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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: blupblup




Nobody is raised to believe "guns are bad" and there is no campaign or propaganda here telling people that.
Common sense, decency, morality and conscience are the reasons why people think guns are unnecessary in a civilised and peaceful modern society.


Really?

Tell that to the kids who have been suspended from school for doing things like eating a pop tart into a shape that resembles a gun....

Or for the kindergartners that were suspended and recommended to go to counseling for pointing his finger and going "pew pew"

You cannot tell me there isnt a culture of fear and ignorance being spread about firearms

WHen every school in the country is freaking out on little kids for the most mundane thing as DRAWING a pistol....

Please sell that crap somewhere else




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

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.


Wrong....here...let me post the graph from your source yet again...the overall trend since legal gun ownership went up is a LARGE downtrend in homicides.

Here is the graph again.....please point out where you are saying the overall trend shows little changes, because I see a HUGE drop.

Source from OP article




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

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.


Tens of thousands?
What are you on about? in the U.S. its 15,000 on a population of 315 million. LOL



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.


LOL, you talk about others using one small subset when that is exactly what you have done yourself.

Here's another study for you:
link


Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

The total number of annual firearm fatalities in the United States has been stable over the last decade.1,2 From 2007 to 2010, the range was 31 224 to 31 672 fatalities per year.1 There is substantial variation in firearm fatality rates among states, however, with the average annual state-based firearm fatality rates ranging from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals during these years. In 2010, firearms killed 68% of the 16 259 victims of homicide. In the same year, there were 38 364 suicides, of which 51% were by firearms.1 Beyond the loss of life and nonfatal traumatic injuries, the financial cost of firearm injuries is enormous. In 2005, the medical costs associated with fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries were estimated at $112 million and $599 million, respectively, and work loss costs were estimated at $40.5 billion.1



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

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.


Tens of thousands?
What are you on about? in the U.S. its 15,000 on a population of 315 million. LOL


Tens of thousands:

From 2007 to 2010, the range was 31 224 to 31 672 fatalities per year.1

source

But that's OK, right?

I'm sure the families of those victims are right there with ya.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I wonder why the CDC has different numbers? LOL

www.cdc.gov...

All homicides

Number of deaths: 16,121
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.1

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5
edit on 12-2-2015 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

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: 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.


LOL, you talk about others using one small subset when that is exactly what you have done yourself.

Here's another study for you:
link


Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

The total number of annual firearm fatalities in the United States has been stable over the last decade.1,2 From 2007 to 2010, the range was 31 224 to 31 672 fatalities per year.1 There is substantial variation in firearm fatality rates among states, however, with the average annual state-based firearm fatality rates ranging from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals during these years. In 2010, firearms killed 68% of the 16 259 victims of homicide. In the same year, there were 38 364 suicides, of which 51% were by firearms.1 Beyond the loss of life and nonfatal traumatic injuries, the financial cost of firearm injuries is enormous. In 2005, the medical costs associated with fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries were estimated at $112 million and $599 million, respectively, and work loss costs were estimated at $40.5 billion.1


Sorry..what subset am I using? That graph shows homicide rate from 1980 onwards and is from your OP source. There is no subset at all....it is the data YOU provided to back up an argument that you have now lost based on your own inability to translate data or possibly even read the source links.

Now you are trying yet again to backpeddle and pull another source that is likely skewed because they, TOO, did not translate the date correctly or more likely chose to skew it based on their own bias,

Your argument FAILS on all counts unless you pigeonhole it to fit a precise statistic that fits your agenda.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75
I wonder why the CDC has different numbers? LOL

www.cdc.gov...

All homicides

Number of deaths: 16,121
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.1

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5


Yeah, gun deaths are a disease.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

But that's OK, right?

I'm sure the families of those victims are right there with ya.



So you are all for prohibition right? I mean all those victims of drunk driving are right there with ya.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

Yeah, gun deaths are a disease.


Naw Meglomaina is a disease.
You know that mental illness that wants to control everyone around them?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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: 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.


LOL, you talk about others using one small subset when that is exactly what you have done yourself.

Here's another study for you:
link


Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

The total number of annual firearm fatalities in the United States has been stable over the last decade.1,2 From 2007 to 2010, the range was 31 224 to 31 672 fatalities per year.1 There is substantial variation in firearm fatality rates among states, however, with the average annual state-based firearm fatality rates ranging from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals during these years. In 2010, firearms killed 68% of the 16 259 victims of homicide. In the same year, there were 38 364 suicides, of which 51% were by firearms.1 Beyond the loss of life and nonfatal traumatic injuries, the financial cost of firearm injuries is enormous. In 2005, the medical costs associated with fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries were estimated at $112 million and $599 million, respectively, and work loss costs were estimated at $40.5 billion.1


Sorry..what subset am I using? That graph shows homicide rate from 1980 onwards and is from your OP source. There is no subset at all....it is the data YOU provided to back up an argument that you have now lost based on your own inability to translate data or possibly even read the source links.

Now you are trying yet again to backpeddle and pull another source that is likely skewed because they, TOO, did not translate the date correctly or more likely chose to skew it based on their own bias,

Your argument FAILS on all counts unless you pigeonhole it to fit a precise statistic that fits your agenda.


No, what you are saying is that because there is a small drop in gun deaths, and gun ownership has risen, and by your own account that was due to "responsible" people buying LOTS of guns, the stats are worthless, but the reality is that the ratio is skewed because loons started buying loads of guns just in case they were made illegal.

A small drop doesn't mean that "everything is OK", the basic premise remains, and that is that the amount of guns in circulation means more gun deaths.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

boom, good job. thread over.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Yeah, gun deaths are a disease.


Naw Meglomaina is a disease.
You know that mental illness that wants to control everyone around them?


No worse than the paranoia which makes people think everyone is out to get them and that owning a gun is the answer.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nullafides

You could always get properly trained, then I'm guessing that your "stupid sh&t" issues would absolve themselves.


But I'm sure you know that, just wanted to throw it out there that proper training for self-defense purposes should always be the chosen option rather than just walking away from the tool because you're concerned about the safety of it. The tool generally isn't the problem--but at least you're responsible about your decision, but I would recommned training over fear of ownership every day of the week, and maybe twice on Sundays.


Hey



Thanks for getting what I was saying.

I also have a background of an anger that I felt increasingly unable to cope with. As an adult, I don't keep cereal in the house because I know I'll eat it for every meal of the day, not just breakfast. That's just my adult decision. Just as you surmised with the decision I've made to not own a gun.

Do I know how to use a gun? Yes. Have I fired a gun in the past? Yes. Was I taught by my father, who was himself very reverent and respectful of guns in general? Yes. I've never taken any "actual" safety courses, but, given what I've been taught throughout my life, I believe I have a fairly good enough grasp of the basics.

Plus, I haven't felt the genuine *need*. I've never been in a situation where I didn't feel that I had control over myself (ie, in what *I* would do in response to such a threat that would qualify for the need of a reaction with a gun) enough to keep myself and my loved ones safe.

As an american though, I hold dear the idea that *SHOULD I NEED TO*, as a person without a criminal background, I CAN purchase a gun if necessary. And that, of course, is when I'd immediately take an instructional course.

Know what I mean?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski


Can someone tell me why they feel the need to be armed?

.


To keep people like you from taking my guns, or whatever else you decide I shouldn't have.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

No worse than the paranoia which makes people think everyone is out to get them and that owning a gun is the answer.


Sure it is Democide is the biggest killer the world has ever seen.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: blupblup

Really?

Tell that to the kids who have been suspended from school for doing things like eating a pop tart into a shape that resembles a gun....

Or for the kindergartners that were suspended and recommended to go to counseling for pointing his finger and going "pew pew"

You cannot tell me there isnt a culture of fear and ignorance being spread about firearms

WHen every school in the country is freaking out on little kids for the most mundane thing as DRAWING a pistol....

Please sell that crap somewhere else




My post was about here...England.



originally posted by: blupblup



Nobody is raised to believe "guns are bad" and there is no campaign or propaganda here telling people that.
Common sense, decency, morality and conscience are the reasons why people think guns are unnecessary in a civilised and peaceful modern society.

This debate has been had so, so many times on ATS.

I started a thread 5 years ago asking "guns or no guns" after there had been shootings in the UK and USA and it was an interesting debate... we came to the conclusion that American's (mostly) liked guns and believed they were necessary in the USA... and that those in the UK thought the exact opposite.... guns lead to violence and the statistics backed this up.

You're much more likely, about 4 times in fact, to die or be injured by a gun if you own a gun.

It is a thoroughly pointless exercise to have a debate or a back and forth every few weeks on ATS.

The outcome will always be the same.

US loves their guns and the UK doesn't want or need them.

Of course there are a plenty of Anti-Gun folks in the US and there are plenty of decent and respectable gun owners in the UK who go Clay Pigeon shooting or use rifle ranges or go shooting game.

Two different countries and two different sets of ideals and views on life.

edit on 12/2/15 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Yeah, gun deaths are a disease.


Naw Meglomaina is a disease.
You know that mental illness that wants to control everyone around them?


No worse than the paranoia which makes people think everyone is out to get them and that owning a gun is the answer.
You continue to commit logical fallacies in this thread. When I lived in the U.S., I owned three guns. I did not think anyone was out to get me. I was not paranoid and I certainly didn't feel that I needed a gun to protect myself.

I owned the guns because I like target shooting as a hobby. I own a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. I frequently went shooting with friends because shooting targets with a firearm is FUN. When I got home, my weapons went into a gun safe and I locked it.

But do continue to lump me in with your false notions.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: budski

What....your saying that criminals are included in the responsible gun ownership category? They go check in to let the statisticians know they have a few guns? Again....you are wrong. Responsible gun owners ARE the ones in the stats.

The drop is not small by ANY means at all....it is huge.

And by the way , the last article you posted does not relate to gun BANNING...it relates to gun LAWS. Laws are there for responsible gun owners to follow, and they do. The article ALSO states:


The real question is not about the number of firearm laws but whether the laws ultimately safeguard the citizens they are intended to protect. Although multiple studies have examined the relationship between federal and state firearm laws and homicide and suicide rates, the overall association between firearm legislation and firearm mortality is uncertain and remains controversial.7,8


So they can't even be certain about their research and stats, yet you are taking it as fact....again.....FAIL.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

You are absolutely unwilling to hear anything other than your own voice.



Please do not respond to this, as I have no desire to continue this conversation.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join