~ This sums up my entire feelings on gun ownership pretty much. There is no evidence that owning firearms in any way causes violence or deaths. At worst.
At best, data shows that there is a slight correlation towards a safer society and freedom =D
tldr; COME AT ME BRO
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread: Your move, Brady Campaign.
Your move, Brady Campaign.
Kwes likes this post
Statistics showing crime with illegal gun ownership vs legal gun ownership will probably give a lot of evidence supporting your side too. I'm guessing its something like 85 to 15, where 85% is crime where the person committing it isn't legally allowed to own a gun.PS4|PS3|PS2|PS1|PSVITA|XBOX 360|XBOX|N64|3DS XL|DSi|Gameboy Advance|Gameboy Color|PC
Vulgotha likes this post
I'm perfectly fine with not owning a gun.2010 Lethal's FF League Champion
I shall post more of the same:
Here are some statistics that you asked for here and here:
- In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.
- 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.
- Even banning guns does not slow down criminals. In the U.K., where private ownership of firearms is practically forbidden, criminals have and use guns regularly, and even build their own. One enterprising fellow converted 170 starter pistols to functioning firearms and sold them to gangs. Hundreds of such underground gun factories have been established, contributing to a 35% jump in gun violence
- Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.
- Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
- Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.
- For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.
- When using guns in self-defense:
• 83% of robbery victims were not injured.
• 88% of assault victims were not hurt.
• 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.
- After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.
- “…most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
- 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
- Police have trouble keeping their own guns. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes.
- You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were: 119, resisting with a gun 6%, did nothing at all 25%, resisted with a knife 40%, non-violent resistance 45%
- Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
- When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.
- The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury.
- In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year
- Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995
the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.
What I would like to see are some statistics that show a connection to a ban on guns and lower gun violence. There are NONE. Notice that I’m not asking for something that shows a correlation. Correlation does not mean causation, everyone in college should know that. It is a fact that criminals fear armed citizens more than police. An armed populace decreases crime more effectively than trust in the police.
Jared Loughner did not obtain his gun legally so what makes you think more laws would have stopped him? We need better enforcement of laws already on the books. Don’t push for more stringent gun laws if the current laws are already adequate, push for better enforcement of the laws. And what about the school psychologist who knew that he was insane but did nothing about it? This was a PROFESSIONAL that deemed him mentally unstable and did nothing about it.
Seung Hui Cho killed two people in the early morning. Three hours later he came back and killed 30 people and himself. If one person would have legally been able to carry a firearm in that first classroom over thirty people would be alive right now. Police officers did nothing in those three hours. There was no active security on that campus like concealed carry provides.
The overall population of America shouldn’t be treated like they are suicidal like you are implying by using the suicidal anti-gun logic. You claim to be a libertarian yet you don’t support the right for autonomous adults to kill themselves?
You call yourself a Libertarian yet you are against the human right to protect yourself (and others) and your property, which is a large part of being a libertarian, which I am.
Glocks with standard magazines have close to 20 round capacities. Ten more rounds didn’t change much. Do you really believe that if extended magazines were illegal he wouldn’t have been able to obtain one? On the black market? Stealing one? It’s like drug prohibition, all it creates is a dangerous profitable black market.
Firearms aren’t just for killing people, you have to realize that. I own over 50 firearms and have many magazines, some holding up to 75 rounds like the one for my AK-47. I enjoy shooting competitively, hunting and target shooting. They make target shooting easier as well as competition shooting. I have never killed any one nor do I ever intend to (unless my life is threatened). I don’t understand why you are wanting to make it more difficult for people like myself to buy firearms. I understand that you simply want the best for everyone and I want to make America safer for the average person too, but your logic doesn’t provide a solution. Making it harder for law-abiding citizens (what deters criminals from engaging in violent behavior) to obtain firearms for self-defense is not the solution. It is a factual statistic that the more guns owned by law-abiding citizens in an area the less crime. That’s why the laws are the way they are. Most state’s laws are ideal in that they allow citizens to get firearms with relative ease but they stop criminals from doing so. Loughner was 1 out of 300,000,000 and now you want to impose a flat ban on high-capacity magazines?
What are your thoughts on concealed carry?
Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America(Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns:
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use (see How often are guns used in self-defense?):
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...Gary Kleck describes how he became a gun control skeptic: (Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?)
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)Up until about 1976 or so, there was little reliable scholarly information on the link between violence and weaponry. Consequently, everyone, scholars included, was free to believe whatever they liked about guns and gun control. There was no scientific evidence to interfere with the free play of personal bias. It was easy to be a "true believer" in the advisability of gun control and the uniformly detrimental effects of gun availability (or the opposite positions) because there was so little relevant information to shake one's faith. When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the "anti-gun" thesis, i.e. the idea that gun availability has a net positive effect on the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts. It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, many of the most able specialists in this area shifted from the "anti-gun" position to a more skeptical stance, in which it was negatively argued that the best available evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position. This is not the same as saying we know the anti-gun position to be wrong, but rather that there is no strong case for it being correct. The most prominent representatives of the skeptic position would be James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the best scholarly review of the literature.[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse. Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.).---Gary Kleck, Address to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence (Apr. 3, 1990) (prepared statement, on file with the Tennessee Law Review).
Last edited by Vulgotha; 04-05-2012 at 23:46.
C'mon now, let's play nice. Every prominent power had its turn trying to play world conqueror.
I thought this was an anti- Tom Brady thread...
I am stunned that some people appear to love their Playstation(1,2,3) or Xbox(360) more than I love the Denver Broncos.
Trust me, it's sad
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)