You may feel safer with a gun, but you are in more danger.Someone who owns a gun is far more likely to shoot himself, shoot a family member in an argument, or be shot by a family member in an argument, than to shoot a criminal. The suicide rate of gun owners is much higher than that of non-gun owners.States with liberal gun laws and many armed citizens have higher crime rates than states with strict gun laws. The fact is that arming the citizenry will only increase gun violence.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
You May Feel Safer With a Gun, But ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well you GFV (gun fearing va-jay-jays) better get ready for some PSH (pants shitting hysteria).....
ReplyDeleteCause wait for it....... cause it's gonna be AWESOME!!!!!....
Edwards Co. won't enforce IL concealed weapon ban: EXCLUSIVE
Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/19325546/-exclusive#ixzz24ISDroCs
And Bloomington's McLean County, population 170,000, may soon announce a similar policy.
State's Attorney Ronald Dozier told us he's already sent a legal memo to other Illinois prosecutors explaining his belief that it's unconstitutional to ban the carrying of loaded firearms in public.
Some are outraged. (wow, ya think?!?!?!)
Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/19325546/-exclusive#ixzz24ISZuCS1
Good gravy man I love Illinois pre-emption statutes.....
Point one,, Anyone who feels safer with a gun is an idiot. If your a concealed carry, your potential attacker wouldn't know, open carry can make you a target. But it does mean your not defenseless and stand a better chance.
ReplyDeletePoint two is simple bullshit, something the anti's keep repeating and repeating. Not true, not FAR more likely.
Point three, suicide is a choice, no access to a gun does not mean no suicide.
Point four, absolutely untrue bullshit. And you know that as well Mike. Before all of these extreme left liberals managed to disarm the populace decades ago, most every citizen were armed. But was the norm and something well accepted and never heard about. Gun violence was less prevalent then than just a few years back before the populace started re-arming. Still more anti repeat and repeat.
Mike, the anti gun people and you want to have discussions on the gun subject but dont want to discuss anything. I had invited you to discuss one of your proposals but you have refused to do so. I am interested on where it may go. But instead you keep posting the same old tired subjects over and over without anything new to add.
Are you willing to have a discussion yet?
I thought we were. So sorry to disappoint.
DeleteMikeb, we offer counterarguments to your points, but you never address what we say. You make wild claims without being willing to offer support. You dismiss what we say, but give no detailed criticisms.
DeleteI NEVER address what you say?
DeleteLet me put it this way: You address my points as often as a carry license holder commits a crime with a firearm.
DeleteThere goes another delusional control freak, feeling smug about a flawed study. If Frischberg feels safer without a gun, he's welcome not to have one. He appparently lives in New Jersey where cops and criminals are armed, but good citizens have a hard time getting guns. Perhaps he should consider Vermont--lots of armed citizens, no requirement for a license to carry, and yet, one of the safest states in the nation.
ReplyDeleteBut here's something that the control freaks will never understand. Even if they were correct and the mere presence of a gun put me in danger, I'd still own guns.
"Flawed study" equals one which proves you wrong.
DeleteNo, it means that the methods that Kellerman used were flawed. In your way of "thinking," as long as the conclusion supports your feelings, it's a good study, but that's not valid for the scientific community.
DeleteAre you morons irrelevant yet?
ReplyDeletehttp://defensedistributed.com/wikiwep-a/
http://defensedistributed.com/wikiwep-b/
Completely Irrelevant......
ReplyDeletehttp://defensedistributed.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/wikiwep
Someone who owns a gun is far more likely to shoot himself, shoot a family member in an argument, or be shot by a family member in an argument, than to shoot a criminal.
ReplyDeleteMore junk science and an uniformed/misled letter writer. You see, a gun owner doesn't always have to shoot a criminal to protect himself. Sometimes, brandishing the firearm works quite well.
The suicide rate of gun owners is much higher than that of non-gun owners.
You might be able to argue that successful suicide attempts are more prevalent among gun owners than non gun owners. There is no doubt that a firearm is the better tool for getting that job done, but, according to the CDC, firearms are used in only 10% of suicide attempts. Poison is used most often.
The United States has a firearm ownership rate of about 89/100 people (according to the last small arms survey) and a suicide rate of 11.8/100K people. Canada, on the other hand, has a firearm ownership of about 31 (small arms survey) and a suicide rate of....wait for it....11.3. If firearms were the cause of suicide, the United states would have a suicide rate nearly three times that of Canada. If we take a look at S. Korea, we see a firearm ownership rate of 1/100 people, but a suicide rate of 31.2/100K. Clearly it's the guns causing the suicide.
States with liberal gun laws and many armed citizens have higher crime rates than states with strict gun laws.
Ummm.. Yeah, tell that to Maryland, Illinois, California and DC
The fact is that arming the citizenry will only increase gun violence.
Because Mexico is the beacon of light for a disarmed citizenry.
"Junk science" equals that which proves you wrong.
DeleteLOL that seems to work both ways but I notice you didn't have any counter points to my Facts up there.
Delete"States with liberal gun laws and many armed citizens have higher crime rates than states with strict gun laws. The fact is that arming the citizenry will only increase gun violence."
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get this stuff? Vermont is just about a gun-rights paradise and they have an extremely low violent crime rate. In fact if they don't have the lowest murder rate per 100,000 residents in the U.S., they surely have one of the lowest 5 murder rates in the U.S. Then we have the gun-control paradise of Chicago which is bucking for the worst firearm violence rate of all the big cities in the entire nation.
Oh, and how about the fact that violent crime is at its lowest rate in something like 50 years ... even though states have steadily legalized open and concealed carry and more armed citizens than ever are in public over the last 25 years?
Vermont is 2nd with 1.1/100K New Hampshire is first with 1.0/100K. California , which was rated by Brady to have the strongest gun control laws has a murder rate of 4.9. D.C. should have been rated number one by Brady, but it's not a state, their murder rate is 21.9
DeleteRegardless of whether the data is true or false, it is my responsibility to balance the pros and cons and choose what I think is best for my situation.
ReplyDeleteConsider someone who has an extremely limited income and who decided that eating any food item that isn't organic is dangerous to their health. They face a choice: eat all organic food and forgo health insurance, or have health insurance and forgo organic food. Eating non-organic food could have health implications -- just like facing illness without health insurance could have health implications. It isn't the role of government to choose for that individual. It isn't the role of a majority of the population to choose for that individual. It isn't the role of a self-appointed elite group of people to choose for that individual. It is that individual's choice. The same applies to individuals who are considering firearm ownership.
I agree totally that it's your choice. But when it comes to guns, I want you to be qualified, licensed and any guns you buy to be registered to you. I want you to be obliged to conduct a background check on anyone you want to sell one of your guns to.
DeleteMike, do you have any idea how easy it is to make a gun and ammunition? Trying to enforce regulations like you are suggesting will simply create a underground supply of guns and ammunition that are not traceable. Time and time again it has been proven that where there is a demand, there will be a supply to meet that demand. Look at alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition and prescription drugs. No matter how much regulation you try to put on something, people find ways around regulations. The only thing regulations like you suggest will do is slow a few people down, it will not prevent determined people from obtaining firearms and ammunition.
DeleteYes, slow a few people down, or maybe more than a few.
Delete"Determined people" will continue to get what they want, but not all of them are determined.
Because some people will always outsmart the laws, is that a reason for not having those laws?
Do you even read history? Do you even pay attention to current events? Look at Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Both of those have been complete disasters. Are you telling me that every person who took an illegal drink or an illegal smoke or pill or injection was some kind of super criminal, brilliant at outsmarting law enforcement?
DeleteThere are 300,000,000 guns in this country. Most of them are unregistered. Many of them have been sold or transferred in private transactions. These are facts that you can't get around. Your proposals would lead to a vast black market. In addition, guns would flow across our borders. It's time for you to move on.
Poppycock. Based on a discredited study. See the details here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times
* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]
* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:
1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]
2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]
3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])
Since you are a gun moron, you don't know shit about cause and effect. This does NOT mix cause and effect. It merely evaluates correlation. Geezus, you bozos are stupid. The gun has a higher caliber than you have an IQ.
DeleteData, bozo, do not speak for themselves.
DeleteGun-hating Anonymous, if you knew anything about data analysis, you'd know that correlation does not equal causation. The Kellerman study is junk from start to finish. It is grounded on the false assumption that if one small group of people display a characteristic, everyone must show the same characteristic. There's no control for knowledge of and experience with firearms. It also ignored uses of a gun in which no one is shot--say the intruder sees the gun and flees.
DeleteLook up what Mark Twain said about statistics for an explanation.
If the details in (3) are true, the obvious conclusion is that you are much more likely to be a homicide victim if you share your home with a person who has been arrested, uses illegal drugs, and abuses family members.
DeleteGee, now there's a shocker: violent people who abuse their family members and use illegal drugs are the problem rather than firearms. Go figure!
Well, Greg the moron, since I teach statistics and do medical experimentation, I know that shit. And I know that you are an idiot. Kellerman's study is a fine example of regional epidemiology. And, moron, he never claimed to "prove causation" or any of that shit. He showed an association. The association is not causal. We know only one thing - A must have a relationship to B for A to be a cause. Kellerman showed the relationship. It is a possible cause.
DeleteSo you're Jadegold or the fellow from Oregon. If you'd do any digging into the Kellerman study, you'd see the flaws--assuming a sufficient level of intelligence. But let's exercise a little logic here:
Delete1. 300,000,000 guns in this country.
2. 100,000,000 or so gun owners.
If we are in such danger of dying by our own guns--Is it forty-three times or twenty-two times? The number keeps changing...--why aren't we all dead? When the conclusion is absurd, there's a flaw somewhere.
And one final point Greg: YOu are one saying that a causal claim has been made. The causal claim was not made by me, by Arthur Kellerman, or any responsible epidemiologist. It is usually raised by idiots like you, so that you can chant "correlation is not causation" which is your total understanding of epidemiology. In epidemiology, there is never a causal argument. But in 1964, when the smoking data were examined, the relationship between tobacco and cancer was clear. Tobacco causes cancer, and the epidemiology of the evidence is EXACTLY the same as what Kellerman showed.
DeleteOne final point? I doubt it. Your side keeps citing the Kellermann study, but now you're saying that it can't be used to support your conclusion that guns are bad.
DeleteBut there are significant differences between smoking data and Kellermann's study. He looked first at Seattle only and then at two other cities. He didn't control for many factors that would influence homicide rates. But the most important difference? There is no safe way to use tobacco, while guns can be used in safe ways.
No, I am not either of those persons.
DeleteThe issue is contributions to causation. Does smoking cause cancer? No, it does not, but it makes cancer of certain types much more likely. Does a high-fat diet cause Type II diabetes? No, but it increases the likelihood.
In epidemiology, there are few causes which are generally confined to A -> B and ^B implies ^A. Sole causation is rare. But there are many many many partial or probabilistic causal relationships.
Your guns make homicides in your house much more likely. My house has no guns, and there are not going to be any. I did that juvenile shit years ago, and now am a man and don't need guns - I get my erections the old-fashioned way. When there are no guns, there are no gun suicides, and no gun-promoted crimes of passion.
Does having a gun cause these? NO, but it highly highly highly increases the likelihood, and that is what Kellerman and many other studies have demonstrated.
Probabilistic or contributions to cause is a hard concept for the right wing brain, which demands simple answers. That is why right wingers are wrong about almost everything. So, I doubt you can comprehend my arguments. And, you know, I don't give a crap what you think about them. THey are correct, and you are wrong.
DeleteAnonymous, I understand how those studies are conducted. If we're talking about a virus, it may not be the sole factor in causing a disease, but it's the primary factor--the example here is HIV in causing AIDS, despite what the president of South Africa said. There may be genetic or environmental factors that increase or decrease a smoker's chance of lung cancer, but the tobacco smoke is the primary cause.
DeleteYour side cites the Kellermann study as though it's definitive. It's flawed. If Mikeb would like to post a separate article on it, we can go through in detail. But having a gun in the home does not invariably lead to homicide. As I pointed out, millions of Americans have millions of guns. The rate of death and injury from firearms in this country is much lower than would be expected if the Kellermann study were correct.
What your side cannot comprehend is that human beings are more complex than the simplistic statistical studies that you love to bring up. Your side is incapable of understanding free will. To you, human beings are machines, subject to external forces and genetic programming. I hold a deeper understanding of who we are.
The earth is flat. It was created in 4004 BC at 10:30 AM (GMT).
DeleteHatred of science makes a person look like an idiot.
Anonymous, that's one belief. Scientific evidence says that the Earth is an oblate spheroid made up of dust particles and trace elements that came together from the leftovers of the gaseous nebula that condensed to form our Sun around 4.6 billion years ago.
DeleteJust because I question the validity of one study does not mean that I hate science.
Bullshit. All of it. Nothing more needs said.
ReplyDeleteThomas- I waited for it, and it wasn't that awesome. Mclean & Edwards Counties equate to maybe a tenth of a percent of violent crimes in Illinois. If that.
ReplyDeleteI have lived my entire life in and around Chicago, and that's where the crime is. I'm with you, it's a travesty that there is no carry legislation in Illinois. The only state without.
Unless Cook, Will, Dupage, Lake, and Kane Counties are willing to participate in this, it is absolutely useless. But, citizens of Illinois are trying.