Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

originally posted by: Answer

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.

Do you want me to post the articles by Politico, new scirntist, NY Times, Examiner etc... All written about studies done by US institutions?


Waste of time. Ive made my point...your love of firearms makes you blind to the truth. have fun. The rest of the civilised world will keep looking at you guys like the lunatics you are.

Bye bye

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Shall i find you some more?

Please do. Go to your anti-gun sources and I'll keep finding non-biased information to destroy your bullsh1t.

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

No, the point is that you can find lies from biased sources and I can find facts. It makes it fun for anyone watching this thread.

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.

Nonsense. There are 310,000,000 firearms privately owned in the U.S. Even if no one ever bought a new firearm, there are enough in circulation to arm every single American citizen. You keep going back to the "but... the children!!!" defense as though it's an epidemic. Firearms account for a VERY TINY percentage of child deaths. There are VERY mundane causes for a much higher percentage of deaths but no one is calling for those things to be banned. Swimming pools, for example.

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

That's a foolish notion. Let's ban something because it might SLIGHTLY help a problem even though it has been proven that gun laws DO NOT REDUCE CRIME. The rates of murder, assault, property crime, robbery, and vehicle theft are very high in the U.K. and, in many cases, higher than the U.S. but they champion themselves as gun-free like it has somehow improved the situation. I'm sure someone murdered with a knife versus a gun is sure happy about those gun laws.

ENOUGH!

The back and forth, insults, snipping at each other wiil CEASE!

You will STOP directing remarks at or about each other.

You WILL remain on topic.

Any more insults or jabs at each other will result in post removals, followed quickly by post bans......which you will remain on for a unspecified amount off time.

Clear?

Do NOT reply to this post.

Edited to remove content.

The quote format was being a pain in the ass anyway and I'd say we're done here.

Fine, lets agree to disagree. I guess us in the UK will never understand why you yanks love your guns so much an you will never understand why we hate them so much.

Sorry if i was rude.

I suggest the two of you edit your posts after my PSA....and QUICKLY, before I remove both those posts, and you find you are not able to post again.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Fine, lets agree to disagree. I guess us in the UK will never understand why you yanks love your guns so much an you will never understand why we hate them so much.

Sorry if i was rude.

It frankly comes down to a difference in culture.

Just as I can't understand why an Amish person would want to live the way they do... but it's how they're raised and it's all they know.

Guns in our two countries are the same way. It comes down to your exposure to the lifestyle.

I fired my first gun at age 5, received a BB gun for Christmas at age 6, and I bonded with my father and grandfather by shooting at cans in the backyard. I also bonded with them by target shooting and hunting as I got older. My most prized possession is a hunting rifle that was used by my grandfather for 50 years and given to me on my 16th birthday.

When guns are attacked, you're literally attacking my childhood and my way of life unfairly. That's why we gun owners react the way we do.

If you don't understand it, that's fine... but know that we will defend it rabidly because it's just as important to us as anything that you personally hold dear. We will defend it with the same ferocity shown when people defend their religion, sexual preference, and right to free speech because it is, in our eyes, equally important.

a reply to: Answer
Well written post.
It made me think back through my childhood and remember just how much firearms were a part of my upbringing.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Ok. im ignorant.

That is about all most hear/read from foriegners commenting on US based Constitutional Rights.

But Yes...yes you are ignorant.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
meanwhile, we in Europe will keep reading about school shootings in the US and...im sure one is coming any day now.

Really??? Like when was the last one exactly. I mean....you stated you keep reading of such things.
I think I see your problem. Are you just re-re-reading the same newspaper article from how long ago?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
After all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with easily available powerful guns and mental illness. But hey, who cares about those stupid teenagers...

So, the "blood running in the streets" angle played with "it's for the children" talking point, sprinkled with the new "mental illness" swipe.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As for arming teachers, i suggest you listen/read what the NRA have to say on this matter.

They didn't say arm all teachers.
Here is the difference, as pointed out time and time again. We are for freedom. People like you are for controlling others.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
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?

Yeah, because that happens SOOOOO often.
You really should stop re-re-re-re-reading the same newspaper article for years past.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Well, i know how. You are so blinded by your desire to have guns that you cant see the stupidly obvious truth.

It has to do with OUR Rights.
So far me stating "You don't understand" applies more than ever.

a reply to: vor78

Ever looked at the warning label on toothpaste?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: vor78

Ever looked at the warning label on toothpaste?

I am surprised that they are still allowed to sell that stuff.

a reply to: macman

Exactly. I don't really consider the 'safety' argument in terms of accidents or adverse effects to be particularly valid, and its why I made the comparison to swimming pools and bicycles, activities which are viewed as acceptable and more-or-less safe by society, but statistically aren't so much. Chances are, the people making those types of arguments are engaging in all kinds of potentially dangerous activities and are either oblivious to it or make excuses for why 'that's different'. Except that its really not.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why not? If you don't want to be in situations then it's most sensible option. 9mm glock and 357mag snub will be ideal.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Fine, lets agree to disagree. I guess us in the UK will never understand why you yanks love your guns so much an you will never understand why we hate them so much.

Sorry if i was rude.

When guns are attacked, you're literally attacking my childhood and my way of life unfairly. That's why we gun owners react the way we do.

If you don't understand it, that's fine... but know that we will defend it rabidly because it's just as important to us as anything that you personally hold dear. We will defend it with the same ferocity shown when people defend their religion, sexual preference, and right to free speech because it is, in our eyes, equally important.

Im sorry, but thats ridiculous. Its an object. nothing more. To attach so much value to it, or to eqaute it to a "way of life" is just astounding. and in my opinion, a symptom of something else, which i wont say here as ill get another warning.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh....and guns don't kill people either....do me a favor and set on on the coffee table and see how long it takes jump off the table and kill....kinda like a book...it requires HUMAN interaction....

But they do facilitate the action.

Ummm...So do books...for that matter...or news...or Imams...

Perhaps if one were to consider the role of the propagandist...the inciter...the real hand...in how crime/terrorism is birthed and set loose...perhaps if one were to consider the real...facilitators...rather than merely one tool out of myriads in the shed...then one might begin to reasonably and agreeably extrapolate such awareness into a conversation of policing...

Until then...one merely speaks out of one side of anatomy...or knowledge...


YouSir

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Fine, lets agree to disagree. I guess us in the UK will never understand why you yanks love your guns so much an you will never understand why we hate them so much.

Sorry if i was rude.

When guns are attacked, you're literally attacking my childhood and my way of life unfairly. That's why we gun owners react the way we do.

If you don't understand it, that's fine... but know that we will defend it rabidly because it's just as important to us as anything that you personally hold dear. We will defend it with the same ferocity shown when people defend their religion, sexual preference, and right to free speech because it is, in our eyes, equally important.

Im sorry, but thats ridiculous. Its an object. nothing more. To attach so much value to it, or to eqaute it to a "way of life" is just astounding. and in my opinion, a symptom of something else, which i wont say here as ill get another warning.

Odd....so you have no childhood memories that you hold dear, nor traditions that you keep? I have some guns that I consider family heirlooms that I never even shoot. I find it odd that you have nothing like this, nor are you able to understand this. That would seem very detached and sad to me.....

As far as a way of life....some people grew up hunting and gathering....and still do to this day. I have many friends that solely use meat they get from hunting for their meat all year long.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Ok. im ignorant.

That is about all most hear/read from foriegners commenting on US based Constitutional Rights.

But Yes...yes you are ignorant.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
meanwhile, we in Europe will keep reading about school shootings in the US and...im sure one is coming any day now.

Really??? Like when was the last one exactly. I mean....you stated you keep reading of such things.
I think I see your problem. Are you just re-re-reading the same newspaper article from how long ago?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
After all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with easily available powerful guns and mental illness. But hey, who cares about those stupid teenagers...

So, the "blood running in the streets" angle played with "it's for the children" talking point, sprinkled with the new "mental illness" swipe.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As for arming teachers, i suggest you listen/read what the NRA have to say on this matter.

They didn't say arm all teachers.
Here is the difference, as pointed out time and time again. We are for freedom. People like you are for controlling others.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
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?

Yeah, because that happens SOOOOO often.
You really should stop re-re-re-re-reading the same newspaper article for years past.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Well, i know how. You are so blinded by your desire to have guns that you cant see the stupidly obvious truth.

It has to do with OUR Rights.
So far me stating "You don't understand" applies more than ever.

Oh yes...i forgot about the incredible US arrogance. If we are not American, we are not entitled to an opinion. Of course!

Maybe if there were guns in the UK, more of the story below could be avoided....seems all we hear about in the US is stories of child rape and abuse in the UK....what gives? I read more cases about things like this in the UK than I ever hear about guns in the US......even going up to the highest ranks of political office there....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Oh by all means.......please have your opinion, as ignorant as it is and as arrogant the action is to speak down to others about their business.

Go on.....be brave and cast your opinion onto others.


Funny, as YOUR opinion doesn't have much sway and, drum roll please................................................................................................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................................... .........The numbers show crime is dropping as firearm ownership is increasing.


Along with firearm ownership increasing, the amount of CCW permit requests are on the dramatic rise and Pew research shows that the polls indicate people are tired of the Govt pushing more control and don't want more restriction of Rights.


So.....

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Maybe if there were guns in the UK, more of the story below could be avoided....seems all we hear about in the US is stories of child rape and abuse in the UK....what gives? I read more cases about things like this in the UK than I ever hear about guns in the US......even going up to the highest ranks of political office there....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That doesnt make anmy sense. Im saying that without guns, there would be less shotting and home accidents which all involve...guns.

I know what you are trying to say/do..but it just doesnt work