resort to the next common denominator, in this case it's knives.

Captcha: dont stop (I think lord inglip is having a good time...)

The true answer to this whole thread is, people will always have weapons or make weapons out of things, it's never truly safe whatever is/isn't around.

ElPatron:
Let's say that correlation does imply causation.

True, that is why we rely on scientific, peer reviewed studies, like Neill and Leigh 2010, which do show causation.

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?:
Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates.

We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates.

The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise.

The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf

Blablahb:
-snip-

Every time I see you comment on this issue, Blablahb, I realize that you still haven't learned. Your issue is dead. Your side lost. Move on.

OT: It depends on your training and if you're willing to use it. Further, I'd like to quote someone. "No number of laws can guarantee my safety as much as clicking off my safety can."

Yeah.

Griffolion:

Agayek:

Tanksie:
if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

this is why we have very few firearms crimes in australia.

i would give my opinions as to the americans laws involving guns but last time i tried i was suspended.

If no one owns a gun, they'll just find something else to kill/attack people with. The fantasy that safety comes from banning weapons is just that, a fantasy. The single most dangerous weapon is utterly impossible to ban without making lobotomies mandatory, everything else is just window dressing.

If you want to stop violent crime, the only way to do so is to make nobody want to commit violence, and that's impossible for all intents and purposes.

This is very true. In the UK, gun crime is minimal, because of our restrictive laws on guns. However, knife crime is through the roof compared to other countries. When one type of weapon is banned, those seeking to do harm or have self defense will resort to the next common denominator, in this case it's knives.

Captcha: dont stop (I think lord inglip is having a good time...)

The true answer to this whole thread is, people will always have weapons or make weapons out of things, it's never truly safe whatever is/isn't around.

That's strange. I live in the UK and I thought carrying knives was illegal.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked