Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

These folks don't have a clue. A clue to the mind of the sort they would need to protect themselves from if their home were intruded. They don't understand what sort of animals are out there walking around on two legs.

Might be half the reason they want everyone disarmed. They know law-abiding gun owners are no threat to 'them'. So, they threaten to remove 'our' rights and leave us as vulnerable as they are. Gives the criminal element a greater number of sheep to choose from ... diminishing their odds of being selected for the feast.

I laugh every time I read of a home invasion where the homeowner opted out of gun ownership.

Stoopid people - there's no legal cure for them.

I'd rather be considered stupid than be a callous gun nut who puts their own desire to own a weapon open the safety of kids and and the general public.

Another school shooting? Oh well.
Another toddler blasted in the face by mistake? Oh well.


You can pretend that you want it for protection, because obviously you ALL live in Sao Paulo or Caracas where you would need it....but we all know the truth.

Another family torn apart from gun violence?. ..who cares? Gotta get me another AR15! USA! USA!

Haha....hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

How, exactly, are the safety of kids and the general public in jeopardy because I, personally, own guns? If you walked by me any day of the week you would not know I own guns. You would not know I have a gun on me. So how is it that I am posing any threat to you again?

I think MANY more families are torn apart because of the loss of a loved one than how it happens. Is it any more tragic to be killed accidentally by a gun than a car accident or drowning or gas leak? Nope. Accidents happen. Most gun accidents happen by irresponsible gun owners, just as car accidents happen by irresponsible drivers, and drownings happen to kids by irresponsible parents. And the latter 3 of the 4 types of accidents I listed happen on a much more regular basis than gun accidents.

I would say PEOPLE are the problem in these cases.....operator error.

And if people didnt have access to guns...guess what would happen!? yes! No more home gun incidents!..a dramatic drop in school shootings! Incredible!

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You do realize this is an uneducated, non-US citizen turd stirrer that you are dealing with.

You're right. Im not from the US, which means im free from your idiotic, to the letter, worshipping of the constitution...and i can think clearly about gun rights.

But...you're right, im the idiot. Not the nut jobs advocatign that all teachers should be armed at schools.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

These folks don't have a clue. A clue to the mind of the sort they would need to protect themselves from if their home were intruded. They don't understand what sort of animals are out there walking around on two legs.

Might be half the reason they want everyone disarmed. They know law-abiding gun owners are no threat to 'them'. So, they threaten to remove 'our' rights and leave us as vulnerable as they are. Gives the criminal element a greater number of sheep to choose from ... diminishing their odds of being selected for the feast.

I laugh every time I read of a home invasion where the homeowner opted out of gun ownership.

Stoopid people - there's no legal cure for them.

I'd rather be considered stupid than be a callous gun nut who puts their own desire to own a weapon open the safety of kids and and the general public.

Another school shooting? Oh well.
Another toddler blasted in the face by mistake? Oh well.


You can pretend that you want it for protection, because obviously you ALL live in Sao Paulo or Caracas where you would need it....but we all know the truth.

Another family torn apart from gun violence?. ..who cares? Gotta get me another AR15! USA! USA!

Haha....hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

How, exactly, are the safety of kids and the general public in jeopardy because I, personally, own guns? If you walked by me any day of the week you would not know I own guns. You would not know I have a gun on me. So how is it that I am posing any threat to you again?

I think MANY more families are torn apart because of the loss of a loved one than how it happens. Is it any more tragic to be killed accidentally by a gun than a car accident or drowning or gas leak? Nope. Accidents happen. Most gun accidents happen by irresponsible gun owners, just as car accidents happen by irresponsible drivers, and drownings happen to kids by irresponsible parents. And the latter 3 of the 4 types of accidents I listed happen on a much more regular basis than gun accidents.

I would say PEOPLE are the problem in these cases.....operator error.

And if people didnt have access to guns...guess what would happen!? yes! No more home gun incidents!..a dramatic drop in school shootings! Incredible!

No...not incredible. If you take away anything you end up with nothing related to it. Take away cars and no more car accidents...incredible! Take away people and nobody will ever die...incredible! So your answer to people dying from accidents is to take away the things that a few people die from accidentally?

So, let me ask again, how, exactly, are the safety of kids and the general public in jeopardy because I, personally, own guns? If you walked by me any day of the week you would not know I own guns. You would not know I have a gun on me. So how is it that I am posing any threat to anyone again?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You do realize this is an uneducated, non-US citizen turd stirrer that you are dealing with.

Yes....similar to arguing with a creationist.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You do realize this is an uneducated, non-US citizen turd stirrer that you are dealing with.

You're right. Im not from the US, which means im free from your idiotic, to the letter, worshipping of the constitution...and i can think clearly about gun rights.

But...you're right, im the idiot. Not the nut jobs advocatign that all teachers should be armed at schools.

Well, I guess you have to face a simple, hard truth here. Guns in the US are not going away anytime soon, and since you do not live here, your opinion doesn't really matter, nor can you do anything about it but talk from an inexperienced point of view based solely on media stories.

originally posted by: ANNED
The best law any state could ever pass would be for a felon caught with a gun its a automatic 25 years.
Unless they use the gun then its life +
If they get caught a 2th time its life+.

There are already long existing Federal and State laws having up to 10 year mandatory prison sentences for using firearms in the commission of crimes.

Problem is prosecutors plea bargain away these stiff mandatory penalties for lessor guilty pleas which has the effect of putting criminal back on the street in relatively short time.

Rinse, wash and repeat.

It's not more feel good laws we need but rather a demand from the public that one's we have are upheld.

Also in the sticks, most people have a gun. No freeway though. The criminals show up from elsewhere, hop back on the main highway, and gone. They pick on those whom they think won't be armed: women, Asians.
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We could all drive an Amish horse and buggy and be much safer.
a reply to: Vasa Croe

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yes, I am right. And yes I agree, you are the idiot.
And yes, those that are US citizens, that actually understand it, abide by it and push to have the Govt abide by it.
And no, you have no idea as to "gun rights", as you don't have them.
And when has anyone that supports the 2nd, push to have all teachers armed?

Really.....your hyper emotional rant based around typical foreigner hyperbole is about as ignorant as it gets.

originally posted by: Parthin
We could all drive an Amish horse and buggy and be much safer.
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The amish are not saints and are just as hypocritical as anyone else. They claim to follow the bible but obviously have not understood the OT basically says it is for HEBREWS and they are following the wrong parts. thats just one hypocrisy. Shunning is another one. Where is th e forgiveness huh? lol

a reply to: Vasa Croe

All foreign poop stirring aside, the results of the poll generally track in line with Gallup's polling on the issue that show declining support for gun control over the long term. Like you, I also find this result encouraging and fully support the right of law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms for their own protection and that of their families.

And honestly, the only ones that are going to be affected by gun control are law abiding citizens, which should be rather obvious given the fact that there are already numerous laws on the books that punish criminal activity involving firearms. Doesn't seem to stop those same criminals now, so what makes anyone believe that new laws would do anything but punish those who are law abiding for absolutely no reason?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yes, I am right. And yes I agree, you are the idiot.
And yes, those that are US citizens, that actually understand it, abide by it and push to have the Govt abide by it.
And no, you have no idea as to "gun rights", as you don't have them.
And when has anyone that supports the 2nd, push to have all teachers armed?

Really.....your hyper emotional rant based around typical foreigner hyperbole is about as ignorant as it gets.

Ok. im ignorant.

meanwhile, we in Europe will keep reading about school shootings in the US and...im sure one is coming any day now.

After all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with easily available powerful guns and mental illness. But hey, who cares about those stupid teenagers...

As for arming teachers, i suggest you listen/read what the NRA have to say on this matter.

And as for who would lose out if there is tighter gun control? Umm...maybe the teenagers who borrow their fathers guns to go and shoot up their schools and the kids who play with their parents guns wont then die since there wont be any easily accessible firearms? How do you not see this?

Well, i know how. You are so blinded by your desire to have guns that you cant see the stupidly obvious truth.

www.slate.com... ml

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Vasa Croe

All foreign poop stirring aside, the results of the poll generally track in line with Gallup's polling on the issue that show declining support for gun control over the long term. Like you, I also find this result encouraging and fully support the right of law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms for their own protection and that of their families.

And honestly, the only ones that are going to be affected by gun control are law abiding citizens, which should be rather obvious given the fact that there are already numerous laws on the books that punish criminal activity involving firearms. Doesn't seem to stop those same criminals now, so what makes anyone believe that new laws would do anything but punish those who are law abiding for absolutely no reason?

Even thought we all know that a gun at home is much more likely to hurt someone innocent than protect anyone. But dont let this get in the way of your arguments eh?

of course tighter gun control wont stop criminals...but it will reduce the other gun related deaths/injuries.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Even thought we all know that a gun at home is much more likely to hurt someone innocent than protect anyone. But dont let this get in the way of your arguments eh?

of course tighter gun control wont stop criminals...but it will reduce the other gun related deaths/injuries.

Number of times guns are used for protection annually in the US:

Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.

I'm not even quoting the source because I know you won't read it.

Number of accidental firearm deaths annually in the US:

Approximately 600.

You continue to lie. You aren't posting an opinion based on ignorance, you're flat-out LYING. Everything that has spewed from your tiny brain to your keyboard has been 100% untruthful. Lying on this board is against the T&C.

Please just go away.

No, i will not go away. I will post in this thread and any other thread i want to post in.

You're free to post truthful information as much as you want. Lies, on the other hand, ARE against the T&C and you've been reported to the mods for trolling and lying.

You've ignored every single piece of data presented to you in this thread because you're only interested in posting your lies and utter nonsense.

Have a lovely day.

a reply to: Answer

www.theguardian.com...

and this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them."

This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in this area and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact. While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

www.slate.com... e.html

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.

Shall i find you some more?

The point is that we can both find articles that back up what we want them to back up.

the other point (and i cannot see how you can deny this) is that IF PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BUY GUNS, THEN THERE WILL FAR FEWER (if any) SCHOOL SHOOTINGS/MASSACRES, CRIMES OF PASSION AND CHILD RELATED FIREARM INJURIES/DEATH.

Yes, the criminals will continue to shoot people, but at least you could lose SOME of your gun related deaths.

Its like being mocked for eating a lrge pizza and ordering diet coke.. yes, im eatign this 1500 calorie pizza, but why not NOT also drink in another 800 calories...make it a BIT better for you.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Even thought we all know that a gun at home is much more likely to hurt someone innocent than protect anyone. But dont let this get in the way of your arguments eh?

of course tighter gun control wont stop criminals...but it will reduce the other gun related deaths/injuries.

Accidents are what they are, and yes, if you have a potentially dangerous item in your home, obviously, your odds of suffering accidental injury from that object are higher than if you don't. If you own a bicycle, for instance, you're more likely to be killed in cycling accident than if you don't own one. You're also more likely to accidentally die by drowning if you own a swimming pool. Or in a car accident if you own a car. This is hardly an earthshattering conclusion.

I'd also point out that every single one of those activities I mentioned cause more accidental fatalities in the US than firearms. About 25% more with bicycles, around 6 times as many drownings, and almost 70 times as many involving vehicles. You can find that information here.

Again, accidents are going to happen, but I don't think the few hundred fatal accidents yearly, or the 4 of every 100,000 fools who can't behave themselves like civilized humans are a justifiable reason to strip away the rights of 100 million law abiding citizens. Sorry.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: Answer

www.theguardian.com...

and this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them."

This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in this area and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact. While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury.

Nice flawed study you've presented but it's completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the study does it say if those "shooting incidents" involved criminal activity or not.

If you're a criminal with a firearm, you stand a good chance of receiving a "shooting injury"??? Ya don't say! If the study actually looked at law-abiding citizens vs. criminals, you may actually have a point with that idiotic article.

The study I posted above says that firearms are used defensively between 100,000 and 250,000 times per year. Just because someone doesn't get shot in the process does not mean it wasn't a successful defensive use.

Your biased source isn't accurately presenting the data... huge surprise there.

Here's a source that doesn't smack of an anti-gun agenda:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..

The report establishes guidelines meant only for future “taxpayer-funded research,” Frazer said. However, “the anti-gun researchers out there who want to study and promote gun control are perfectly free to get funded to do that by [New York] Mayor Bloomberg or by any number of other organizations or foundations.”

“It depends on who’s doing the research,” Frazer added. “I would be very concerned that a lot of the follow-up research that might come from this agenda would be more of what we’ve seen from the anti-gun public health establishment in the past.”
Source

That was part of a $10 million dollar study commissioned by Obama. The CDC has no agenda. So again, you only know how to post lies.