Do guns make us more safe?

[Bray123]

No. Statistically we're less safe with fewer gun laws. The numbers don't lie

Which numbers are those?

 

[ll74]

Then there's this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1698836968086364339

Guns obviously don't work the same way for everyone

 

[HisArpy]

So because 28 > 22 that means the minority is wrong. Hmmmm.
But those 28 don't actually"categorically " disagree. In fact all of those 28 have very significant numbers within them that don't agree.
And those 22 actually represent a lot more people than those 28 do.
Which would mean by your own justification that you being actually in the minority means you are wrong.
The constitution has been found and is wrong on certain things, or at a minimum is out of date and requires updating. Perhaps your voting wife or non slave neighbor can fill you in on some of those things over a prohibited, then not prohibited alcohol beverage sometime. Continuing to clutch to the second amendment pretending you are part of a well regulated militia might work in the voices in your head but no sane person believes that is what any current gun owner is doing. Nor do they believe the founding fathers ever wrote the second amendment envisioning the kind of artillery that are being used every day to slaughter kids in schools and other constant gun murders in our country. Let's be real clear - you want your guns so you can murder other Americans and you want to use the constitution to defend those desires. Maybe you can circle jerk other gun owners into fake phrases like "it's just for self defense" or "I'm one of the good guys" or "I'm a law abiding one" but your desires and wants are crystal clear with every statement you actually make and every vote you make and every action you take.

Hey Sherlock, even in your fantasy country of The Progressive Democracy of America(TM) the majority rules. And, in the Republic of the United States of America, your fantasy doesn't count either because 28 representative voices is bigger than 1 whiny assed bastard who can't understand or accept reality.

You lose.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Exactly. It's a hypothetical that is currently very unlikely, which also means you were served up on a silver platter the easiest opportunity to state you really are law abiding, but you still didn't because you still aren't.

No one is speaking for gun owners. We just let your own words continue to show your true beliefs, as illegal and murderous as they may be, show themselves.

You see Tom, I live in the real world, not you hypothetical one. I stated why your hypothetical scenario was Bull Shit and too bad you don't like that. My bet is if your scenario occurred whether or not I turned over my guns would inconsequential to the reality that there is no way the government could EVER confiscate all the firearms out there. Hell man there are millions they don't even know exist. So stop playing idiotic games and try to deal with the real issues of gun violence, criminals and the mentally ill. Gun owners like me are less danger to you than the average driver on the interstate.

 

[Dribble]

A proven liar...stating another lie.

 

[adrina]

If you refuse to look you will never see the data you say you've never seen.

OTOH...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082/

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/c...nsive-gun-use-statistic-so-they-hid-the-data/



Now you can longer say there's no evidence. You can disagree with the evidence, but you cannot deny it exists.

Unless of course you stay true to character.

From the first link, at the bottom of the article:

Update: A response from Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes, authors of The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership


When Gary Kleck can't defend, he attacks. Instead of offering new insight, Kleck instead baselessly speculates on our motives, suggesting we “hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable.” To be clear: prohibition is not something we have ever suggested in any of our writing, all of which can found at armedwithreason.com. Not that it should matter, but neither of us are merely “investment counselors” either, as Kleck suggests. In fact, DeFilippis spent most of last year helping design and analyze surveys much larger than Kleck’s.


The Florida State professor even goes so far as to describe Dr. David Hemenway, director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center and author of more than 130 articles and five books in Economics and Public Health (a total that includes two decisive rebuttals to Kleck and several surveys), as “a man named David Hemenway… who is also untrained in survey methods.”


Rather than confront the significant, multidisciplinary research showing that the false-positive problem is ubiquitous when measuring rare events, Kleck pretends the problem is negligible, and links us to a 1998 “rebuttal” where he references surveys that have nothing to do with rare events. As Dr. Hemenway has extensively detailed, suggesting that false negatives could somehow outweigh false positives is indulging in fantasy.


Kleck also ignores the fact that his results repeatedly fail tests of external validity. In our original article, we mention that Kleck’s data would require, impossibly, that gun owners use their gun in self-defense in more than 100 percent of burglaries. Kleck’s data also suggests that every year hundreds of thousands of criminals are shot by law-abiding citizens. But where are the hospital records to validate this claim? Kleck insists, with no medical knowledge and without citing a single study, that the vast majority of these criminals never seek hospital treatment, a claim scoffed at by medical professionals.


Kleck concludes his article by saying we “have not offered any new criticisms” and, like Dr. Hemenway before us, do “not once cite the one thing that could legitimately cast doubt on our estimates—better empirical evidence.” However, had he read the second page of our column, he would have seen that the entire point of our article was to highlight new empirical evidence debunking Kleck’s claims.


Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?


It would be disappointing to see any professor relegated to using falsehoods and ad hominem attacks in a desperate attempt to preserve the tattered remains of his thoroughly repudiated research. Yet, such tactics are particularly deplorable when they are used in service of a gun-worshipping culture that generates tragedy on a massive scale.

From the second link, at the top of the article:

UPDATE: After we posted this, Gary Kleck was informed that his assumption about the nature of the CDC survey data he’d discovered was incorrect and withdrew his paper re-calculating the number of annual defensive gun uses. Reason.com added the following statement on their article about his original conclusions:

The paper discussed in this post below has been withdrawn by the author Gary Kleck after Reason brought to his attention an important detail first pointed out by Robert VerBruggen of National Review: Kleck in the original paper treats the CDC’s surveys on defensive gun use as if they were national in scope, as Kleck’s original survey was, but they were not. From VerBruggen’s own looks at CDC’s raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Kleck says he is working on a new version of the paper that recalculates the degree to which CDC’s survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they are complete. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions.

The author of the study you are pointing to has retracted his paper.

 

[adrina]

No. Statistically we're less safe with fewer gun laws. The numbers don't lie

Which statistics?
Which numbers?
How many guns is safe enough?
How few of guns is not safe enough?

 

[TrailerHitch]

A proven liar...stating another lie.

Yawn...Get over yourself.

 

[Bn2f]

No. Statistically we're less safe with fewer gun laws. The numbers don't lie

Must suck to go to an NRA convention and feel so vulnerable because they don't seem to know nuthin on the stats you know of as they pat you down and make you less safe with their oppressive gun "rules" and metal detectors and whatnot.

 

[goodgirl29]

Yeah they are "law abiding" but only when the law serves what they want, after that they turn into "take my guns from my cold, dead hands" proving they don't care about law at all. Which actually makes sense because they also pretend they aren't associated with the problems of gun violence and gun deaths even though they are out there pushing for no restrictions and no limits and no safety thus proving the don't actually care how bad the problems are, they just want to keep their murder toys.

most gun owners I know do NOT want mentally unstable folks with guns, myself included. They are NOT against certain measures to keep guns from folks who shouldn't have them or time delays, etc. Let's not judge all by the few, most extreme members, just because you don't agree with them.

Further, there's this thing called the 2nd amendment. So yeah, law-abiding citizens are granted the right to bear arms, just as we are all granted the chance of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Has nothing to do with 'wanting to keep their murder toys' (as guns are NO TOY and any responsible owner will tell you that 110%, but hey, there's that judging thing again!) but rather protect themselves and their own. I will never understand why that concept is so damn hard for some to grasp.

If we're really trying to determine WHY gun violence has become so prevalent (I think we can ALL agree that certain cities being soft on violent criminals is a HUGE problem and perpetuates that type of violence further) but mass shooting events, lets be honest: it's usually a SOCIAL/MENTAL issue with one or a few sick or very radical individuals. Access to weapons was just as easy back in the 70's & since, and hell, riding to school in a pick-up truck with a gun rack was very common. But the primary difference seems to be that kids/young people back then had some common sense/courtesy and were brought up to respect others and not solve everything with violence. Yes, merely my opinion, but I think many might agree with me here.

 

[adrina]

most gun owners I know do NOT want mentally unstable folks with guns, myself included. They are NOT against certain measures to keep guns from folks who shouldn't have them or time delays, etc. Let's not judge all by the few, most extreme members, just because you don't agree with them.

I bet you don't vote that way. Shrugs. Nor do you vote to support mental health services is my guess.

The reality is that our permissive gun policies have led to more guns, more gun crime, more gun violence and more death.

You've been monetized by the gun lobby. Your fear and indignation is very profitable. To them.

 

[Bn2f]

most gun owners I know do NOT want mentally unstable folks with guns, myself included. They are NOT against certain measures to keep guns from folks who shouldn't have them or time delays, etc. Let's not judge all by the few, most extreme members, just because you don't agree with them.

Further, there's this thing called the 2nd amendment. So yeah, law-abiding citizens are granted the right to bear arms, just as we are all granted the chance of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Has nothing to do with 'wanting to keep their murder toys' (as guns are NO TOY and any responsible owner will tell you that 110%, but hey, there's that judging thing again!) but rather protect themselves and their own. I will never understand why that concept is so damn hard for some to grasp.

If we're really trying to determine WHY gun violence has become so prevalent (I think we can ALL agree that certain cities being soft on violent criminals is a HUGE problem and perpetuates that type of violence further) but mass shooting events, lets be honest: it's usually a SOCIAL/MENTAL issue with one or a few sick or very radical individuals. Access to weapons was just as easy back in the 70's & since, and hell, riding to school in a pick-up truck with a gun rack was very common. But the primary difference seems to be that kids/young people back then had some common sense/courtesy and were brought up to respect others and not solve everything with violence. Yes, merely my opinion, but I think many might agree with me here.

Goodgirl29. Welcome!
No. No, ma'am, we can't ALL agree.
What you just posted was heartfelt and seemingly sensible, but honestly, I'm only going to give you credit for covering with flowery rhetoric the same old and tired tropes the worst of the gun advocates here espouse.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I bet you don't vote that way. Shrugs. Nor do you vote to support mental health services is my guess.

The reality is that our permissive gun policies have led to more guns, more gun crime, more gun violence and more death.

You've been monetized by the gun lobby. Your fear and indignation is very profitable. To them.

So are you a single issue voter? Which one? Because sadly it is impossible these days to find a middle of the road candidate that both sides could agree on. I am definitely not a one issue voter, no matter what the issue and I will pick a candidate, no matter what party, that more closely represents my broad spectrum views than single issues.

 

[goodgirl29]

to presume you know ANYTHING about how I vote is absolutely silly. Again, MENTAL health is the underlying problem here. We all criticize mass shooting events, but what about all the illegale guns in huge cities (chicago is first to come to mind) and the # of innocent lives lost every weekend, usually due to crime: drugs & gangs, etc. Those guns did not come into existance because of lax gun laws, but rather because of the strict gun laws. Once again, criminals don't care about the law. Not sure why that's also a hard concept to grasp. Once again, it's like elementary school recess: punish the GOOD kids for the BAD kids misbehaving.

Further, I'm not afraid of somebody harming me, as I live in a pretty nice, rural area and love it. However, there is nothing wrong with being prepared, able to take care of oneself and provide. But nice try to put me down to attempt to prove your rather pointless point. Further, it's MY hard-earned money to spend. As long as it's legal and not harming anybody else, that's my choice on where to spend it. (I'm actually quite cheap and haven't bought a new weapon in over 10 years: I have what I need/want and am good with that!) Shall we critique your shopping habits next?

 

[Bn2f]

I AM TIRED. The ones here you posted your beliefs to have heard it all before and have no patience for smug righteousness.
Unfortunately, you just proved, at least to me, that my initial presumption was right.
Blah, blah, Chicago.
Blah, blah, mental health.
Blah, blah, I'll entertain you and your solutions but in actuality I feel the 2nd amendment is an unamendable amendment handed down to Americans by God.

 

[adrina]

to presume you know ANYTHING about how I vote is absolutely silly. Again, MENTAL health is the underlying problem here. We all criticize mass shooting events, but what about all the illegale guns in huge cities (chicago is first to come to mind) and the # of innocent lives lost every weekend, usually due to crime: drugs & gangs, etc. Those guns did not come into existance because of lax gun laws, but rather because of the strict gun laws. Once again, criminals don't care about the law. Not sure why that's also a hard concept to grasp. Once again, it's like elementary school recess: punish the GOOD kids for the BAD kids misbehaving.

Further, I'm not afraid of somebody harming me, as I live in a pretty nice, rural area and love it. However, there is nothing wrong with being prepared, able to take care of oneself and provide. But nice try to put me down to attempt to prove your rather pointless point. Further, it's MY hard-earned money to spend. As long as it's legal and not harming anybody else, that's my choice on where to spend it. (I'm actually quite cheap and haven't bought a new weapon in over 10 years: I have what I need/want and am good with that!) Shall we critique your shopping habits next?

Re Chicago et al, watch this please (it's not long and frankly I get tired of typing the same old stuff repeatedly.)

Okay, now that you've had that bit of information put into the computer do you have any alterations to your first paragraph?

Which politicians do you support who actively advocate for greater mental health care?

My shopping habits are likely far more in line with my belief system than your voting habits.

 

[Bn2f]

And it does matter how you vote.
It is key to how serious folks are to finding solutions, otherwise, you're here just to wax poetic on your right to shoot your gun.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You see Tom, I live in the real world, not you hypothetical one. I stated why your hypothetical scenario was Bull Shit and too bad you don't like that. My bet is if your scenario occurred whether or not I turned over my guns would inconsequential to the reality that there is no way the government could EVER confiscate all the firearms out there. Hell man there are millions they don't even know exist. So stop playing idiotic games and try to deal with the real issues of gun violence, criminals and the mentally ill. Gun owners like me are less danger to you than the average driver on the interstate.

The government doesn't need to confiscate ALL the firearms. Once private gun ownership is illegal, all the law-abiding gun owners will give theirs up voluntarily.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The government doesn't need to confiscate ALL the firearms. Once private gun ownership is illegal, all the law-abiding gun owners will give theirs up voluntarily.

When tyranny becomes law, Rebellion becomes duty.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

When tyranny becomes law, Rebellion becomes duty.

So you're only going to obey the law, when you favour what the law says. That doesn't bode well for you in the long run.

 

[TrailerHitch]

So you're only going to obey the law, when you favour what the law says. That doesn't bode well for you in the long run.

There are million's that think just like me.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There are million's that think just like me.

Yes there are, and that is the problem.

 

[goodgirl29]

Re Chicago et al, watch this please (it's not long and frankly I get tired of typing the same old stuff repeatedly.)

Okay, now that you've had that bit of information put into the computer do you have any alterations to your first paragraph?

Which politicians do you support who actively advocate for greater mental health care?

My shopping habits are likely far more in line with my belief system than your voting habits.

"gun deaths have reached an all time high"..... hmmmm, gun deaths, not mass shooting deaths. we're going to agree to disagree. good day & best of luck using that asshat/moron to sound persuasive.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Yes there are, and that is the problem.

No WE are NOT the problem. Your need to stereotype all gun owners as criminals or mentally ill is the problem. Coincidentally that attitude is why you never accomplish anything to stop gun violence.

 

[phrodeau]

No WE are NOT the problem. Your need to stereotype all gun owners as criminals or mentally ill is the problem. Coincidentally that attitude is why you never accomplish anything to stop gun violence.

Your mental illness is documented on this board.