Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 09:35 PM by EyesWideShut

The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot (BY COPS) in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Personally it doesn't make any logical sense to me , In my home if someone were to break in with a firearm and get the drop on me then doom on me. In a Closed Carry situation away from the home , the only way I can see this happening is if someone ALREADY has you at gunpoint and you try to play "The Quick and The Dead" and draw and aim before he can discharge his gun , which isn't the smartest thing to do. Or If someone has a gun and is robbing a place and you try to be a hero but he calls your bluff. It's hard for me to say what type of mindset a person has that does that because I'm wired like this , If I pull out a Gun , It's going to be to stop a threat on my life or the lives of my family. It's not my job to fight crime... that's what cops are for.

When people make posts like this I don't understand their motivation. It's like trying to convince people that chocolate cake is bad because you don't like it. "Studies show that chocolate cake has killed 34 percent of the type 1 Diabetics that decided to eat an entire cake" What does that prove?... It proves that SOME PEOPLE that eat chocolate cake shouldn't eat it , Just like this study proves SOME PEOPLE that carry guns shouldn't carry.

It's the MINDSET that will keep you alive & your biggest weapon is between your ears. Even while carrying guns many people are walking around UNARMED. The gun is just a tool.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by EyesWideShut]

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 09:40 PM by RestingInPieces

You have a gun.

You assault someone.

You see that they have a gun, either by them "drawing a pack of cigs" or you can see a holster, outline, whatever kind of hint you need.

What do you do?

If you know the severity of the situation, you shoot them.

If you don't, you get shot by a crazy NRA, ATS, Redneck, whoever gun carrying Texan.

It takes a highly improbable situation to have you two "discuss it out" and figure out that it was all a mistake, only to invite each other over for dinner.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by RestingInPieces]

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:01 PM by conspiracyrus

reply to post by RestingInPieces

hahah funny ... i mean your post is worth a laugh ... but once again ... places with high legal gun ownership are IN FACT less likely to have gun violence... its a statistical fact im not going to link find your own sources

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 10:53 PM by dooper

The study was flawed.

Good gracious. In any city, you have a significant element that is responsible for the vast bulk of homocides. Gang-bangers, drug deals gone bad, drug territories fought over, drive-by's, one punk 'dissing another, drug ripoff attempts, on and on, and on.

Do that study in rural Mississippi. Or Texas. Or Arkansas. Or Georgia.

Hell, do that same study in rural Tennessee. Montana. New Mexico.

I guarantee you much different results.

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 11:01 PM by GradyPhilpott

This is one of the weakest studies I've ever read or read about. Is Philadelphia really representative of the nation?

There are real studies out there that prove the value of gun ownership and competence.

A high school student could design a more valid study that this.

reply posted on 7-10-2009 @ 11:10 PM by Primordial

The study is crap. An obvious agenda there. There will soon be another try at gun grabs and 'stricter legislation'. Just today I must have heard on the radio 20 times about how it's so easy to get illegal guns at gun shows, even though you need a background check just as if you bought it in a gun shop. The gun shows will probably be targeted again.

If they wanted to study if guns protected people, they would have to include all the times someone protected themselves with a gun and weren't injured. The study is biased simply by only including victims who were shot.

"Look, all these people who tried to protect themselves with guns got shot!"

Well, of course they did because you purposely only included people who got shot. What about the hundreds of thousands (or millions) who successfully defend themselves? Oh, they don't count because they don't fit the agenda.

www.guncite.com...

...There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Dr. Kleck's Answer

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted." ...

The Gun Self Defense Counter

....Then compare those numbers with the various other causes of gun-related death. In 2006 (the last year for which the data is available), there were only 642 accidental gun deaths, 12,791 gun homicides and 16,883 gun suicides. None of those numbers are anywhere close to significant, when compared to the 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year that is supported by the various studies by both pro-gun and anti-gun researchers. By contrast, in 2006, there were 20,823 deaths caused by falls and 27,531 accidental poisoning deaths (not including 6,109 poisoning suicides). In fact, an interesting figure that is lumped into a larger category in the recent data, but was tracked separately in 1998, is deaths from falling objects.....

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^