PDA

View Full Version : 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down


Blart
02-25-2013, 01:03 PM
The NRA doesn't want people researching firearms (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). They actively lobby to stop data collecting (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518462.html).

Why are they afraid of knowledge? Perhaps it's because the gun lobby's arguments are full of .905 caliber holes.

-------------------
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

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.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/guns-owned630.jpg


Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png


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.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

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.
• 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.

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.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.


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?

Per capita spending on video games
US: $44
Japan: $55

Civilian firearms per 100 people
US: 88
Japan: 0.6

Gun homicides in 2008
US: 11,030
Japan: 11


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.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.


Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we 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.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.



Data sources & links at the original source:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

schaaf
02-25-2013, 01:51 PM
I sure love all 14 of my guns :)

cutthemdown
02-25-2013, 07:53 PM
Good thing we have the Constitution on our side.

Dukes
02-25-2013, 08:58 PM
You're a little late to the game, Blood Fart.

http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=5790
Mother Jones Hacks Again

A few weeks ago Mother Jones, having not learned the lesson of their absurd article claiming mass shootings are on the rise, published a list of 10 Myths (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check) about guns and gun control from Dave Gilson. And I’m going to debunk their debunking again because the article represents what I believe is one of the worst sins in the field of Mathematical Malpractice: cherry-picking. As I went through this, it became obvious that MJ was not interested in the facts, really. What was motivating them was the argument. And so they picked any study — no matter how small, how biased or how old — to support their point. They frequently ignore obvious objections and biases. And they sometimes ignore larger more detailed studies in favor of the smaller ones if it will support their contention.
We see this a lot in the punditocracy, unfortunately. As Bill James said, most people use studies the way a drunk uses a lamppost — for support, not illumination. In any sufficiently advanced but difficult field of study, you will find multiple studies examining an issue. Let’s say it’s a supposed connection between watching Glee and having a heart attack. If there is, in reality, no connection between the two, you might find eight studies that show no connection, one that shows an anti-correlation and one that shows a correlation. This is fine. This is science. There are always outlier studies even if all the researchers are completely ethical and honest. The outliers fall away when your interest is the question and you look at all the evidence. But the outliers dominate the discussion from those who have an agenda.
This happens a lot in the gun debate. On both sides, really. But Mother Jones’ article is a particularly putrid example of this because that’s basically all it does: collect the cherry-picked nonsensical studies that support their anti-gun agenda. It’s quite remarkable actually; almost a clinic in how not to do research.
But here’s the one thing that really tips you off. There is one myth that Mother Jones does not debunk. It’s a myth that’s really independent of what you think of gun ownership … unless you’ve already staked part of your reputation and agenda on the myth that gun violence is increasing. In fact, all forms of violent crime have been falling for twenty years. This is, in my mind, the single most important fact in debates over crime and violence and the single most important myth to debunk.
MJ does not address this myth. They don’t even talk about it. That is a huge tell.

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.
Maybe we can agree that this is a myth. On the other hand, when you have an anti-gun lobby that has (1) identified an unarmed society as their goal; (2) lauded nations that have banned their guns; and (3) advocated policies like restricting bullets that would make guns effectively useless, I think it behooves us to think they have that goal in mind.
(I also find it odd that this fact is often placed side-by-side with the “you’re not going to use an AR-15 to stop an Abrams tank” response to the idea of revolution. They need to make up their minds. Are we powerless against our military? Or do we outnumber them 79 to 1?)
Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
Problem: they’re looking only at gun deaths. That makes sense if you, like Mother Jones, believe that guns are an evil talisman that compels people to murder. But most people would think that the goal is to prevent death Moreover, looking at gun deaths includes suicides, which comprise two-third of gun deaths. There is some evidence that banning guns would lower the suicide rate; guns have a far higher suicide success rate (on the other hand, other methods of suicide are more favored by people making suicidal gestures who don’t want to really kill themselves).
I can’t embed the graphic but when you look at the total violence rate from all methods of killing — using the same sources they link — the correlation is not nearly as strong (R^2 of .13) The trend is 0.10 for every percent. So eliminating ALL guns — even if you assume that there is no increase in criminality — would reduce the death rate to about 14.8 or basically as peaceful as Iowa with its 44% ownership rate and Rhode Island with its 13%.
What’s more, there are significant outliers. Nevada and New Mexico are more violent than you would expect based on the linear trend. Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota have high ownership rates but relatively low levels of violence. And there is one huge outlier that shatters the graph: the District of Columbia, which has both a lower gun ownership rate and a higher crime rate than any state. DC is an unusual case, of course. Violence tends to be concentrate in cities and DC is all city. That having been said, the official DC gun ownership rate is a minuscule 5%, half that of Hawaii, mainly due to the draconian anti-gun laws they had until recently.
The other problem this point runs into — and you’re going to see this again and again — is that correlation is not causation. Maybe guns do cause violence. But you could equally argue that being in a violent area makes you more likely to buy a gun for self defense.
What would make sense here is a longitudinal study, one that looks at how violent crime rates rise or fall when gun laws are liberalized. Mother Jones ignores this because the last twenty years have seen gun laws liberalized while crime rates have plunged. That doesn’t show that liberalized gun laws prevent crime, of course. John Lott claims they do; others are more mixed. The fall in crime in multi-variate and it’s difficult to tease out the effect of one policy (least of all 50).
My point, however, is that if you’re going to argue that gun ownership puts people in danger, this is the wrong data to use.
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.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
The first study is a self-reported study of 2400 drivers. It’s odd it is invoked since it recalls one of most conspicuous and inaccurate predictions of the gun-control advocates: that conceal-carry laws would create shootouts over car accidents. They didn’t. It also conflates correlation with causation. And it is frankly a bit pointless.
For the second study, I can only see the abstract. They did note that conceal-carry holders were less likely to be convicted of crimes but that their convictions were more likely to involves sexual offenses, gun offenses and offenses involving a death. There’s a bit of flim-flammery in that sentence, however and I can’t see the article to see if it’s born out. It seems to say that while gun owners are less likely to commit crimes, their crimes are likely to be more serious. What’s missing? Usually when something is stated that way, it’s to conceal that gun owners are less likely to commit crimes involving a death, gun or sex but slightly less less likely than they are to commit other crimes.
Back in this thing called reality, the Texas Department of Public Safety studied all crimes committed in Texas and found that less than 1% were committed by conceal-carry holders. That’s compared to about 2% of all Texans who have conceal-carry. Those results reflect the reality in other states as well.
The final study is problematic. If you look at the graphs they include, it’s clear that they’re looking at noise. But they then do a statistical analysis which has 9 dependent variables and and 11 control ones. This crosses me as a massive overfitting of the problem. What they show, at most, is that stand your ground states did not have the drop in crime in 2009 and 2010 that other states did. But the data are so noisy, it’s really hard to make that conclusion, especially when they, oddly, plot it in log space to conceal just how noisy the data are. It’s frankly bad science and crosses me as cherry-picking. I feel like Mother Jones did not look for the best study of this; they look for a study that supported their conclusions, no matter how faulty it was.
As I noted above, it’s very difficult to pick out the effect of CCL’s on violent crimes rates because crime has been falling everywhere. But this issues had been addressed in far more intelligent ways than three marginal studies.
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
This stinks. I noted before how their claim that mass shooting were never stopped by civilians was entirely a product of their selection criteria that basically eliminated all the mass shootings that were stopped by someone armed. They also ignore the deterrent effect that guns are supposed to have. John Allen Fox’s (http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2013/01/responding_to_mother_jones.html) study shows that mass shootings have been flat over the last thirty years.
The second point comes from a study of 265 incidents in emergency rooms. I hardly think that’s a representative sample of anything. It’s so obscure, I have to believe it was cherry picked. Back in reality, I found this (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) (PDF) 2001 report from the Justice Department which interviews tens of thousands of inmates. Most of them got their guns either illegally or from a friend. The number who got them from their victims was too small to be included.
I think this a perfect demonstration of how Mother Jones selectively cites their stats. The 2001 study is linked in Myth #10 to show that most criminals get their guns in private sales. But when it comes time to figure out how many get their guns off their victims, Mother Jones does not cite the massive study that shows very few guns are obtained that way. No, they go to an obscure study of 265 ER incidents.
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.
The first stat ignores the work of Gary Kleck, whose well-cited work estimated a couple of million defensive uses of weapons every year, about five times the rate of aggressive gun violence. Even if he overestimates, he is unlikely to have done so by a factor of 30. MJ basically commits one of the classic blunders of the anti-gun faction: only counting defensive uses of weapons when someone is killed or seriously injured. A warning shot, a waving around of a gun, chambering a round as you come down the stairs — things Kleck counts — are ignored. The potential deterrent effect — criminals being unwilling to invade a house where they are likely to encounter a gun — is ignored.
These effects are asymmetric. Defensive uses of weapons are less likely to be reported. People defending themselves are, by definition, less violent than attackers and therefore less likely to fire a gun. The deterrent effect is almost impossible to measure statistically. Almost all the biases in these studies go against the “guns are never used defensively” position. Mother Jones doesn’t even acknowledge this.
The second stat is interesting but not really relevant. Accidental gun deaths are thankfully rare despite all the unlocked weapons. The study is also garbage, or at least quoting it that way is. Looking at the study, only 9% of guns were kept unlocked and loaded, which is the really dangerous situation. Moreover, “unlocked” includes not having a trigger guard. So, according to the survey, my dad was in that category because he had his unloaded guns in a closet with a keyed knob, a deadbolt and top bolt. I’m in that category even though my gun is in a safe and I have no bullets. Once again, Mother Jones has selected the study that most supports their ideology and, apparently, only read the abstract.
The third stat is garbage. This was a study of 64 boys. They were placed in an observation room and told to play. Most of them thought the gun was a toy. I’ve got news for Mother Jones: most parents do not conceal guns in their children’s playrooms and then tell them to play with anything they find. Most of them warn their kids about guns. Putting them in that kind of an environment tells you nothing. And it is belied by the thankfully low number of accidental deaths. If you combine “fact” 2 with “fact” 3, we should have accidental shootings constantly.
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.
Mother Jones is repeating themselves by this point. The first fact simply looks at crime stats and finds that killing over arguments are ten times as likely as justifiable homicides. Once again, most defensive uses of weapons do not involve a killing. Ironically, it is the liberal anti-gun Mother Jones who have formed their self-defense ideas from movies and television. And nothing, nothing in those statistics has any relation to gun ownership or conceal-carry. There is no indication whether the guns used to kill over arguments were legally owned or not (according to the study they cite later, most of them were obtained illegally). Even the raw statistics show the transparency of the argument. In a typical year, a couple of thousand people are killed in arguments. Even if we assume these are all legal gun owners (most of them aren’t), that it less than one in a hundred thousand weapons
The second study is jaw-droppingly dubious. It involved phone interviews and an evaluation of whether the gun was used defensively or offensively, often ignoring how the victim/perpetrator viewed the incident. No one except an ideological gun control advocate would think this was scientific. Moeover, even if you take the stats seriously, that means 1.5-3 million Americans did use guns to defend themselves. I hate to tell Mother Jones, but that statistic is pretty close to what Kleck found.
The third study is incredibly noisy. The confidence interval is that gun carriers are 1-17 times more likely to be assaulted. I’m also having trouble figuring out their stats, since their raw data doesn’t indicate nearly as strong a correlation. In fact, there’s very little correlation at all. There’s *much* more obvious disparities in alcohol and illicit drug involvement.
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
The first study is irrelevant. All people are more likely to be murdered by people they know. And, in general, women are not heavily involved in organized crime or drug dealing, which correlate with homicide incidents involving strangers.
The second study doesn’t support their point and they are misquoting it. It identifies previous abuse as by far the most important risk factor for women being killed by their partners. They do find a relationship to gun ownership, although a smaller one than previous studies. But if you want to keep women from getting killed, getting them away from abusive partners is, by far, the most important factor.
The third study mainly restates the earlier point on the correlation of gun violence to gun ownership; see correlation-causation. But MJ misquotes a study again. That statistic comes from a raw comparison of the five highest-gun ownership states to the five lowest. This is an incredibly dubious way of analyzing data, especially when you consider the states:
High-gun states: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama
Low-gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware
I would submit that there are larger differences between those states than rates of gun ownership. I also don’t think it’s valid to measure things by comparing the most extreme elements. I would much rather trust my analysis of all 50 states.
Also of note — their data do not show that women are in any particular danger. Using the raw data from the earlier talking point, I find similar ratios for overall homicides. In fact, guns are involved in 2/3 of homicides according to the CDC. But, according to this study, they are only involved in about half of homicides where the woman is the victim. Doesn’t this suggest that guns aren’t the real problem?
And to be frank, all of these studies give me the opposite idea than Mother Jones. Women rarely own guns and rarely use them to defend themselves. Nevertheless, they can be victims. And half the time, their murder does not use a gun, but fists, knives or blunt objects. Doesn’t that indicate maybe they should own guns? That guns can be an equalizer? I don’t know. But I would suggest the question is more complicated than selectively quoting and misquoting three studies.
In any case, thousands of women disagree (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/18/video-meet-the-fastest-growing-demographic-among-gun-owners/) with these points.

Blart
02-25-2013, 09:02 PM
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.

Dukes
02-25-2013, 09:06 PM
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.

Well that's obviously why they mentioned muskets in the Constitution.

cutthemdown
02-25-2013, 09:28 PM
Nobodies advocating machine guns and grenades. We just want piston grips, adjustable stocks, bayonets, flash suppresors and 30 round clips.

Also the founders were smart enough to know arms would get more advanced. They had every intention of saying that the public should have access to the same weapons the armies who invade us might use. So they may even say today we need machine guns. But we will relent and just maintain the status quo.

cutthemdown
02-25-2013, 09:29 PM
Suticase nuke, Rocket Launchers, Ar-15s.

Ummmmm yeah a bit of a reach there to include a semi automatic small arms rifle with nukes and rocket launchers.

ant1999e
02-25-2013, 09:37 PM
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.

Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#cite_note-WhatBan-26

Blart
02-25-2013, 10:17 PM
You're a little late to the game, Blood Fart.


That's a ****ton of words trying to battle a few stats. Ugh. You owe me 30 minutes.


Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.
Maybe we can agree that this is a myth. On the other hand, when you have an anti-gun lobby that has (1) identified an unarmed society as their goal; (2) lauded nations that have banned their guns;

Which nations have banned all guns? Honest question, don't know one off the top of my head. You can get a firearm in Japan, Australia, or even Denmark (where gun crime is virtually non-existent) provided you pass background checks.


[INDENT]Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
Problem: they’re looking only at gun deaths.

WTF (what the firearm)? Should they be considering gun-related births? Shotgun weddings?

I can’t embed the graphic but when you look at the total violence rate from all methods of killing — using the same sources they link — the correlation is not nearly as strong (R^2 of .13) The trend is 0.10 for every percent. So eliminating ALL guns — even if you assume that there is no increase in criminality — would reduce the death rate to about 14.8

What study is he referencing? Probably not the one showing that gun deaths are 144% higher in states with the most guns.

What’s more, there are significant outliers. Nevada and New Mexico are more violent than you would expect based on the linear trend. Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota have high ownership rates but relatively low levels of violence. And there is one huge outlier that shatters the graph: the District of Columbia, which has both a lower gun ownership rate and a higher crime rate than any state. DC is an unusual case, of course. Violence tends to be concentrate in cities and DC is all city. That having been said, the official DC gun ownership rate is a minuscule 5%, half that of Hawaii, mainly due to the draconian anti-gun laws they had until recently.
The other problem this point runs into — and you’re going to see this again and again — is that correlation is not causation. Maybe guns do cause violence. But you could equally argue that being in a violent area makes you more likely to buy a gun for self defense.
What would make sense here is a longitudinal study, one that looks at how violent crime rates rise or fall when gun laws are liberalized. Mother Jones ignores this because the last twenty years have seen gun laws liberalized while crime rates have plunged. That doesn’t show that liberalized gun laws prevent crime, of course. John Lott claims they do; others are more mixed. The fall in crime in multi-variate and it’s difficult to tease out the effect of one policy (least of all 50).
My point, however, is that if you’re going to argue that gun ownership puts people in danger, this is the wrong data to use.

Lots of words there.


Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I'm pretty sure the more killing devices you give people, the more killing is done.
https://raw.github.com/bendmorris/gun-violence/master/figure1.png
http://h2ndsg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p0SaT8tVdhTcr-3GrmfwwMIDjhG9wA9HVGGkPlSwxOOCqPYuS4phsrahXRjpo7wt JpgYwOj0LIElIuJxWdvMHvCVEFpr0RnPB/GunOwnership.jpg?psid=1



Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Defensive uses of weapons are less likely to be reported. People defending themselves are, by definition, less violent than attackers and therefore less likely to fire a gun. The deterrent effect is almost impossible to measure statistically.

I found this interesting, and possibly a good argument for the NRA types. Perhaps we're focusing too much on death, why not consider robberies? A criminal should be less likely to break into a house and steal in the USA with our "Make My Day" laws, right?

But alas, no dice.

"Overall robbery rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership."

Guns don't appear to deter theft. The big difference between robberies in the USA and Australia is that ours more often end in death.





Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

The third study mainly restates the earlier point on the correlation of gun violence to gun ownership; see correlation-causation. But MJ misquotes a study again. That statistic comes from a raw comparison of the five highest-gun ownership states to the five lowest. This is an incredibly dubious way of analyzing data, especially when you consider the states:
High-gun states: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama
Low-gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware
I would submit that there are larger differences between those states than rates of gun ownership. I also don’t think it’s valid to measure things by comparing the most extreme elements. I would much rather trust my analysis of all 50 states.
Also of note — their data do not show that women are in any particular danger. Using the raw data from the earlier talking point, I find similar ratios for overall homicides. In fact, guns are involved in 2/3 of homicides according to the CDC. But, according to this study, they are only involved in about half of homicides where the woman is the victim. Doesn’t this suggest that guns aren’t the real problem?
And to be frank, all of these studies give me the opposite idea than Mother Jones. Women rarely own guns and rarely use them to defend themselves. Nevertheless, they can be victims. And half the time, their murder does not use a gun, but fists, knives or blunt objects. Doesn’t that indicate maybe they should own guns? That guns can be an equalizer? I don’t know.

Dude loves to write.

Blart
02-25-2013, 10:20 PM
Suticase nuke, Rocket Launchers, Ar-15s.

Ummmmm yeah a bit of a reach there to include a semi automatic small arms rifle with nukes and rocket launchers.

Grenades too.
Why are some of those illegal? Doesn't the constitution protect our right to bear arms? Our right to own a device that can mow down a theater full of humanity?

cutthemdown
02-26-2013, 03:01 AM
Grenades too.
Why are some of those illegal? Doesn't the constitution protect our right to bear arms? Our right to own a device that can mow down a theater full of humanity?

I don't know what the men who wrote the constitution would think honestly. In some ways they were very ignorant compared to society today. In other ways they were probably more learned. They thought society should have arms and the ability to organize into militias. I guess because they felt the fed govt might not be there to defend them, or less likely IMO the federal govt would need to be overthrown. Obviously hunting and protection were probably just assumed to be god given rights to the founders. Out of pure necessity right?

I don't think anyone was advocating we make grenades legal. If they are legal I imagine its not military ones, probably flash grenades or something? Rocket launchers? cmon are we really saying they should be legal? No one is saying that. Unfortunatley you can mow down a theater with almost any modern firearm because they are unarmed.

Go in with a 9 shot pump shotgun and a handgun and you can probably kill a lot of unarmed people in a mall, or school.

It sucks we can't stop it. I understand people want to be safe. But....you can't legislate the dangers of our country away. The countries people point to that are sooo much safer then us don't compare. We are a melting pot of cultures and that has always been a volatile but powerful mix.

houghtam
02-26-2013, 03:22 AM
Here's a summary of the discussion on here over the past few months:

Gun Enthusiasts - Having a dad is the most important thing about crime prevention, not gun laws. Here are some stories about people who went bad without good dads.

Common Sense Havers - Well yeah, that's part of it, but correlation isn't causation. There are a lot of factors, and these studies back it up.



Common Sense Havers - Here are some myths the other side is feeding you, and some studies to back it up.

Gun Enthusiasts - CORRELATION ISN'T CAUSATION AND ALL YOUR POINTS ARE INVALID GUN RIGHTS GUN RIGHTS GUN RIGHTS ZOMG IM GONNA BUY AN AR-15 BEFORE OBAMANATION BUYS EM ALL. OR BANZ EM. BUYS EM OR BANZ EM GUYS, WHAT ARE WE BITCHING ABOUT THIS WEEK?



Meanwhile, I think the left went wrong a long time ago trying to go after scary looking guns. They should have used the incident with the police getting out-gunned in those bank robberies a few years back as an example that it's not about what the gun looks like, it's about what it's capable of.

There has to be some sort of standard, and I think "having the ability to shoot through a (insert standard issue) bullet-proof vest from X range" should be one of them...simply put, if a gun is capable of taking down an armed cop, it doesn't need to be semi-auto.

Oh well, can't get people to agree on anything.

BroncoBeavis
02-26-2013, 07:32 AM
Meanwhile, I think the left went wrong a long time ago trying to go after scary looking guns. They should have used the incident with the police getting out-gunned in those bank robberies a few years back as an example that it's not about what the gun looks like, it's about what it's capable of.

I guess what you're saying is Police should be able to outgun weapons that are already illegal? That means I can turn the suitcase nukes argument back around. Should Police have suitcase nukes? Why not?

There has to be some sort of standard, and I think "having the ability to shoot through a (insert standard issue) bullet-proof vest from X range" should be one of them...simply put, if a gun is capable of taking down an armed cop, it doesn't need to be semi-auto.

Yeah, the civilian should only get one shot. The cops need the extra power for important stuff like...

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbiKNufCUD-pVXG9sXjEg_hMXkBG78AZ0U8RX-ZcR2Ng-bU_Gw

LOL

houghtam
02-26-2013, 09:27 AM
I guess what you're saying is Police should be able to outgun weapons that are already illegal? That means I can turn the suitcase nukes argument back around. Should Police have suitcase nukes? Why not?



Yeah, the civilian should only get one shot. The cops need the extra power for important stuff like...

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbiKNufCUD-pVXG9sXjEg_hMXkBG78AZ0U8RX-ZcR2Ng-bU_Gw

LOL

Weren't you the one whose standard for where we draw the line is making sure the people don't outgun the cops? Did your opinion on that change after the LA shooter?

BroncoBeavis
02-26-2013, 09:36 AM
Weren't you the one whose standard for where we draw the line is making sure the people don't outgun the cops? Did your opinion on that change after the LA shooter?

I think you have it backwards. There should be no law enforcement loophole for restricted firearms. In other words police should not "outgun" the populace. At least not as a matter of law. And the fact that the LA shooter was a cop only helps to underscore the reasoning.

Rigs11
02-26-2013, 10:12 AM
i want a grenade launcher and a flame thrower and possibly a tank. You guys ok with that?:giggle:

cutthemdown
02-26-2013, 03:56 PM
i want a grenade launcher and a flame thrower and possibly a tank. You guys ok with that?:giggle:

you could probably have a tank, but you wouldn't be able to have a working gun on it. You can have the launcher, but you can't have grenades. launchers can be used for flash grenades or to launch tear gas. We may need that in a riot.

chadta
02-26-2013, 05:31 PM
so more guns = more shootings right ?

so giving kids condoms must mean they will have more sex right ? what could possibly go wrong with that.

El Minion
02-26-2013, 06:13 PM
so more guns = more shootings right ?

so giving kids condoms must mean they will have more sex right ? what could possibly go wrong with that.

False equivalency, teenagers are going to have sex because it is normal, natural and healthy for humans to be sexual as adults. The opposite of guns, where if the intended purpose is successful when used on another human the result should be death. The intended purpose of sex if successful is mutual orgasm.

errand
02-26-2013, 06:33 PM
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.




They didn't have typewriters or laptops, not to mention radios or TV's and the internet....so you'll be ok if they decide to chip away at our 1st amendment rights too?

As for your claim nobody is talking about banning guns.....Diane Feinstein says hi!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ffI-tWh37UY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

errand
02-26-2013, 06:50 PM
The 2nd amendment was installed because the founding fathers had just fought for their freedom from a tyrannical government......which also explains why the Constitution limits what the government can do....not us.

They saw the potential that government could be corrupted by power and turn a free nation into an oppressed one....and that's why they said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

BTW...by arms they meant whatever weapons we the people wanted. But I doubt even the most ardent guns right advocates would argue for a rocket launcher or suitcase nuke likes some douche on here thinks we want.

Again....plenty of ideas to limit what kind of guns law abiding citizens can own, and how many rounds of ammo....still haven't heard one idea to limit what criminals can have. Perhaps you liberals should solve that problem first before you worry about what I own or don't own.

Disarm the criminals, not the citizens they prey on.......

houghtam
02-26-2013, 06:55 PM
The 2nd amendment was installed because the founding fathers had just fought for their freedom from a tyrannical government......which also explains why the Constitution limits what the government can do....not us.

They saw the potential that government could be corrupted by power and turn a free nation into an oppressed one....and that's why they said the right of the peopleto keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"Citizens of these United States! We grant you the right to bear arms so that if we become tyrannical, you can overthrow us! Now you farmers in Western Pennsylvania who are revolting because of whiskey exchange taxes and to whom we just gave this right to bear arms against the government...Draw, turkeys!"

Well we gotta give them the right to fight against us...but if they do, we gotta give her the ole college try to put them down, too. Yep. Makes sense.

errand
02-26-2013, 07:06 PM
"Citizens of these United States! We, the founding fathers of a free nation have written into the constitution the right to bear arms so that if centuries from now the liberal run government becomes tyrannical under the guise of protecting you and your family's well-being, you can overthrow them!


FYP

...still waiting to hear your ideas on disarming the criminals at best, or limiting the size of their magazines and number of rounds they can use. Oh, and btw, my guns have killed fewer people than Eric Holder's Fast and Furious guns have....

baja
02-26-2013, 07:57 PM
What's the matter errand no bad fans on the main board to discipline.

ant1999e
02-26-2013, 08:03 PM
They didn't have typewriters or laptops, not to mention radios or TV's and the internet....so you'll be ok if they decide to chip away at our 1st amendment rights too?

As for your claim nobody is talking about banning guns.....Diane Feinstein says hi!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ffI-tWh37UY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They won't respond to this.

Rohirrim
02-26-2013, 08:09 PM
They won't respond to this.

Appears to me she's talking about assault rifles.

ant1999e
02-26-2013, 08:40 PM
Confiscating private property from U.S. Citizens. Yeah, I trust her.

errand
02-26-2013, 08:47 PM
What's the matter errand no bad fans on the main board to discipline.

You're not enough? look you said what you said you called the franchise classless because they got rid of a clown that can't throw a football....... the Constitution is more important then checking in to see if you called the Broncos classless again.
Rarely does a fan call their "favorite team " classless, but when one does it's usually Baja ......stay classless my friend

errand
02-26-2013, 08:51 PM
Appears to me she's talking about assault rifles.

Ummmm nope.....she was talking about all guns. Hence the "if I could get them all...." and "the votes weren't there" comments.

of course government officials would be exempt from her laws...

Dr. Broncenstein
02-26-2013, 09:18 PM
We're not coming for your guns. We just want "sensible reform" as per the recommendations of Joe Biden, the head of the gun safety task force. You know, the guy who literally recommends brandishing and recklessly firing a two shot warning from a double barreled shotgun.

We will start with a more aggressive version of what Fienstein gave us last time, and add universal background checks and national registration. This sensible start will have no effect on firearm homicides, as the only people who comply with these laws will be law abiding citizens. After this sensible start fails to prevent the next Sandy Hook, and has no effect whatsoever on handgun related deaths in places like Chicago.. we will again find ourselves in need of more sensible gun reform. Except this time we will have a list of law abiding citizens to target. We will also have a background check system in need of improving.

cutthemdown
02-26-2013, 09:34 PM
We should all go outside and let a couple rounds loose in honor of Joe Biden. Liberals may not openly talk about a total ban on gun ownership but we aren't fooled by that. We know they would do it if they could. The plan of the left is to chip away at gun ownership little by little.

TDmvp
02-26-2013, 09:35 PM
I'm going to rant for a sec , so I'll open by saying sorry if
TL/DR... :O) .


But ok for starters I'm like 37 years old and have only fired a gun twice in my life , but am now wanting to buy one ... So if anyone has some opinions on that "fire away" heheh.

But I have 0 issue with the ones wanting registration and trying to make sure "iffy" people as far as mentally don't get guns.

I DO HAVE tons of issues with those saying we should do what some other counties have done and ban all guns. With their reasoning being stuff like Sandy Hook wont happen.
That's just crazy.

Hell we could wave a magic wand and make all the guns in the world vanish tomorrow and stuff like Sandy Hook could still and would still happen and you could build a gun if need be.

Heck a sicko could run in at lunch at a school and beat 10 or 20 of them to death with the bullet out of a 50cal. before anyone stopped him if we magically remove all the guns.

But anyway I just find that crowd that thinks that if we remove guns crazy won't still find a way.

Anyway someone suggest some good first guns that won't break me.
I guess I want either a semi auto rifle or a semi auto pistol for first and then get whatever I don't get first as my 2nd.

Was thinking of buying like a 22lr ruger rifle , and something like this beretta 22 pistol for practice .
http://www.berettausa.com/products/u22-neos/
And get used to cleaning and taking care of a gun and then buying something nice in a semi auto handgun for defending myself if needed like a 380 or a 9mm.

But any gun nuts that this wasn't tl/dr have at that , any help would be cool.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-26-2013, 09:44 PM
Good luck buying anything semi-automatic right now. Double that for ammunition. But if you want a ruger 22 semi rifle, you can't go wrong with a ruger 10/22. If you want more options, you could get an AR lower reciever and a .22 cal upper. Later on if you want an actual AR15 get a 5.56 upper and mags.

TDmvp
02-26-2013, 10:03 PM
Good luck buying anything semi-automatic right now. Double that for ammunition. But if you want a ruger 22 semi rifle, you can't go wrong with a ruger 10/22. If you want more options, you could get an AR lower reciever and a .22 cal upper. Later on if you want an actual AR15 get a 5.56 upper and mags.


Sweet , that's what I keep hearing about that Ruger 10.22 so I figure I will get one of those along with whatever I figure out as a good pistol to practice with.

I was thinking of going with that beretta cause then I could use the same ammo with both for practice and I read good things on this 22, and it looks damn cool ... heheh. and you can turn it into a long gun as well.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQe2P-cCEF2RifgGZm1Xi7_mXfcEulvBw3cvjYG7Tw5DYPZDvAs

http://www.tjgeneralstore.com/KitU22Neos_01.jpg


I really had my heart set on a kel tec pmr 30 when I first stumbled onto them.
a handgun that holds 30 rounds of 22mag. and is just over a pound loaded.
But my god its a 400$ gun and people are wanting 1k for it now.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pmr-30/

Thanks for the reinforcement that the Ruger 10/22 is killer tho Broncenstein


Edit , and my god I can't type on my nexus7 to save my @$$...

houghtam
02-26-2013, 10:54 PM
Awww, look! How cute! It's like a cradle for that little gun!

Hilarious!

ant1999e
02-26-2013, 10:57 PM
Well if it isn't "They're taking away our unions" himself.

TDmvp
02-26-2013, 10:59 PM
Awww, look! How cute! It's like a cradle for that little gun!

Hilarious!



LOL yea it's just weeee lil guy Hilarious!


I figured this way no one could blame me for picking a big gun to make up for my tiny penis hehehe...

errand
02-27-2013, 05:35 PM
LOL yea it's just weeee lil guy Hilarious!


I figured this way no one could blame me for picking a big gun to make up for my tiny penis hehehe...

My conceal carry piece is a .380.....small and compact, holds a 6 round magazine (7 if you keep one in chamber) and has 3 safety's. Bought it off a buddy who decided to get a .40 cal for $100......included case and box of 50 rounds on top of the 6 in magazine.

Don't worry about making up for a small penis...the liberals that say that **** to you are just talking out of their yeast infected vaginas.....

chadta
02-27-2013, 05:43 PM
The intended purpose of sex if successful is mutual orgasm.

the intended purpose of sex is procreation, humans are the only ones that do it relationally.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/64814_565248196833702_1449250871_n.jpg

gyldenlove
02-27-2013, 08:05 PM
the intended purpose of sex is procreation, humans are the only ones that do it relationally.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/64814_565248196833702_1449250871_n.jpg

That is not true, several species of animals have sex for purposes other than procreation.

TDmvp
02-27-2013, 09:25 PM
My conceal carry piece is a .380.....small and compact, holds a 6 round magazine (7 if you keep one in chamber) and has 3 safety's. Bought it off a buddy who decided to get a .40 cal for $100......included case and box of 50 rounds on top of the 6 in magazine.

Don't worry about making up for a small penis...the liberals that say that **** to you are just talking out of their yeast infected vaginas.....


Thanks errand . My father who is like 74yo , ex military , who has his concealed carry permit also carries a .380 kel-tec and he said that's all I would need as far as a good CC gun. And in case someone was to walk in on you in your house from your chair to the door would be plenty strong to do what you needed.

A couple people I mentioned this to acted as if he was wrong and I needed a stronger gun , but I figured the old man who used to teach people how to shoot the BAR before these guys was born knew what he was talking about.

But it's still good to hear some reinforcement on the fact the .380 is plenty.

Blart
03-01-2013, 08:42 AM
http://i.imgur.com/2O18l.jpg

Blart
03-01-2013, 08:47 AM
the intended purpose of sex is procreation, humans are the only ones that do it relationally.


gb2 school

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

bronco militia
03-01-2013, 10:27 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A0IVSGctQIg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ant1999e
03-02-2013, 02:04 PM
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could-be-banned-under-proposed-bill/
DENVER (CBS4) – A popular hunting shotgun could be banned under one of the bills moving through the state Capitol.

A pump or semi-automatic shotgun is the gun most hunters in Colorado use. It’s a gun state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, says could be banned under a bill that’s already passed the House and Gov. John Hickenlooper says he’ll sign.

“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Brophy told CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd. cont...

ant1999e
03-02-2013, 02:11 PM
I just bought a Springfield XDS 45 yesterday. Pretty excited but also bummed I have to wait until Monday to pick it up. Damn 72 hour wait.

errand
03-02-2013, 03:40 PM
I just bought a Springfield XDS 45 yesterday. Pretty excited but also bummed I have to wait until Monday to pick it up. Damn 72 hour wait.

you should have bought it on the street like all the criminals do and then that way you wouldn't have to wait 72 hours or go through any kind of background check...... however because you're a law abiding citizen you wait.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-02-2013, 04:03 PM
I just bought a Springfield XDS 45 yesterday. Pretty excited but also bummed I have to wait until Monday to pick it up. Damn 72 hour wait.

I want a Springfield m1a socom in the worst way. I should have trusted my instinct and bought one of those a couple of years ago.

ZONA
03-03-2013, 12:40 AM
so more guns = more shootings right ?

so giving kids condoms must mean they will have more sex right ? what could possibly go wrong with that.

Oh man, that reply was so FAIL.


Comparing guns to condoms is a very bad analogy. But to answer your question, I suppose if more condoms were used, it would mean less unwanted pregnancies, less STD's.

Pony Boy
03-03-2013, 07:54 AM
Oh man, that reply was so FAIL.


Comparing guns to condoms is a very bad analogy. But to answer your question, I suppose if more condoms were used, it would mean less unwanted pregnancies, less STD's.

I suppose if more firearms were used it would mean less forcible entry, less burglary.

frerottenextelway
03-03-2013, 08:18 AM
Good thing we have the Constitution on our side.

Not if you actually read the ****ing thing. It's the first 3 words of the Amendment, surely even you can make it that far.

houghtam
03-03-2013, 08:27 AM
I suppose if more firearms were used it would mean less forcible entry, less burglary.

Actually statistics don't support your claim about guns. They do about condoms, though.

Fedaykin
03-03-2013, 05:24 PM
Actually statistics don't support your claim about guns. They do about condoms, though.

Pft, who needs evidence when you have ideology?

errand
03-04-2013, 05:22 PM
Actually statistics don't support your claim about guns. They do about condoms, though.


Chicago says hi!

Chicago pop. - 2.7 million
Houston pop. - 2.15 million

Chicago household median income -$38,600
Houston household median income-$37,000

% Black - Chicago 32.9% Houston 24%
% Hispanic - Chicago 28.9% Houston 44%
% Asian - Chicago - 5.5% Houston 6%
% White - Chicago 31.7% Houston 26%

both cities are pretty similar......until you see that,

Chicago has no carry and conceal law, where Houston does. Chicago has arguably the toughest gun laws in the nation....Houston? Guns are bought as fashion acessories

Chicago doesn't have any gun shops, gun shows, etc....where Houston has approximately 1500 places (pawn shops, gun shops, gun shows, walmart, etc.) where you could buy a gun (shotgun, rifle, pistol)

In 2012, Chicago had 506 homicides, Houston had 207 homicides

Total homicides per 100K in population Chicago has almost twice as many (18.4) as Houston (9.6)

How is that possible?

houghtam
03-04-2013, 05:57 PM
Chicago says hi!

Chicago pop. - 2.7 million
Houston pop. - 2.15 million

Chicago household median income -$38,600
Houston household median income-$37,000

% Black - Chicago 32.9% Houston 24%
% Hispanic - Chicago 28.9% Houston 44%
% Asian - Chicago - 5.5% Houston 6%
% White - Chicago 31.7% Houston 26%

both cities are pretty similar......until you see that,

Chicago has no carry and conceal law, where Houston does. Chicago has arguably the toughest gun laws in the nation....Houston? Guns are bought as fashion acessories

Chicago doesn't have any gun shops, gun shows, etc....where Houston has approximately 1500 places (pawn shops, gun shops, gun shows, walmart, etc.) where you could buy a gun (shotgun, rifle, pistol)

In 2012, Chicago had 506 homicides, Houston had 207 homicides

Total homicides per 100K in population Chicago has almost twice as many (18.4) as Houston (9.6)

How is that possible?

Hi Chicago, how are you? Did you know we were talking about whether having a gun in the home prevents burglaries?

The rest of the nation and the international community say hi!

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_3

Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia (I saw you use it AGAIN as an example in that other thread...it's horse**** and I've already addressed this...I lived in Kennesaw for three years)— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]

One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gun ownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.

Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot for burglars, and burglars may target houses with many guns.

I already posted this when Aurora happened, and no one had an answer for it then...I don't suppose you will now. There are 5 full pages for you to feast on, and just in case "Medscape" is too liberal of a site for you, here's a list of their sources. You can slog through them if you like...like I've said, I've already done the research, and I already know the facts.

References

Lizotte AJ, Bordua DJ. Firearms ownership for sport and protection: two divergent models. Am Sociol Rev. 1980;45:229–244.

Glaeser EL, Glendon S. Who owns guns? Criminals, victims, and the culture of violence. Am Econ Rev. 1998;88:458–462.

Hemenway D, Barber C, Miller M. Unintentional firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:1184–1188.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D. Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003 [published online ahead of print June 21, 2010]. J Trauma. doi: 10.1097/TA. 0b013e3181dbaddf

Centers for Disease Control. Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children, 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46:101–105. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm. Accessed December 17, 2010.

Centers for Disease Control. WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999–2007. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html. Accessed December 17, 2010.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:477–484.

Price JH, Thompson AJ, Dake JA. Factors associated with state variations in homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths. J Community Health. 2004;29:271–283.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Vriniotis M. Firearm storage practices and rates of unintentional firearm deaths in the United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:661–667.

Vyrostek S, Annest J, Ryan G. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal injuries-United States 2001. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2004;53(SS-7):1–57.

Sinauer N, Annest JL, Mercy JA. Unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries: a preventable public health burden. JAMA. 1996;275:1740–1743.

Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006.

Katcher ML, Meister AN, Sorkness CA, et al. Use of the modified Delphi technique to identify and rate home injury hazard risks and prevention methods for young children. Inj Prev. 2006;12:189–194.

Peterson LG, Peterson M, O'Shanick GJ, Swann A. Self-inflicted gunshot wounds: lethality of method versus intent. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142:228–231.

Owens D, Horrocks J, House A. Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:193–199.

Gibb SJ, Beautrais AL, Fergusson DM. Mortality and further suicidal behaviour after an index suicide attempt: a 10-year study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39:95–100.

Jamison KR. Night Falls Fast: Understanding Suicide. New York, NY: Knopf; 1999.

Miller M, Hemenway D. The relationship between firearms and suicide: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav. 1999;4:807–814.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk factors for adolescent suicide: a comparison of adolescent suicide victims with suicidal inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:581–588.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA. 1991;266:2989–2995.

Brent DA, Perper J, Moritz G, Baugher M, Allman C. Suicide in adolescents with no apparent psychopathology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32:494–500.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Firearms and adolescent suicide: a community casecontrol study. Am J Dis Child. 1993;147:1066–1071.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Suicide in affectively ill adolescents: a case-control study. J Affect Disord. 1994;31:193–202.

Brent DA, Baugher M, Bridge J, Chen T, Chiappetta L. Age- and sex-related risk factors for adolescent suicide. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999;38:1497–1505.

Conwell Y, Duberstein PR, Connor K, Eberly S, Cox C, Caine ED. Access to firearms and risk for suicide in middle-aged and older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:407–416.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467–472.

Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:974–978.

Kung HC, Pearson JL, Liu X. Risk factors for male and female suicide decedents ages 15–64 in the United States: results from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003;38:419–426.

Kung HC, Pearson JL, Wei R. Substance use, firearm availability, depressive symptoms, and mental health service utilization among white and African American suicide decedents aged 15 to 64 years. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15:614–621.

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow MJ. Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:929–936.

Wiebe DJ. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:771–782.

Shah S, Hoffman RE, Wake L, Marine WM. Adolescent suicide and household access to firearms in Colorado: results of a case-control study. J Adolesc Health. 2000;26:157–163.

Grassel KM, Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Romero MP. Association between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury. Inj Prev. 2003;9:48–52.

Shenassa ED, Rogers ML, Spalding KL, Roberts MB. Safer storage of firearms at home and risk of suicide: a study of protective factors in a nationally representative sample. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:841–848.

Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al. Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and unintentional firearm injuries. JAMA. 2005;293:707–714.

Wintemute GJ, Parham CA, Beaumont JJ, Wright M, Drake C. Mortality among recent purchasers of handguns. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1583–1589.

Markush R, Bartolucci A. Firearms and suicide in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1984;64:123–127.

Lester D. Firearm availability and the incidence of suicide and homicide. Acta Psychiatr Belg. 1988;88:387–393.

Birkmayer J, Hemenway D. Suicide and gun prevalence: are youth disproportionately affected? Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2001;31:303–310.

Lester D. Availability of guns and the likelihood of suicide. Sociol Soc Res. 1987;71:287–288.

Lester D. Gun ownership and suicide in the United States. Psychol Med. 1989;19:519–521.

Hellsten JJ. Motivation and Opportunity: An Ecological Investigation of U.S. Urban Suicide, 1970–1990. Irvine, CA: University of California; 1995.

Miller M, Lippmann S, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 U.S. states. J Trauma. 2007;62:1029–1035.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenawy D. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 0 1988–1997. Epidemiology. 2002;13:517–524.

Kleck G, Patterson EB. The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. J Quant Criminol. 1993;9:249–287.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D. The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002. Inj Prev. 2006;12:178–182.

Kessler R, Berglund P, Borges G, Nock M, Wang PS. Trends in suicide ideation, plans, gestures, and attempts in the United States, 1990–1992 to 2001–2003. JAMA. 2005;293:2487–2495.

Sorenson SB, Vittes KA. Mental health and firearms in community-based surveys: implications for suicide prevention. Eval Rev. 2008;32:239–256.

Oslin DW, Zubritsky C, Brown G, Mullahy M, Puliafico A, Ten Have T. Managing suicide risk in late life: Access to firearms as a public health risk. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;12:30–36.

Miller M, Barber C, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Molnar BE. Recent psychopathology, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in households with and without firearms: findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication. Inj Prev. 2009;15:183–187.

Ilgen M, Zivin K, McCammon R, Valenstein M. Mental illness, previous suicidality, and access to guns in the United States. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59:198–200.

Berman A, Brown R, Diaz G, et al. Consensus statement on youth suicide by firearms. Arch Suicide Res. 1998;4:89–94.

Mann JJ, Apter A, Bertolote J, et al. Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294:2064–2074.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across US regions and states, 1988–1997. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1988–1993.

Miller M, Hemenway D, Azrael D. Statelevel homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:656–664.

Zimring FE. The medium is the message: firearms caliber as a determinant of death from assault. J Legal Stud. 1972;1:97–123.

Hepburn L, Hemenawy D. Firearm availability and homicide: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav. 2004;9:417–440.

Hemenway D, Miller M. Firearm availability and homicide rates across twentysix high-income countries. J Trauma. 2000;49:985–988.

Brearly HC. Homicide in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; 2003.

Seitz ST. Firearms, homicide, and gun control effectiveness. Law Soc Rev. 1972;6:595–614.

Lester D. Relationship between firearm availability and primary and secondary murder. Psychol Rep. 1990;67:490.

Ruddell R, Mays G. State background checks and firearm homicides. J Crim Justice. 2005;33:127–136.

Duggan M. More guns more crime. J Polit Econ. 2001;109:1086–1114.

Cook P, Ludwig J. The social costs of gun ownership. J Public Econ. 2006;90:379–391.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084–1091.

Rowland J, Holtzhauer F. Homicide involving firearms between family, relatives, and friends in Ohio: an offenderbased case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;130:825.

Kleck G, Hogan H. A national case control study of homicide offending and gun ownership. Soc Probl. 1999;46:175–193.

Hemenway D, Shinoda-Tagawa T, Miller M. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates among 25 populous high-income countries. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2002;57:100–104.

Bailey JE, Kellermann AL, Somes GW, Banton JG, Rivara FP, Rushforth NP. Risk factors for violent death of women in the home. Arch Int Med. 1997;157:777–782.

Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multi-site case control study. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1089–1097.

Reiss AJ, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and Preventing Violence: Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1993.

Hastings JE, Hamberger LK. Personality characteristics of spouse abusers: a controlled comparison. Violence Vict. 1988;3:31–48.

Block C, Christakos A. Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime Delinq. 1995;41:496–526.

Hemenway D, Azrael D. Gun Use in the United States: Results of a National Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 1997.

Azrael D, Hemenway D. "In the safety of your own home": results from a national survey on gun use at home. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:285–291.

Sorenson SB, Wiebe DJ. Weapons in the lives of battered women. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1412–1417.

Rothman EF, Hemenway D, Miller M, Azrael D. Batterers' use of guns to threaten intimate partners. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2005;60:62–68.

Catalano S. Victimization During Household Burglary. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2010.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Victimization in the United States 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2010.

Kleck G. Crime control through private use of armed forces. Soc Probl. 1988;35:1–21.

McDowall D, Lizotte AJ, Wiersema B. General deterrence through civilian gun ownership: an evaluation of the quasiexperimental evidence. Criminology. 1991;29:1085–1099.

McDowall D, Wiersema B, Loftin D. Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglary? Sociol Soc Res. 1989;74:48–51.

Lott JRJ. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL: Univeristy of Chicago Press; 1998.

Kopel D. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1992.

Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Hawthrone, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.

Mayhew P, van Dijk J. Criminal Victimization in Eleven Industrialized Countries: Key Findings From the International Crime Victimization Surveys. London, UK: Information and Publications Group; 1997.

Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns and burglary. In: Ludwig J, Cook P, eds. Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2003:74–107.

Wright JD, Rossi PH, Daly K. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing; 1983.

National Research Council. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2005:89, 106.

Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B. Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes. JAMA. 1995;273:1759–1762.

Cook P, Ludwig J. Defensive gun uses: new evidence from a national survey. J Quant Criminol. 1998;14:111–131.

McDowall D, Loftin D, Presser S. Measuring civilian defensive firearm use: a methodological experiment. J Quant Criminol. 2000;16:1–19.

Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use. Washington, DC: Police Foundation; 1996.

Hemenway D, Azrael D. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: results from a national survey. Violence Vict. 2000;15:257–272.

Hemenway D, Miller M, Azrael D. Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Inj Prev. 2000;6:263–267.

Tark J, Kleck G. Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Criminology. 2004;42:861–909.

Violence Policy Center. Unintended consequences: pro-handgun experts prove that handguns are a dangerous choice for selfdefense. http://vpc.org/studies/uninsum.htm. Accessed December 17, 2010.

Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:1557–1560.

Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma. 1998;42:263–267.

Lee RK, Waxweiler RJ, Dobbins JG, Paschetag T. Incidence rates of firearm injuries in Galveston, Texas, 1979–1981. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134:511–521.

Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population. Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2000;105(4, pt 1):888–895.

Dukes
03-04-2013, 08:36 PM
Found this in the depths of CNN of all places

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/opinion/levy.anti.gun.control_1_gun-control-gun-regulations-gun-related-crimes?_s=PM:OPINION

A few highlights

- In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents

- A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. CDC's conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence.


Still valid today as the day it aired.
<embed src="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/player.swf" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="id1=83130966" wmode="opaque" width="567" height="345" allowfullscreen="true" />

Blart
03-05-2013, 11:34 AM
^^^ Care to link which studies and reports prove that "more guns = less crime"?

I'd also like to see an explanation on why Japan has only about 10 gun homicides per year.

For some reason I don't trust the corporate journalist John Stossel (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Stossel).


Total homicides per 100K in population Chicago has almost twice as many (18.4) as Houston (9.6)


Gun control is ineffective when your next-door neighbor sells guns freely.

This is the gun store in Indiana, about 15 minutes from the south side where the majority of guns used in Chicago crimes are sold:

http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=BI_wI ez0tcsFSuiX1GIaI8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYuonxlRRp8jp9T upf0H0JUeWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0



http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/12/Firearm-Homicides-Compared-q8ieux.jpg



If you give people easy access to people-killing tools, guess what happens?

chadta
03-05-2013, 01:10 PM
^^^ Care to link which studies and reports prove that "more guns = less crime"?

I'd also like to see an explanation on why Japan has only about 10 gun homicides per year.

For some reason I don't trust the corporate journalist John Stossel (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Stossel).




Gun control is ineffective when your next-door neighbor sells guns freely.

This is the gun store in Indiana, about 15 minutes from the south side where the majority of guns used in Chicago crimes are sold:

http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=BI_wI ez0tcsFSuiX1GIaI8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYuonxlRRp8jp9T upf0H0JUeWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0



http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/12/Firearm-Homicides-Compared-q8ieux.jpg



If you give people easy access to people-killing tools, guess what happens?

I cant tell you how many times Ive said or heard " well I wasn't going to kill you but since i have an easy way of doing it what the hell" right before a gun shot.

You guys are messed up, you cant be the only place on earth where getting a gun is "easy" yet you are the only place with "gun crime numbers" so high, which tells me that guns arent the problem, and something else is

Blart
03-05-2013, 01:57 PM
You guys are messed up, you cant be the only place on earth where getting a gun is "easy" yet you are the only place with "gun crime numbers" so high, which tells me that guns arent the problem, and something else is


Income inequality is also a major correlate of homicide rate.

Combine that with the world's easiest access to guns, here's what you get:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/10/9.gif

<iframe src="http://embed.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

BroncoBeavis
03-05-2013, 02:34 PM
If you give people easy access to people-killing tools, guess what happens?

Your graph should really compare overall homicide rates, not just homicides with firearms.

Unless you're making the argument that being shot to death is somehow inferior to a good knifing or whathaveyou.

The murder rate still isn't GOOD for the United States, but this graph is intended to exaggerate more than anything.

Dukes
03-05-2013, 06:03 PM
^^^ Care to link which studies and reports prove that "more guns = less crime"?

I'd also like to see an explanation on why Japan has only about 10 gun homicides per year.

For some reason I don't trust the corporate journalist John Stossel (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Stossel).




Gun control is ineffective when your next-door neighbor sells guns freely.

This is the gun store in Indiana, about 15 minutes from the south side where the majority of guns used in Chicago crimes are sold:

http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=BI_wI ez0tcsFSuiX1GIaI8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYuonxlRRp8jp9T upf0H0JUeWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0



http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/12/Firearm-Homicides-Compared-q8ieux.jpg



If you give people easy access to people-killing tools, guess what happens?

Honest question. Do you believe the government really cares about how many people are killed each year?

So when does confiscation start? Because that's the only kind of legislation that will affect people from being killed. What good is legislation that doesn't include every city, county and state in the US? You said so yourself that someone can just drive 15 minutes and buy what they want. Do you gun grabbers have the guts to attempt that kind of feel good legislation on a nationwide basis? Do you believe cops, federal agents and the military will go door to door and fire against it's own citizens?