White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives (OOOPS!)

Originally posted by boncho

When there is a conflict in Africa over resources, it's common to flood those areas and corporations pay off warlords and mercenaries and arm them to the teeth with AK47s.

AK 47's are not only made in the US in fact soviet Russia was the first to produce them. The Vietnamese and Taliban were both supplied with Russian arms. If the US isn't going to produce the weapons someone else will.

Besides the most violent crimes committed in Africa's wars weren't even done with AK's but with Machete's. I'd rather take a bullet than a blow from a machete.

As for the article I wouldn't be surprised that these stats are just swept under the rug by the current administration.

reply to post by seagull

I usually end up behind the person doing that,with my weird "Jason" stalking skills.

Guns, never in the history of them...to the earliest Chinese versions, have killed a single living creature. Not one. A gun is an in object without life or will, like a hammer or an electric drill they must be used by a creature with intellect to have effect. Just like a hammer or a war fan may be used to take a life, so can a gun, this does not give the gun any intrinsic powers.

Left wing ideals may sound cool and appeal to our emotional selves, but throughout history they have only ended one way...to the sound of jack boots and loss of life in little remembered places with names like Magadan, Kolyma and Vorkuta.

-Nhilar

I recall reading an article where the same thing happened to Nixon when he requested a study to be done on the effects of weed and he did not like the results so he scrapped it.

That is not being a good politician. A good lawyer should never ask a question in front of the jury unless he knows the answer and a good politician should never request a public study unless he knows the answer.

Good Find Op

I'm surprised the MSM is not slamming this study in our faces, but I guess one of the TARDashians had a baby which obviously is more important. More surprising the TARDashians conception video hasn't been released yet.

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Guns save lives?

That's strange...

Last time I checked, guns ended lives.

How brainwashed are you people?

1. If its illegal to own guns who would most likely own a gun a law abiding citizen or a criminal ?
2. Is their a greater ratio of cops to criminals or criminals to cops?
3. Does a gun kill by itself or does it require a criminal or a law abiding citizen to pull the trigger?
4. Do vehicle accidents kill more people than guns?
5. Can a gun cause more damage than fertilizer?

reply to post by applesthateatpeople

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople

Haha.

...and what would that have to do with the danger of guns?

It is possible to be pro-second amendment and anti-stupidity at the same time.

So, again...

How brainwashed are you?

Guns, guns, guns

Guns, guns, guns

ETA:

Liberty is good because it gives me the right to express how meaningless guns are.

If everyone owns a gun...



How do you think that will end?

Peace?

LMAO

Let's just follow the "everyone owns a gun" scenario out to its logical conclusion.

1. Everyone owns a gun - me, the cops, my neighbors and the criminals - all are equally armed

2a. Criminal decides to target my home.
3a. Police are notified.
4a. I (my wife, my daughter, my son) defend our home, criminal dies. 1 life lost, 4 immediate lives saved, countless future victims saved.
5a. Police arrive after the conflict is over.

2b. Criminal decides to target my home, kills all occupants (this is loud, draws attention)
3b. Police are notified.
4b. Neighbors defend the neighborhood, criminal dies. 5 lives lost, countless future victims saved.
5b. Police arrive after the conflict is over.

2c. Criminal decides to target my neighbors home, kills all occupants (this is loud, draws attention)
3c. Police are notified.
4c. I defend the neighborhood, criminal dies. 4 lives lost, countless future victims saved.
5c. Police arrive after the conflict is over.

If I depend on the police:

2d. Criminal decides to target my home.
3d. Police are notified.
4d. Criminal kills occupants.
5d. Criminal flees the scene.
6d. Police arrive after the conflict is over. 4 lives lost + countless future victims

Where I live, the police are 30 - 45 minutes away and encourage firearm ownership.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


There is a lot more to that report than meets the eye, as I reported in the following thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me excerpt the part that matters, apart from the evidence that indicates owning and bearing firearms saves lives. I am also including my last statement regarding how the CDC, and other "relevant federal agencies" like the IoM (Institute of Medicine) twisted the facts to support more gun control laws, which is what Obama and his goons want to do.

BTW, I also have to wonder what in the world does the CDC and "other relevant federal agencies" like the IoM have to do with firearms since firearms are not a disease and both these groups deal with diseases...

"Be aware, there is a big problem with this study as well, in page 4 they state that in order to better understand the threat of firearm related violence that they want, and I quote.

It is ultimately important, of course, to understand the unique characteristics of all types and subtypes of violence. However, resources focused on three specific populations—the general population, the general youth population, and the offender population—should yield actionable information over the short term. The exact number and distribution of guns and gun types in the United States are unknown, but for each of these populations, it would be valuable to have counts of total guns owned, their attributes (i.e., general type, caliber, firing mechanism), how the guns were acquired (i.e., purchased, received as a gift, traded for, stolen, etc.), and information on the sources of the guns (i.e., licensed gun dealers, friends or relatives, gun traffickers, owners of stolen guns, and so on). It also would be valuable to better understand both the violent and relevant non-violent and self-protective behaviors of individuals with firearms.
...

johnrlott.tripod.com...

So while on the one hand this study shows that there is evidence that owning firearms increases the chances of the victim not getting injured, or killed, and that there are at least as many victims defending themselves as there are criminals using illegal firearms to commit crimes, among other arguments in favor of the Second Amendment, they also state the need for gun registration, among other actions to improve their understanding of gun related violence.

It is obvious that the evidence was not what they hoped to find, so they included in the study that they need more gun control in order to understand gun violence, when the evidence clearly indicates that the right of every individual to own and bear firearms is in fact protecting tens of thousands, or even millions of Americans every year."

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Edit to strike my response. I'm still digesting this. I'm not sure how to parse it....

reply to post by asmall89

AK 47's are not only made in the US in fact soviet Russia was the first to produce them. The Vietnamese and Taliban were both supplied with Russian arms. If the US isn't going to produce the weapons someone else will.

Besides the most violent crimes committed in Africa's wars weren't even done with AK's but with Machete's. I'd rather take a bullet than a blow from a machete.

Way to go arguing semantics. One of the major problems with this discussion and the same thing this thread is built off of.

The US denouncing China and Russia selling to Africa now simply because they have new people to sell to with their current policies:

U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market

Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011.

Source

It wasn't that long ago the US themselves was offering up small arms, even though today they've moved onto bigger weapons systems:

Through years of US arms sales and military aid, the M16 rifle has ended up in the arsenals of more than 50 countries, including Cambodia, Guatemala, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The M16 has also been produced in Singapore, South Korea, and the Philippines.

Link



Saying that putting guns in the hands of school children and somehow that's not violent enough for you... I understand some of the atrocities done there with machetes but it's no reason to minimize the other.

reply to post by interupt42

1. If its illegal to own guns who would most likely own a gun a law abiding citizen or a criminal ?
2. Is their a greater ratio of cops to criminals or criminals to cops?
3. Does a gun kill by itself or does it require a criminal or a law abiding citizen to pull the trigger?
4. Do vehicle accidents kill more people than guns?
5. Can a gun cause more damage than fertilizer?

Again I should state I support 2nd amendment rights. Although I don't support flawed logic.


To continue with this type of rhetorical questions: How many firearm related deaths were there before firearms were invented, sold, distributed?

reply to post by boncho

Originally posted by boncho
Again I should state I support 2nd amendment rights. Although I don't support flawed logic.

To continue with this type of rhetorical questions: How many firearm related deaths were there before firearms were invented, sold, distributed?

Why bother with that tired argument. Man has always killed. We've killed animals, other humans and ourselves. We do it for love, for fear, for hate, for jealousy, for greed.... for fun. The weapon has never been the driving factor, it's always some emotion.

How far do you take the argument? How many edged weapon deaths were there before edged weapons were invented, sold, distributed? Range weapons, fire, clubs, bare hands, water, poison, gravity? Gravity can't be outlawed, can they ban people from being in high places?

For as many reasons as there are to kill, there are ways to kill. It doesn't matter what weapon you take away, another will take its place if someone really wants to kill.

reply to post by stutteringp0et

How far do you take the argument? How many edged weapon deaths were there before edged weapons were invented, sold, distributed? Range weapons, fire, clubs, bare hands, water, poison, gravity? Gravity can't be outlawed, can they ban people from being in high places?

For as many reasons as there are to kill, there are ways to kill. It doesn't matter what weapon you take away, another will take its place if someone really wants to kill.

As I said I am for gun rights. I grew up in the country with dozens of guns and I was trained in target shooting, hunting, and most importantly gun safety. The first thing I ever learned about guns was that you never point them at people.

In any case, the arguments that gun advocates disseminate sometimes is entirely absurd. Also the argument that anti-gun advocates spew is equally sometimes more absurd.

My point, was that looking at guns like they are some life saving tool is bordering on the absurd line. And no one needs to constantly hear how a gun nut thinks a gun is going to save them certain death.

2a. Criminal decides to target my home.
3a. Police are notified.
4a. I (my wife, my daughter, my son) defend our home, criminal dies. 1 life lost, 4 immediate lives saved, countless future victims saved.
5a. Police arrive after the conflict is over.

Just as easily.

1. Criminal decides to target your home.
2. You pull out a gun and the criminal shoots you.

(Good example was the Chris Dormer case where he tied didn't harm anyone besides LEOs that he was targeting. He got into a confrontation with someone and didn't do anything to them. The LEOs are tasked with finding and stopping him, not the average citizen.

1. You mistaken a normal person for a criminal.
2. That person is dead.



You could keep going on with these scenarios. For as many times you hear about someone saving a life with a gun, how many times do we hear about someone taking one?



But, some rational person might think to themselves now... Boncho, you said you were for gun rights but you don't sound like it! Like I said, raised around guns and knew how to respect them. I subsequently moved to the city and out of all the people I've met, I'd say 95% should never even be allowed in the same room as a firearm. I don't own any now, I have no use or them. I'm not competitive in sport shooting anymore and I have absolutely no need for a gun.

In a situation where I was threatened with one, I would expect my wits to get me out of it. That's it. That's what I rely on. Before guns people had wits.

In any case, yes, there were knives before guns. Again, as a tool, firearms are great. But how many people use them specifically for hunting? If you do, great. You are exactly the type of person that I believe has every right to own them and they should never be taken away from you. Collectors, enthusiasts... You have every right as well.

As far as people who live in major cities who stockpile firearms simply because they have small _____ size-syndrome. I could really care less if you have your arsenal or not.




So while say "they had knives before guns!" yes, they did. But knives were no where near as effective for killing. In England and Japan where guns are a rare sight, you will find many more stabbings than shootouts among criminals.

Technically, one could argue that point.

This however, is not a debate I feel like participating in... Because for the upteenth time, I support gun rights. I just think the arguments around them are stupid.

it disturbs me how little attention this thread has received. you'd think that logical, reasonable people would flock to this thread, read the info, and be like "hmm...seems like guns DO have a positive impact".

but no. people flee from the truth. it doesn't matter what the truth is, nor the subject matter, people would rather be wrong and delude themselves than come to grips with something that they do not want to accept.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it disturbs me how little attention this thread has received. you'd think that logical, reasonable people would flock to this thread, read the info, and be like "hmm...seems like guns DO have a positive impact".

but no. people flee from the truth. it doesn't matter what the truth is, nor the subject matter, people would rather be wrong and delude themselves than come to grips with something that they do not want to accept.

And here is why this debate is pointless. I would bet my mother on the fact that you didn't read the source document.

Although violent crime rates have declined in recent years, the U.S. rate of firearm-related deaths is the highest among industrialized countries.

So while encounters between criminals and gun owners may result in less deaths, with a large magnitude more of these encounters that is not saying anything.

For example, let's take a hypothetical:

Only 30% of criminal encounters result in deaths when there is a gun owner on the other end. (By the way, we have triple the number of gun crimes.)

100,000 with 30,000 deaths.

As opposed to a country (the same population) with 30,000 encounters and 20,000 deaths. (Higher percentage but less people overall.)



-

Okay, so we see how stats don't tell the whole story? Now look at the ones cited in the paper:

anti-gun politicians often cited figures that indicated that just 108,000 people a year used guns in self defense. The new study suggests that those numbers were off by over 2500%.

The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

When you survey a group of people one time, and then again, and the numbers are off by 2500%, one has to think how effective this kind of survey and stat taking is.

Did they survey police the second time and an old folks home the first time? Unless you know that, I don't see why anyone would put so much thought into this study....



I could only read the preview, but I saw some redflags immediately. They were also going after the old "video games cause violence" ideas too.

In any case, I don't know where the actual stats were taken, neither does it seem anyone in this thread does. The author of the OP article is on the "Obama's com'n fer ur guns!" bandwagon so I would take them with a grain of salt.

-

I hope all you that are gun advocates see this only creates more of a reason for them to actual restrict firearm access for you.

And intelligent debate from gun owners makes the proponents for gun control quiver, as they have to actually debate the issue with logic and reason.

When the lot of you yahoos start jumping around making noise, "They is gonna take my guns!" "we all should have loaded handguns on us at all times!" "I need my guns cause ima shoot dead any criminal tryin to rape my daughter!" etc, etc... it only makes the gun crowd look like a bunch of irresponsible yahoos who don't deserve the responsible gun ownership.

reply to post by Ex_CT2

They collect information on us to determine future purchase patterns or steer them, forcible or unconscionable collection of DNA will be used to deny individuals insurance and other things to minimize risk.

There really is nothing new here but technology.

As far as guns?, everyone should be able to open carry if they choose to do so.

It appears the government messed up...again...and spent a lot of money on research without defining the requirements right. They should have clearly stated that all protective measures where the gun is not registered should be disallowed. To further steer the results, they should have verification of every event by a senior government official....That would have knocked the evidence down to a dozen or so events.

Boy, the government is loosing their ability to buffalo anyone, they need to be replaced with people who can do more advanced thinking. I guess we are getting a little dumber here in America, must be something in the water.

reply to post by boncho

And here is why this debate is pointless. I would bet my mother on the fact that you didn't read the source document.

can you claim to have read all 123 pages?

So while encounters between criminals and gun owners may result in less deaths, with a large magnitude more of these encounters that is not saying anything.

note that it says "firearm-related deaths". around half of all "firearm-related" deaths are suicides. a smaller, but significant portion, come from accidental deaths. you realize that "homicide" does not mean murder, right? it refers to any person killing another.

if someone defends themselves with a gun and kills the other person? it's homicide.

When you survey a group of people one time, and then again, and the numbers are off by 2500%, one has to think how effective this kind of survey and stat taking is. Did they survey police the second time and an old folks home the first time? Unless you know that, I don't see why anyone would put so much thought into this study....

now it's my turn to ask if you read anything in the study beyond the article covering it (which is all you quote).

the estimate of 3,000,000 uses was extrapolated from 19 different polls. this is how statistics works. interview a wide variety of people and extrapolate the figures. the previous numbers were based off of polls that didn't specifically ask questions about defensive use.

I could only read the preview

and you questioned whether i read the source paper? i read much more than that.

When the lot of you yahoos

the above quote is why debating with you is pointless. you've already made up your mind via preconceived notions.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

can you claim to have read all 123 pages?

No, I don't have access to it. But you won't find me agreeing with or using one highly subjective overview of the study as holy scripture.

if someone defends themselves with a gun and kills the other person? it's homicide.

So where are the 3,000,000 cases of self defence justified homicides?

the above quote is why debating with you is pointless. you've already made up your mind via preconceived notions.

I am describing people like the author of the article who are entirely subjectiv and are cherry picking information. You are quite wrong, there is no way to debate with such people like that.

and you questioned whether i read the source paper? i read much more than that.

You read the entire paper? Please source it for the rest of us.

What does it say about video games causing violence?

Originally posted by boncho
...
Just as easily.

1. Criminal decides to target your home.
2. You pull out a gun and the criminal shoots you.
...

Yet your arguments go against what the evidence actually says, that citizens who own and bear firearms are more likely to survive, without any harm from a criminal's attack than citizens trying to use other measures to stop or survive such criminal attacks...

love this one