Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    This is purely an aside, because it's a claim often taken on faith.

    Note that I'm not - now or before - advocating for blanket restrictions or taking paw's squirrel gun away. (assault weapons are another story)

    I've seen some well-qualified research that shows some stricter gun laws do indeed correlate to lower gun homicides.  I have not seen as much reputable data on the other side, so...

    I'm looking for objective, peer-reviewed studies on both sides of the issue, because even if we believe 'gun control' is a pipe dream, we should know what the real numbers are and what we're dealing with.

    For instance, gun ownership in other countries varies widely without much trend to discern...guns are prevalent in seemingly peaceful (Sweden) and violent countries (Yemen) alike.  There's even some research that shows gun control laws in the U.S. have an effect on cross-border spillover violence in Mexico.

    For now, let's keep this just about the numbers....

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    The U.S. has some of the most liberal gun laws in the world. It is easier to purchase a gun in the United States than in any other industrialized nation. If lenient gun laws actually reduce gun violence as the NRA claims, the U.S. should have the lowest rate of gun violence in the world.

    In the U.K. all gun owners must be licensed and all guns must be registered. Handguns are prohibited for civilians. The law makes no exceptions. Overall, four percent of households keep firearms. There are only 0.4 intentional gun deaths per 100,000 people. In Japan, where the laws are similar, the numbers are even lower. Firearms are present in only 0.6% of homes in Japan and the intentional gun death rate is 0.07% per 100,000 people.

    In Canada, where guns laws are somewhat looser, some hand guns are available, but assault weapons are banned, 26% of homes have guns present. Almost four people per 100,000 are killed in intentional gun violence each year. Switzerland requires registration of guns and licensing of gun owners, but places no restriction on the types of guns owned. Gun deaths are 6.2 per 100,000 people and 27.2% of homes have weapons.

    In the United States, where gun registration, licensing requirements and gun availability vary from state to state, 41% of homes keep firearms and a staggering 13.47 people per 100,000 are killed in intentional gun violence. The number of intentional gun deaths per 100,000 people in the United States is more than double of that of Norway, which has a per 100,000 death rate 6.65, the highest rate next to the United States.

     

    http://voices.yahoo.com/international-gun-laws-show-firearm-availability-is-310337.html

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4.

    Justice Breyer was skeptical about what these comparisons proved. "Which is the cause and which the effect?" he asked. "The proposition that strict gun laws cause crime is harder to accept than the proposition that strict gun laws in part grow out of the fact that a nation already has a higher crime rate."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    No response from the otherside is telling. Keep your head down and let this thing age. Then wait for the official NRA response. At that point we'll see the usual parrot heads regurgitating the same message. 

    At least ban assault weapons, then regulate and tax the crappe out of hanguns.

    Sorry, I have no numerical stats.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    No response from the otherside is telling. Keep your head down and let this thing age. Then wait for the official NRA response. At that point we'll see the usual parrot heads regurgitating the same message. 

    At least ban assault weapons, then regulate and tax the crappe out of hanguns.

    Sorry, I have no numerical stats.



    Two posts in and you are already claiming the "other side" is cowering in fear?

    the numbers don't add up.  My thought is that the numbers presented include other than homicides, probably include suicides.  

    Besides, who care what's happening in Europe? Twice in the last century they ran off the rails and ended up brining most of the rest of the world into hard times.  Not really a fan of the "everything in Europe is better" school of thought.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    Photo

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    It's the people not the guns.  NH has the third lowest violent crime rate in America and very high gun ownership and very lenient gun laws.  Does that mean giving everybody in Chicago and D.C. a gun will stop crime??  Of course not.  It's the people....and everybody is afraid to acknowledge that out of political correctness.  

    You do understand that a kid who grows up in a family with two parents living in a single family home with two incomes three toilets and a garage who goes to church on Sunday and plays soccer is less likely to be involved in a violent crime than a kid from a home where his mom has three kids from two different men, is unmarried on food stamps, never knew her own father and is struggling to make ends meet.

    It's behavior and choices....some states have more people who are responsible and productive, other states have lots of people who have less responsible behavior that leads to violent crime.

    It's not guns..it's people.  

    Also....In England where guns are banned...40% of home invasions occur when people are home....in the US it's less than 10%....the reason??  Criminals in the US are afraid of being shot.  In England it's against the law to defend yourself and criminals know that.

    Are there too many guns in the hands of the wrong people??  Absolutely....the problem is that gun laws only work on law abiding citizens.  The ONLY solution is confiscating all guns everywhere and that's not happening.

    Banning the sale of guns will make people feel better after friday but wont change anything.  Punishing law abiding citizens for the behavior of criminals isn't sensible

    I want someone to blame that is still alive for friday....but that's not possible the only person to blame is dead because he killed himself.

     

     

     

          

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    Again the fvcking nose-to-rectum crowd is just regurgitating whacko wingnut talking points from the echo chambers. And just making shiite up to fit their ignorant ideology.

    We get it. You fvcking morons are more in love with an inanimate metal object than a child.  Guns make you feel strong and because you are inferior in every other way you need something to make up the diffrence.

     

    What can be asserted is that the states with the strictest gun laws - Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York - have among the lowest gun death rates, according to figures from the federal Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, and those with the most lenient laws - Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi - have among the highest.

    Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University, put it this way: "My research over 35 years demonstrates that the effect of gun availability is not to increase the crime rate but to intensify the crime that exists and convert assaults into murders. I have never seen evidence that gun access influences the volume of violent crime. But when you add guns to a violent situation, you get a higher level of murder."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/other-states-and-other-times-would-have-posed-obstacles-for-gunman.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

    Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

     

     

    Harvard Injury Control Research Center

    Homicide:

    1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

    Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

    Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


    2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

    We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

    Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


    3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

    Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

    After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

    Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


    4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

    Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

    Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

     

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    "Again the fvcking nose-to-rectum crowd is just regurgitating whacko wingnut talking points from the echo chambers. And just making shiite up to fit their ignorant ideology"

    Angryman with his usual conciliatory rhetoric....full of Holiday cheer, or perhaps  anger management meds...

    "What can be asserted is that the states with the strictest gun laws - Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York - have among the lowest gun death rates, according to figures from the federal Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, and those with the most lenient laws - Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi - have among the highest. "

    The impression would be 'gun death rates' involves criminals and madmen killing innocents with guns...but this is not what it means, is it?

    It is always 1984 with the progressive causes, twisting the English language to their ends...

    Their definition of "gun death rates" include hunting accidents, suicides, and  police or in some cases private citizens heroically risking their lives and discharging firearms to prevent heinous crimes by armed criminals. So what does skewing these numbers prove?  Nothing.

    A woman heroically defending herself from an armed rapist would be considered a "gun death" by the oh-so-politically-correct Centers for Disease Prevention...(the Second Amendment is apparently a  'disease'.)

    Low population states like Wyoming with many hunters will have high "gun death rates", by hunting accidents. What this proves in terms of gun control is...nothing.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    It is always 1984 with the progressive causes, twisting the English language to their ends... Their definition of "gun death rates" include hunting accidents, suicides, and  police or in some cases private citizens heroically risking their lives and discharging firearms to prevent heinous crimes by armed criminals. So what does skewing these numbers prove?  Nothing. A woman heroically defending herself from an armed rapist would be considered a "gun death" by the oh-so-politically-correct Centers for Disease Prevention...(the Second Amendment is apparently a  'disease'.) Low population states like Wyoming with many hunters will have high "gun death rates", by hunting accidents. What this proves in terms of gun control is...nothing. 
     




    Again, the freakin whacko wingnuts just making up shiite to fit their ideolgical ignorance.

     

    In 2007 there were none, nada, zip hunting related deaths in WY and only 2, non-fatal accidents in the entire state.

    Dawson said that while every incident is tragic, considering the tens of thousands of hunters in Wyoming every year, the few accidents confirm that hunting is a safe activity.

    http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/taah-v-20080418.html

    But why would these ideological imbeciles let facts get in the way of their fanatsies.

    What's freakin hilarious is these morons challenging publically available data by just making up shiite. Geez, you freakin morons are ridiculous.

    Idiots.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

     Keep on saying that 12 and you'll be the first person that gets shot when you're home is invaded.

     Hello everyone. How about letting the guy who's had a gun pointed directly at him, who's had a knife pressed against him, and who's been held to a wall by his throat say something about weapons.

     And no, I wasn't in the military. This was when I was in grade and high school in two different states.

     I know what it's like to have no weapons and wind up staring one down. I know what it's like to have a weapon and be in a standoff. Do not even begin to tell me that not having the weapon to defend yourself with is better than not having one.

     That doesn't mean I believe that people should have weapons for the sake of having weapons. I am a full believer in that everyone with access to said weapon should be fully trained on how to use it. This prevents accidents which can result in serious injury or death, which I'm sure showed up in the numbers reported earlier.

     I am also a big believer in learning how to use ordinary items found in your home as weapons. The most important weapon of all, though, is yourself. You don't have to be a black belt to do some major damage to someone but you do need some basic training on how and where to hit, not to do damage but instead to force the person attacking you to back off in pain and give you enough time to run for help.

     If everyone knew how to defent themselves then you wouldn't have as many deaths. You'd still have people committing mass murders but the death toll would be lower as people would react in a way to defend or attack instead of trying to hide. Running or hiding gets you killed. Taking out the attacker gets you hurt, but you will live, and so will the other people around you.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    No response from the otherside is telling. Keep your head down and let this thing age. Then wait for the official NRA response. At that point we'll see the usual parrot heads regurgitating the same message. 

    At least ban assault weapons, then regulate and tax the crappe out of hanguns.

    Sorry, I have no numerical stats.



    Yes, tax the crappe out of handguns....that's sure to stop mass killings....yikes

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    This is purely an aside, because it's a claim often taken on faith.

    Note that I'm not - now or before - advocating for blanket restrictions or taking paw's squirrel gun away. (assault weapons are another story)

    I've seen some well-qualified research that shows some stricter gun laws do indeed correlate to lower gun homicides.  I have not seen as much reputable data on the other side, so...

    I'm looking for objective, peer-reviewed studies on both sides of the issue, because even if we believe 'gun control' is a pipe dream, we should know what the real numbers are and what we're dealing with.

    For instance, gun ownership in other countries varies widely without much trend to discern...guns are prevalent in seemingly peaceful (Sweden) and violent countries (Yemen) alike.  There's even some research that shows gun control laws in the U.S. have an effect on cross-border spillover violence in Mexico.

    For now, let's keep this just about the numbers....

     

     



    I think it's more to do with our culture than guns alone. Switzerland has a high gun ownership yet there rate of death by guns is 3.5 to our 9.2

    Then you have El Salvador with 5.8 gun ownership per 100 residents, versus US of 88.8 yet El Salvadors rate of gun death is 50.36 compared to 9.2 for US

    Jamaica 47.44 rate of death but only 8.1 gun ownership per 100 residents

    Then of course Sweden 31.6 gun ownership and only 1.47 deaths. Of course if we had women like they do in Sweden maybe we'd be happier : )

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to TFefio's comment:

    Since the days of our founding fathers we a have willingly grown our law enforcement and military for protection and do not need these weapons for self protection. 



    Tell that to the loved ones of those who've been killed during home invasions.

    Look, I agree there is no need for Joe citizen to have an assault rifle. Also no need for Joe citizen to have 30 round clips. Also no need for Joe citizen to be able to purchase bullet proof vests and other military-grade gear. But let's not pretend that the police can protect every single citizen 24/7. They can't. Clearly the countless stories of home invasions prove that. So if a person wants to have a gun in their home in case they are ever the victim of such an invasion then I say go for it. If you obtain a license and buy a gun legally I have no issue. It's that persons right to do so. 

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to TFefio's comment:

    I hear ya pink. Look at it this way, you shoot someone entering your home and now "you" go to jail. So what's the point? I keep a Louisville slugger under my bed.if figure I have the same chance of survival. 

    With a 3 and a 13 year old in the house don't want to run the risk of them having an accident as well. 

    This one hit me hard. I can't defend it. 



    I was under the impression one could defend ones life if a person enters ones home in a threatening manor?

    I hear you in regards to your kids. I don't have guns either and also have a Louisville slugger for protection. But I also feel more comfortable with my ability to defend myself. There are many others who wouldn't be able to fight off an intruder and therefore for them a gun is the protection they need. We're all different.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to undead's comment:

     Keep on saying that 12 and you'll be the first person that gets shot when you're home is invaded.

     Hello everyone. How about letting the guy who's had a gun pointed directly at him, who's had a knife pressed against him, and who's been held to a wall by his throat say something about weapons.

     And no, I wasn't in the military. This was when I was in grade and high school in two different states.

     I know what it's like to have no weapons and wind up staring one down. I know what it's like to have a weapon and be in a standoff. Do not even begin to tell me that not having the weapon to defend yourself with is better than not having one.

     That doesn't mean I believe that people should have weapons for the sake of having weapons. I am a full believer in that everyone with access to said weapon should be fully trained on how to use it. This prevents accidents which can result in serious injury or death, which I'm sure showed up in the numbers reported earlier.

     I am also a big believer in learning how to use ordinary items found in your home as weapons. The most important weapon of all, though, is yourself. You don't have to be a black belt to do some major damage to someone but you do need some basic training on how and where to hit, not to do damage but instead to force the person attacking you to back off in pain and give you enough time to run for help.

     If everyone knew how to defent themselves then you wouldn't have as many deaths. You'd still have people committing mass murders but the death toll would be lower as people would react in a way to defend or attack instead of trying to hide. Running or hiding gets you killed. Taking out the attacker gets you hurt, but you will live, and so will the other people around you.

     




    I own a few guns and have no problem with people owning them as well.

    I've also actually been shot, through a flack vest, by a military-grade weapon. The vest might as well been made out of cotton, for all the good it did against a high-powered round.

    If I had my way, civilians would be limited to revolvers, bolt-action rifles and break-apart shotguns. There is no need for any other weapon in a civilians hands. Those three will cover any situation a law abiding citizen would encounter, whether it be self-defense or hunting or just killing paper targets.

    And just because civilians want something doesn't mean they should be allowed to own it.

    There's a reason we have banned other weapons like grenades and machine-guns and bazookas. There is no logical reason for a civilian to own them.

    The potential for someone using these weapons for mass murder far outweigh any benefits a civilian would gain by target shooting.

    Heck, permit them like full-auto weapons. That way if you want to shoot targets you can go to a federally licensed gun range and rent one for a day and kill all the paper targets you want.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    If I had my way, civilians would be limited to revolvers, bolt-action rifles and break-apart shotguns. There is no need for any other weapon in a civilians hands. Those three will cover any situation a law abiding citizen would encounter, whether it be self-defense or hunting or just killing paper targets.



    I would actually have no problem with that. I actually prefer revolvers. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to undead's comment:

     Keep on saying that 12 and you'll be the first person that gets shot when you're home is invaded.

     Hello everyone. How about letting the guy who's had a gun pointed directly at him, who's had a knife pressed against him, and who's been held to a wall by his throat say something about weapons.

     And no, I wasn't in the military. This was when I was in grade and high school in two different states.

     I know what it's like to have no weapons and wind up staring one down. I know what it's like to have a weapon and be in a standoff. Do not even begin to tell me that not having the weapon to defend yourself with is better than not having one.

     That doesn't mean I believe that people should have weapons for the sake of having weapons. I am a full believer in that everyone with access to said weapon should be fully trained on how to use it. This prevents accidents which can result in serious injury or death, which I'm sure showed up in the numbers reported earlier.

     I am also a big believer in learning how to use ordinary items found in your home as weapons. The most important weapon of all, though, is yourself. You don't have to be a black belt to do some major damage to someone but you do need some basic training on how and where to hit, not to do damage but instead to force the person attacking you to back off in pain and give you enough time to run for help.

     If everyone knew how to defent themselves then you wouldn't have as many deaths. You'd still have people committing mass murders but the death toll would be lower as people would react in a way to defend or attack instead of trying to hide. Running or hiding gets you killed. Taking out the attacker gets you hurt, but you will live, and so will the other people around you.

     




    I own a few guns and have no problem with people owning them as well.

    I've also actually been shot, through a flack vest, by a military-grade weapon. The vest might as well been made out of cotton, for all the good it did against a high-powered round.

    If I had my way, civilians would be limited to revolvers, bolt-action rifles and break-apart shotguns. There is no need for any other weapon in a civilians hands. Those three will cover any situation a law abiding citizen would encounter, whether it be self-defense or hunting or just killing paper targets.

    And just because civilians want something doesn't mean they should be allowed to own it.

    There's a reason we have banned other weapons like grenades and machine-guns and bazookas. There is no logical reason for a civilian to own them.

    The potential for someone using these weapons for mass murder far outweigh any benefits a civilian would gain by target shooting.

    Heck, permit them like full-auto weapons. That way if you want to shoot targets you can go to a federally licensed gun range and rent one for a day and kill all the paper targets you want.




     You faced military targets, I faced mafia and gang targets. When your life's on the line it doesn't matter what you're facing, so long as you have something that works fast and does the job.

     And I find your concending attitude towards non-military people to be disturbing. Just because I didn't have your training doesn't mean I don't know how to use them or have scruples of my own, and it doesn't automatically make you a better shot either.

     This is the real world. Chaos reigns, not order, and you can't change that outside of your own 4 walls. You have a bad habit of assuming that John Q. Public will never have to face a full blown war on their own. I hate to tell you this but the US was successfully attacked on its own soil on 9/11, and only a fool would believe it couldn't happen again. There is no guarantee that a full scale invasion won't happen down the road and I'd hate to think of what would happen if the town shows up holding a revolver against a helicopter armed with gunpods.

     Training is the key. Don't just teach people how to use the weapon, teach them the merits. Install a sense of conscience. There is a price to pay for pulling the trigger against a non-paper target. Explain this and make them understand what they are getting into when they have to make a decision on how to use it.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    Chaos reigns, not order, and you can't change that outside of your own 4 walls. You have a bad habit of assuming that John Q. Public will never have to face a full blown war on their own.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Ummm, ya, you really lost me on that one, among other things.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to undead's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to undead's comment:

     Keep on saying that 12 and you'll be the first person that gets shot when you're home is invaded.

     Hello everyone. How about letting the guy who's had a gun pointed directly at him, who's had a knife pressed against him, and who's been held to a wall by his throat say something about weapons.

     And no, I wasn't in the military. This was when I was in grade and high school in two different states.

     I know what it's like to have no weapons and wind up staring one down. I know what it's like to have a weapon and be in a standoff. Do not even begin to tell me that not having the weapon to defend yourself with is better than not having one.

     That doesn't mean I believe that people should have weapons for the sake of having weapons. I am a full believer in that everyone with access to said weapon should be fully trained on how to use it. This prevents accidents which can result in serious injury or death, which I'm sure showed up in the numbers reported earlier.

     I am also a big believer in learning how to use ordinary items found in your home as weapons. The most important weapon of all, though, is yourself. You don't have to be a black belt to do some major damage to someone but you do need some basic training on how and where to hit, not to do damage but instead to force the person attacking you to back off in pain and give you enough time to run for help.

     If everyone knew how to defent themselves then you wouldn't have as many deaths. You'd still have people committing mass murders but the death toll would be lower as people would react in a way to defend or attack instead of trying to hide. Running or hiding gets you killed. Taking out the attacker gets you hurt, but you will live, and so will the other people around you.

     




    I own a few guns and have no problem with people owning them as well.

    I've also actually been shot, through a flack vest, by a military-grade weapon. The vest might as well been made out of cotton, for all the good it did against a high-powered round.

    If I had my way, civilians would be limited to revolvers, bolt-action rifles and break-apart shotguns. There is no need for any other weapon in a civilians hands. Those three will cover any situation a law abiding citizen would encounter, whether it be self-defense or hunting or just killing paper targets.

    And just because civilians want something doesn't mean they should be allowed to own it.

    There's a reason we have banned other weapons like grenades and machine-guns and bazookas. There is no logical reason for a civilian to own them.

    The potential for someone using these weapons for mass murder far outweigh any benefits a civilian would gain by target shooting.

    Heck, permit them like full-auto weapons. That way if you want to shoot targets you can go to a federally licensed gun range and rent one for a day and kill all the paper targets you want.




     You faced military targets, I faced mafia and gang targets. When your life's on the line it doesn't matter what you're facing, so long as you have something that works fast and does the job.

     And I find your concending attitude towards non-military people to be disturbing. Just because I didn't have your training doesn't mean I don't know how to use them or have scruples of my own, and it doesn't automatically make you a better shot either.

     This is the real world. Chaos reigns, not order, and you can't change that outside of your own 4 walls. You have a bad habit of assuming that John Q. Public will never have to face a full blown war on their own. I hate to tell you this but the US was successfully attacked on its own soil on 9/11, and only a fool would believe it couldn't happen again. There is no guarantee that a full scale invasion won't happen down the road and I'd hate to think of what would happen if the town shows up holding a revolver against a helicopter armed with gunpods.

     Training is the key. Don't just teach people how to use the weapon, teach them the merits. Install a sense of conscience. There is a price to pay for pulling the trigger against a non-paper target. Explain this and make them understand what they are getting into when they have to make a decision on how to use it.

     




    You dope.  The guy that killed all those kids did have training.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

     Yes he did, but when you add ADD, Aspergers, or Autism into the mix it doesn't work very well, does it. He got the 'how to' part down cold but, alas, his mind wouldn't allow for the rules and regulations.

     Remember, genius with no morals equals evil genius, which is what the shooter apparently was. He's the last guy you want holding a gun at you. His mom apparently thought she could bring him around but she apparently failed miserably. A shame that so many others had to suffer for that but what's done is done.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Where is the Evidence For Gun Ownership vs. Gun Violence?

    In response to undead's comment:

     Yes he did, but when you add ADD, Aspergers, or Autism into the mix it doesn't work very well, does it. He got the 'how to' part down cold but, alas, his mind wouldn't allow for the rules and regulations.

     Remember, genius with no morals equals evil genius, which is what the shooter apparently was. He's the last guy you want holding a gun at you. His mom apparently thought she could bring him around but she apparently failed miserably. A shame that so many others had to suffer for that but what's done is done.

     



    A note here: there is very little correlation between asperger's/autism and violence, much less gun violence.

    I get and agree with your point about something being wrong with someone's cranial "mixture" and the risk of guns, but those conditions don't usually apply.  In fact, they are much more likely to hurt themselves than others.

    Absolutely, some people should not have access to guns, but I'm not entirely sure that can be determined by a simple, one-word diagnosis.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts