The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: budski

Recreational drugs are illegal, so I don't see the relevance there.

We should be looking to stop the "wrong hands", they'll get guns no matter what. Even if the general legal gun owning populace didn't exist. I believe this exact scenario, no legal gun ownership with a high rate of criminal gun ownership, is present in several countries.

It's the same principle.
You don't want guns to be illegal because there are responsible owners.
There are responsible users of recreational drugs as well, but you have no problem with them being illegal.

Here's a thought: if there weren't so many guns, or any guns at all, they wouldn't end up in "the wrong hands" now would they?

I'd also like to see your sources for devepoed countries where guns are illegal but the rates of gun deaths and gun crimes are comparable to the US.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: blupblup

I didn't say one culture was right or wrong.

And for as safe as england is without guns, I'll be damned if a person I was drinking with in a pub (in the north of england) on new years didn't end up the following morning with a head crushed in.

With a cinderblock.


Guns are simply the most immediate option for taking your anger or ulterior motives out on someone else. If a lack of one presents itself, the next best thing like a cinderblock is used.


So, feel safe.

I know right?
All of those mass cinderblockings!!
High Schools, Cinemas, Newspaper offices, workplaces.

Nobody is safe!!

The point is a gun is a quick, disconnected way to kill people.
If everyone who shoots up places had to stab or stone those people, there'd be a lot less mass "Anythings"
To stab like 20 people, you'd have to be fit, agile, decent close quarters etc etc.
Most people wouldn't even attempt a mass stabbing in a cinema, mall or school.

A gun brings a disconnect, a separation from the shooter and the event.
Pull a trigger aim... dead.

Anyway.... this thread and the debate is pointless.

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.

Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.

Is it responsible ownership or simple hypocrisy?
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's really rather simple.

I am guessing you did not read through all the links of your own source. They clearly show homicide rates from gun violence have fallen, even with the ownership rates increasing. They have been at an almost all-time low since 2008. Here, I will link directly to the report that was linked in the OP source.

Report

Here is the figure in case you choose not to scroll all the way through to look.

As usual, these stories like to skew things to their benefit....anyone can take figures and say anything...they are assuming most won't read the links. In this case the links from the source do not support the article, but I am guessing you are like most and did not read them....just the story...and buy into it hook, line and sinker.

Yet you fail to mention this:

Homicides by a friend/acquaintance or a stranger were more likely to involve a gun than those committed by an intimate or family member

and many other correlations.

You seem to think that because the homicide rate peaks and troughs (and this is due to many other factors as well) it means guns are "safe" when repeated studies (conveniently ignored) show this is simply not the case.

I don't need to mention it....that is taking a subset of all guns. Anyone can skew their stats based on a subset.

Fact is that ownership is UP and homicides are DOWN. Another FACT is that your OP and entire thread is based on gun violence in general....not the subset you are now trying to use to make an invalid point.

Your argument FAILS on all points unless you subdivide it into a neat category that fits your agenda.

Suck it up cupcake.
I have the right to own a gun.
You have the right not to.
What you don't have is the right to take mine.
I don't have to give you a reason I want one.
And I dont care why you dont.

It's funny. The OP presents a "tired old" argument in favor of taking away guns entirely.

Yet at every turn, the OP insists that posters in favor of gun rights not use "tired old" arguments to make their point.

Call me naive, but I'm fairly certain that one side isn't supposed to dictate what the other side can and can't use in their argument, are they?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Vasa Croe

They have been at an almost all-time low since 2008.

Thanks to Obama I'm guessing

LOL!!!

a reply to: budski

Blind people can freely buy guns and get concealed carry permits.
See where there might just be a teensy weensy problem?

source

originally posted by: budski
The simple fact is that if, as a country, you allow huge amounts of deadly weapons to be owned, some of them will fall into the wrong hands.

Well, no sh*t. In the same utterance, you could say that allowing huge amounts of people to run for public office, some of the offices will fall under the wrong leadership. Oh, and when you allow huge amounts of automobiles to be owned, some of them will fall into the hands of drunk drivers. You're making a non-point.

There are now more guns in the US than people.
I'd have thought a responsible person would see this as a problem, especially given the correlations in the article.

I am one person who lives in a commonwealth that does not have a state or federal gun registration program. I own six firearms, and all but one remains locked in a gun safe until it's time for me to practice at a range. I am legally licensed to carry concealed, and I have been trained both by the Army and civilian trainers to properly operate and carry that weapon.

Just because I have six firearms does not mean I've ever killed anyone or that I will. The ratio of firearms to population is a pointless comparison. I'd be willing to bet that there are more registered vehicles in America than there are people, but that doesn't mean all of the vehicles are potential death machines, nor that all vehicles are even used every year.

A responsible person would employ logic into this discussion, understand that there are also studies that correlate higher numbers of concealed-carry permits to less violent crime, and realize that correlation does not equal causation, whether or not the study aligns with your ideology or not.

I am a responsible person. I own six guns. This is not a problem for you, my family, or anyone else around me. You don't need to be artificially concerned with these numbers that, in reality, are just the federal government's best guess as to how many firearms there are.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's funny. The OP presents a "tired old" argument in favor of taking away guns entirely.

Yet at every turn, the OP insists that posters in favor of gun rights not use "tired old" arguments to make their point.

Call me naive, but I'm fairly certain that one side isn't supposed to dictate what the other side can and can't use in their argument, are they?

Nope, but apparently the Federal Government is supposed to dictate what its citizens can and can't use to defend themselves against them with. LOL

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

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

And?
People die from all sorts of things.

Should we ban guns?

Would it solve anything?

Heroin is illegal. You can buy it just about anywhere.

Yes, guns should be banned.
They are nothing more than a device that was invented to kill other humans.

To my knowledge, there is no other "product" on the market, and so freely available that was invented for the sole purpose of killing another human.

Are you missing the point?
No doctor in the US can prescribe heroin, it is totally illegal. Yet it is readily available on the black market. The raw material isn't grown here. Yet it is easily bought, no age restrictions, no tests, no getting a permit.
Guns can be made in a garage or basement.
If you ban them, who enforces the law?
Police.... with GUNS.
Hypocrite.

No, Police in this country are not usually armed.

I'm not missing any point, I'm seeing you back up my assertion that the only evidence gun advocates have is anecdotal, and when that fails they resort to ad hominem attack rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Look at the data in the article (have you even read it? ) then come back and discuss it like a rational human being.

I did not read your piece. My immediate thought was that it would show "statistical evidence" that would "prove" guns in and of themselves kill.

1. Inanimate objects do not kill, they are a tool which people can choose to use or not to use
   
2. statistics (and any other report, for that matter) can be skewed to support an agenda
   
3. Heroin legality and use is very much akin to the idea of banning gun posession, IMHO...
   

What an inane argument, coming completely from a position of ignorance.

Get back to me when you've read the article and have proper rebuttals rather than this nonsense.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Step off your pedestal where you think you are so smart because you are regurgitating the proper talking points and think you are on the 'hip' side of the argument.

In reality what you are doing is a total waste of time and will never make any difference.

Put your higher intelligence to work doing something that makes a difference instead of wasting your 'superior' talents on something that wont change and is really none of your business.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.

Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.

Is it responsible ownership or simple hypocrisy?
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's really rather simple.

I am guessing you did not read through all the links of your own source. They clearly show homicide rates from gun violence have fallen, even with the ownership rates increasing. They have been at an almost all-time low since 2008. Here, I will link directly to the report that was linked in the OP source.

Report

Here is the figure in case you choose not to scroll all the way through to look.

As usual, these stories like to skew things to their benefit....anyone can take figures and say anything...they are assuming most won't read the links. In this case the links from the source do not support the article, but I am guessing you are like most and did not read them....just the story...and buy into it hook, line and sinker.

Yet you fail to mention this:

Homicides by a friend/acquaintance or a stranger were more likely to involve a gun than those committed by an intimate or family member

and many other correlations.

You seem to think that because the homicide rate peaks and troughs (and this is due to many other factors as well) it means guns are "safe" when repeated studies (conveniently ignored) show this is simply not the case.

I don't need to mention it....that is taking a subset of all guns. Anyone can skew their stats based on a subset.

Fact is that ownership is UP and homicides are DOWN.

Your argument FAILS on all points unless you subdivide it into a neat category that fits your agenda.

Right, so because there are peaks and troughs in data throughout the years, you ignore that in favour of a single (low) peak and a single (low) trough and decide that means all gun ownership is good?

Gotcha.
You going to come back when those figures reverse and post that something must be done?
I doubt it, because it is and always will be a spurious claim.
Or you can tell it to the thousands of victims that still die every year as a direct consequence of gun ownership.
Oh wait, you can't, they'll still be dead.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

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

And?
People die from all sorts of things.

Should we ban guns?

Would it solve anything?

Heroin is illegal. You can buy it just about anywhere.

Yes, guns should be banned.
They are nothing more than a device that was invented to kill other humans.

To my knowledge, there is no other "product" on the market, and so freely available that was invented for the sole purpose of killing another human.

Are you missing the point?
No doctor in the US can prescribe heroin, it is totally illegal. Yet it is readily available on the black market. The raw material isn't grown here. Yet it is easily bought, no age restrictions, no tests, no getting a permit.
Guns can be made in a garage or basement.
If you ban them, who enforces the law?
Police.... with GUNS.
Hypocrite.

No, Police in this country are not usually armed.

I'm not missing any point, I'm seeing you back up my assertion that the only evidence gun advocates have is anecdotal, and when that fails they resort to ad hominem attack rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Look at the data in the article (have you even read it? ) then come back and discuss it like a rational human being.

I did not read your piece. My immediate thought was that it would show "statistical evidence" that would "prove" guns in and of themselves kill.

1. Inanimate objects do not kill, they are a tool which people can choose to use or not to use
   
2. statistics (and any other report, for that matter) can be skewed to support an agenda
   
3. Heroin legality and use is very much akin to the idea of banning gun posession, IMHO...
   

What an inane argument, coming completely from a position of ignorance.

Get back to me when you've read the article and have proper rebuttals rather than this nonsense.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Step off your pedestal where you think you are so smart because you are regurgitating the proper talking points and think you are on the 'hip' side of the argument.

In reality what you are doing is a total waste of time and will never make any difference.

Put your higher intelligence to work doing something that makes a difference instead of wasting your 'superior' talents on something that wont change and is really none of your business.

I am pretty sure even the OP did not read all of the links from his own source article. There are numerous ones in that article that directly oppose his stance based on the article.

I posted one such link with the diagram earlier in this thread....the OP chose to take a smaller subset of his argument to try to prove his point again.

Love how the goal posts always have to be moved to try to sound correct, when the entire argument is based on flawed reasoning from actual statistics that were misinterpreted by both the article author and the OP.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.

Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.

Is it responsible ownership or simple hypocrisy?
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's really rather simple.

I am guessing you did not read through all the links of your own source. They clearly show homicide rates from gun violence have fallen, even with the ownership rates increasing. They have been at an almost all-time low since 2008. Here, I will link directly to the report that was linked in the OP source.

Report

Here is the figure in case you choose not to scroll all the way through to look.

As usual, these stories like to skew things to their benefit....anyone can take figures and say anything...they are assuming most won't read the links. In this case the links from the source do not support the article, but I am guessing you are like most and did not read them....just the story...and buy into it hook, line and sinker.

Yet you fail to mention this:

Homicides by a friend/acquaintance or a stranger were more likely to involve a gun than those committed by an intimate or family member

and many other correlations.

You seem to think that because the homicide rate peaks and troughs (and this is due to many other factors as well) it means guns are "safe" when repeated studies (conveniently ignored) show this is simply not the case.

I don't need to mention it....that is taking a subset of all guns. Anyone can skew their stats based on a subset.

Fact is that ownership is UP and homicides are DOWN. Another FACT is that your OP and entire thread is based on gun violence in general....not the subset you are now trying to use to make an invalid point.

Your argument FAILS on all points unless you subdivide it into a neat category that fits your agenda.

And the award for post of the thread goes to...





... Vasa Croe...





*rapturous standing ovation*

originally posted by: budski

Right, so because there are peaks and troughs in data throughout the years, you ignore that in favour of a single (low) peak and a single (low) trough and decide that means all gun ownership is good?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing by focusing on the "high points"? LOL

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: budski

Recreational drugs are illegal, so I don't see the relevance there.

We should be looking to stop the "wrong hands", they'll get guns no matter what. Even if the general legal gun owning populace didn't exist. I believe this exact scenario, no legal gun ownership with a high rate of criminal gun ownership, is present in several countries.

It's the same principle.
You don't want guns to be illegal because there are responsible owners.
There are responsible users of recreational drugs as well, but you have no problem with them being illegal.

Here's a thought: if there weren't so many guns, or any guns at all, they wouldn't end up in "the wrong hands" now would they?

I'd also like to see your sources for devepoed countries where guns are illegal but the rates of gun deaths and gun crimes are comparable to the US.

Actually I have no problem if recreational drugs were to be legalized. I do feel that there are responsible drug users and they should have the ability to make the choice if they want to use or not. Please note, that these are current drug users that are using illegally. The legality of an item doesn't stop one that is determined. Legalizing drugs would not all of a sudden create thousands of drug users. Just like the invention and legal ownership of firearms didn't create thousands of killers.

If guns disappeared, would the "wrong hands" disappear too or would they just find something else to fill those hands.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: budski
The simple fact is that if, as a country, you allow huge amounts of deadly weapons to be owned, some of them will fall into the wrong hands.

Well, no sh*t. In the same utterance, you could say that allowing huge amounts of people to run for public office, some of the offices will fall under the wrong leadership. Oh, and when you allow huge amounts of automobiles to be owned, some of them will fall into the hands of drunk drivers. You're making a non-point.

There are now more guns in the US than people.
I'd have thought a responsible person would see this as a problem, especially given the correlations in the article.

I am one person who lives in a commonwealth that does not have a state or federal gun registration program. I own six firearms, and all but one remains locked in a gun safe until it's time for me to practice at a range. I am legally licensed to carry concealed, and I have been trained both by the Army and civilian trainers to properly operate and carry that weapon.

Just because I have six firearms does not mean I've ever killed anyone or that I will. The ratio of firearms to population is a pointless comparison. I'd be willing to bet that there are more registered vehicles in America than there are people, but that doesn't mean all of the vehicles are potential death machines, nor that all vehicles are even used every year.

A responsible person would employ logic into this discussion, understand that there are also studies that correlate higher numbers of concealed-carry permits to less violent crime, and realize that correlation does not equal causation, whether or not the study aligns with your ideology or not.

I am a responsible person. I own six guns. This is not a problem for you, my family, or anyone else around me. You don't need to be artificially concerned with these numbers that, in reality, are just the federal government's best guess as to how many firearms there are.

You might be responsible, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.
If you have huge amounts of guns in a society, there are going to be huge problems with guns.

The key word here is "society".
If you care nothing for your society, then huge amounts of guns aren't a problem.
If you DO care about your society, you would recognise that there is a problem.

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.

Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.

Is it responsible ownership or simple hypocrisy?
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's really rather simple.

I am guessing you did not read through all the links of your own source. They clearly show homicide rates from gun violence have fallen, even with the ownership rates increasing. They have been at an almost all-time low since 2008. Here, I will link directly to the report that was linked in the OP source.

Report

Here is the figure in case you choose not to scroll all the way through to look.

As usual, these stories like to skew things to their benefit....anyone can take figures and say anything...they are assuming most won't read the links. In this case the links from the source do not support the article, but I am guessing you are like most and did not read them....just the story...and buy into it hook, line and sinker.

Yet you fail to mention this:

Homicides by a friend/acquaintance or a stranger were more likely to involve a gun than those committed by an intimate or family member

and many other correlations.

You seem to think that because the homicide rate peaks and troughs (and this is due to many other factors as well) it means guns are "safe" when repeated studies (conveniently ignored) show this is simply not the case.

I don't need to mention it....that is taking a subset of all guns. Anyone can skew their stats based on a subset.

Fact is that ownership is UP and homicides are DOWN.

Your argument FAILS on all points unless you subdivide it into a neat category that fits your agenda.

Right, so because there are peaks and troughs in data throughout the years, you ignore that in favour of a single (low) peak and a single (low) trough and decide that means all gun ownership is good?

Gotcha.
You going to come back when those figures reverse and post that something must be done?
I doubt it, because it is and always will be a spurious claim.
Or you can tell it to the thousands of victims that still die every year as a direct consequence of gun ownership.
Oh wait, you can't, they'll still be dead.

No need to come back....the rate of gun ownership in the US directly corresponds to the homicide rate dropping. When bans were talked about and certain ones put into effect, prior to them, responsible gun owners went out and bought more. Since then the rates have dropped.

If we think about that for a minute, based on YOUR OP and links, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership rising and homicides falling.

Maybe read the links in your own source articles before trying to present and argument where you can only backpeddle into a small subset to try to make a point.

Oh..and those "peaks and troughs" you speak of...they go back to 1980, so I think 35 years is enough evidence for me to see that responsible, legal gun ownership rising equating to homicides falling is a pretty good trend.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Right, so because there are peaks and troughs in data throughout the years, you ignore that in favour of a single (low) peak and a single (low) trough and decide that means all gun ownership is good?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing by focusing on the "high points"? LOL

No, because despite the peaks and troughs, tens of thousands of people a year die as a direct result of the number of guns in circulation.
It falls one year, it rises another, but the overall trends show little change.

originally posted by: budski

LaPierre’s central message: Owning a gun is the solution. The world is a scary place. There are bad guys everywhere threatening you and your family, and the only thing they’re afraid of is a gun in your hands.

Tragically, a record number of Americans subscribe to some version of this mythology, with 63 percent (67 percent of men polled and 58 percent of women) believing that guns truly do make them safer. The public’s confidence in firearms, however, is woefully misguided: The evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns leave everybody less safe, including their owners.

A study from October 2013 analyzed data from 27 developed nations to examine the impact of firearm prevalence on the mortality rate. It found an extremely strong direct relationship between the number of firearms and firearm deaths. The paper concludes: “The current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.” This finding is bolstered by several previous studies that have revealed a significant link between gun ownership and firearm-related deaths. This international comparison is especially harrowing for women and children, who die from gun violence in America at far higher rates than in other countries.

Source

This is perhaps the most definitive piece I have read (including sources) about guns, and the relationship between gun ownership and violence.
This part is particularly relevant as I hear so many bang on about "responsible" gun ownership.

Everyone likes to pretend that he or she is more rational, more responsible, and more immune to the risks that gun ownership poses relative to the average American. Yet, we know from gun violence statistics that many are simply misjudging their own competency. Everyone thinks he or she is above average, but half are mistaken.

There are multiple sources and good statistical evidence that to me trumps any anecdotal evidence that is the usual battle cry of the gun enthusiast.

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

Im a little late to the party but ive read the entire thread and i want to point out a few things ive noticed. I'll start with the title.

The myth of the good guy with a gun.

www.pewresearch.org...


According to pewresearch polls, Around 1/3 of americans report owning at least 1 gun. That means that there are around 100,000,000 gun owners. So if there were really no good people with guns, the death rates would be quite a bit higher. The emotional quality of your title is just a precurser to the rest of your thread.

This is perhaps the most definitive piece I have read (including sources) about guns, and the relationship between gun ownership and violence.
This part is particularly relevant as I hear so many bang on about "responsible" gun ownership.

If "definitive piece" means the article that agrees with your opinion the best, then i guess i can't argue with that. What i saw was an article that left out pretty much any variable statistics that would have given more context to the study of gun owner ship and relative gun crime statistics. Your stance that more guns equals more gun related crime is true, but only in an arbitrary sense. What about the context of those individual crimes? How likely is it that in the absence of a firearm, that robbery or murder would have still happened but with a different weapon? A lack of guns does not decrease the amount of crime. In fact, crime rates in general have been on a sharp decline in the past decades.

originally posted by: budski

If you have huge amounts of guns in a society, there are going to be huge problems with guns.

About 0.01% of deaths inflicted by firearms in the U.S. is a huge problem? LOL