It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you can post the correlation using anything other than anecdotal evidence, your point MIGHT have some credence, otherwise it's bullplop.
You SAY that gun ownership went up, and you keep saying it correlates, but I've yet to see this.



No..YOU said gun ownership is up. Directly from your OP:



Put quite simply, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that more guns = more deaths from guns,


So now you are suggesting that gun ownership has gone down?

But OK...I will bite. Here is the FBI NICS background checks for weapons. While there is no stat to show that these weapons were actually purchased, I think the conclusion can be drawn that these background checks were not just done for fun...

Source



See that HUGE increase from 1998 to 2015?


Still waiting to hear how you will try to spin this one.

I answered your question with stats from the FBI. They directly correlate to the homicide rates dropping significantly from 1995 onwards.

Please address this as I have addressed your views head on.




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Bud they like guns and that's cool,they need them more than we do too if there living miles away from the local police and wild animals ect ect

In a perfect world they wouldn't need or want guns but that isn't reality

Tbh I think they like them a lot more than they realy need them,I guess many board members here will have a little collection of fire arms from pistols to rifles

That's cool
and their choice



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

Is the minute chance of a home invasion worth over 30,000 lives per year?

And it really is a very, very small chance.


This is a logical fallacy. The firearms I own have never been involved in any one of these 30,000 lives being taken. How much do you value your life? What about the lives of your family?

What would you do if a major storm hit the UK and you lost power for a week, or what would you do if the grid got knocked out, or your Government decided to start rounding up people because they are a certain religion? It is easy to say, oh, the odds of needing a firearm are so rare that you shouldnt even have one. The fact that crime exists, natural disasters exist, and tyrannical governments exist, mean that I will be prepared to protect my life and the lives of those I love with my firearms if needed.

Home invasions are far from the only reason we hold onto our 2nd Amendment. In particular I hunt and help some ranchers here protect their cattle from coyotes and their crops from wild hogs. Plus, fresh wild game is way healthier for you than store bought crap. But alas, your opinion seems made up and I doubt you will be able to acknowledge that people have a God-given right to protect their life.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

Yup this.

OP it is part of the USA culture so why attempt to diss them?.
It is looking more doubtful but I hope to holiday in the states this year and I can't wait to shoot some guns with fellow ATS members who have invited me.
Iam gonna get me a big cowboy hat and everything
.
edit on 12-2-2015 by boymonkey74 because: Cowbot hat lol.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor

originally posted by: budski

Yes, I know that, and I know that it has since been re-affirmed, I also know that this is a political issue as much as a societal one and that people somehow feel "safer" with guns despite the evidence showing that the murder rate is far in excess of other developed nations with and without gun laws.
I think the focus should be on why there are so many gun deaths compared to other countries where there are an equal number of guns per capita.



The real answer here (and to why gun deaths numbers are skewed in the U.S. is because of the illicit drug trade and gangs that partake in this trade. Drug crime deaths and suicides are almost always included in many statistics that anti-gun folks use. The gangs are usually using firearms that were acquired illegaly, possessing them illegaly, and using them illegaly (murder) - often times in places (Chicago, NY, Washington DC) that have some of the strictest gun laws on the books. When you look at it that way, it pretty much proves the point that when you disarm a populace, only the criminals have guns.


Isn't it also true that some of the guns acquired illegally have been stolen from people who acquired them legally?

Then we also have to ask the question of why it is so easy to obtain a gun illegally.
I'd also say that if suicide skews the figures by such a large amount as you are implying, surely stricter gun control is necessary.
In other countries with a similar number of guns per capita, who also have drug problems and a similar percentage of suicides, the gun death rate is STILL much lower.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: budski
Watch the film called 'Bowling for Columbine' which explores the reason why there is so much gun crime in America compared to other countries - Canada is one of the least fearful places to live Michael Moore discovers in making the film documentary. Canada supports it's citizens - there appears to be real care for it's people.
I can only say what the film says as I have not been myself.

I would recommend the film to anyone who wants to find out more about guns in America.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

As Boston—and the country as a whole—looks for ways to reduce gun-related deaths and violence, a study from 2007 published in a Harvard University journal is suddenly regaining increased attention for its claims that more control over firearms doesn’t necessarily mean their will be a dip in serious crimes.

In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.

In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.

Trending: MBTA General Manager Beverly Scott Is Stepping Down [Updated]
Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”

The study goes on to say:

…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

The paper resurfaced at a time when Boston itself has been looking for ways to combat gun violence, and gun-related deaths, after a sharp uptick in shootings in the city this year.

As of July, more than 100 people had been impacted by shootings in Boston in some way, and more than 17 people had been killed in the city by someone with a firearm. The increase in incidents showed a nearly 30 percent increase in gun-related deaths compared with the same time period in 2012. That number has gone up slightly since then.

SPONSORED CONTENT
Suggested: Harvard Researchers are Training Stem Cells to Battle Brain Tumors. It’s True.
In order to quell the violence, officials have been mulling a gun buyback program, and increasing community outreach, but based on Harvard’s latest findings, that may not be the answer.

While the research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun-related incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged gun crisis, overall, stricter rules on firearms in Massachusetts has seemingly led to fewer deaths, according to the latest data available, putting the state in the second to last slot for the lowest number of reported fatalities nationwide.

But when it comes to examining nations as a whole, the Harvard study suggests otherwise. “If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,” the authors wrote.



www.bostonmagazine.com...
edit on 12-2-2015 by amicktd because: Unable to link the page



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor

originally posted by: budski

Is the minute chance of a home invasion worth over 30,000 lives per year?

And it really is a very, very small chance.


This is a logical fallacy. The firearms I own have never been involved in any one of these 30,000 lives being taken. How much do you value your life? What about the lives of your family?

What would you do if a major storm hit the UK and you lost power for a week, or what would you do if the grid got knocked out, or your Government decided to start rounding up people because they are a certain religion? It is easy to say, oh, the odds of needing a firearm are so rare that you shouldnt even have one. The fact that crime exists, natural disasters exist, and tyrannical governments exist, mean that I will be prepared to protect my life and the lives of those I love with my firearms if needed.

Home invasions are far from the only reason we hold onto our 2nd Amendment. In particular I hunt and help some ranchers here protect their cattle from coyotes and their crops from wild hogs. Plus, fresh wild game is way healthier for you than store bought crap. But alas, your opinion seems made up and I doubt you will be able to acknowledge that people have a God-given right to protect their life.


It's not a logical fallacy at all.
Your answer is the one that contains logical fallacies in the form of "what if".

I mentioned home invasions because I hear it so often as a reason for people to own guns.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

...is any gun owner here part of a well regulated militia?


One can't form a militia without armed citizens.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: budski
Watch the film called 'Bowling for Columbine' which explores the reason why there is so much gun crime in America compared to other countries - Canada is one of the least fearful places to live Michael Moore discovers in making the film documentary. Canada supports it's citizens - there appears to be real care for it's people.
I can only say what the film says as I have not been myself.

I would recommend the film to anyone who wants to find out more about guns in America.



I have watched it, and the point it made was a good one.
I've also tried to bring societal issues into this, but the gunners appear to want to ignore that.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

...is any gun owner here part of a well regulated militia?


One can't form a militia without armed citizens.


Why do you need a militia when you have the armed forces AND the national guard?

Is it not the case that these are the replacements for the militia of the time the 2nd amendment was written?
edit on 12/2/2015 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: budski
Watch the film called 'Bowling for Columbine' which explores the reason why there is so much gun crime in America compared to other countries - Canada is one of the least fearful places to live Michael Moore discovers in making the film documentary. Canada supports it's citizens - there appears to be real care for it's people.
I can only say what the film says as I have not been myself.

I would recommend the film to anyone who wants to find out more about guns in America.



I have watched it, and the point it made was a good one.
I've also tried to bring societal issues into this, but the gunners appear to want to ignore that.
"Bowling for Columbine" is left-wing tripe, and I lean left. Moore makes films to make money, first and foremost. He profits from the controversy he manufactures.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

...is any gun owner here part of a well regulated militia?


One can't form a militia without armed citizens.


Why do you need a militia when you have the armed forces AND the national guard?


Apparently you missed my post about the Nevada rancher last year.

There is no substitution for an armed populace.
edit on 2/12/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I don't claim to have the answers regarding gun control. Both sides of the debate use statistics, anecdotes and
their own rationale for making their case.
I do know this:
If two violent thugs break into your home in the middle of the night, a gun can easily make the difference between life and death. That is a fact. It simply cannot be refuted. Case closed.


Is the minute chance of a home invasion worth over 30,000 lives per year?

And it really is a very, very small chance.


30,000 deaths is very deceptive because it includes suicides, accicents and defensive gun use (both police and private citizens). The homicide rate by guns is about 11k according to the CDC. 80% of those are gang related. In 2011, there are 2,220 non gang related homicides with firearms in the US.


edit on 12-2-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

...is any gun owner here part of a well regulated militia?


One can't form a militia without armed citizens.


Why do you need a militia when you have the armed forces AND the national guard?


Apparently you missed my post about the Nevada rancher last year.


Apparently I did.

Also apparent is that there was much more to that than a few blokes with guns seeing off the government.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Everyone should look up the definition of sophism to see exactly what is happening here.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Watch the film called 'Bowling for Columbine' which explores the reason why there is so much gun crime in America compared to other countries -

It's an agenda flick. 8 Lies Told in Bowling for Columbine The reason why there is so much gun crime in America is very simple. Its because criminals don't follow the gun laws. There is no reason to take away gun self defense from law abiding citizens. In fact if that happened then there would be more innocent people dying because they wouldn't be able to defend themselves.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: budski

I see you didnt read too carefully. i said NOT JUST TO KILL MEN. Implying other things correct?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you can post the correlation using anything other than anecdotal evidence, your point MIGHT have some credence, otherwise it's bullplop.
You SAY that gun ownership went up, and you keep saying it correlates, but I've yet to see this.



No..YOU said gun ownership is up. Directly from your OP:



Put quite simply, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that more guns = more deaths from guns,


So now you are suggesting that gun ownership has gone down?

But OK...I will bite. Here is the FBI NICS background checks for weapons. While there is no stat to show that these weapons were actually purchased, I think the conclusion can be drawn that these background checks were not just done for fun...

Source



See that HUGE increase from 1998 to 2015?


Let's try ONE more time to see if you can address this at all...you asked for it and there it is from our own FBI stats. A direct correlation between background checks to buy guns from 1995 on that shows the massive increase in checks follows the same scale as the massive decrease in homicides.

How about both together on the same page?

Your stat from the OP article:



My stat from the FBI:




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I don't claim to have the answers regarding gun control. Both sides of the debate use statistics, anecdotes and
their own rationale for making their case.
I do know this:
If two violent thugs break into your home in the middle of the night, a gun can easily make the difference between life and death. That is a fact. It simply cannot be refuted. Case closed.


Is the minute chance of a home invasion worth over 30,000 lives per year?

And it really is a very, very small chance.


30,000 deaths is very deceptive because it includes suicides and defensive gun use (both police and private citizens). The homicide rate by guns is about 11k according to the CDC. 80% of those are gang related. In 2011, there are 2,220 non gang related homicides in the US.



But surely that suggests even more strongly that gun control is needed.

FWIW, 11k is still far too many imo.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join