"For every good gun story there is a bad one..."

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prophet

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
453
Location
AK
I've encountered this argument a few times in the past; I give an example of how proper use of a firearm saved a person's life, and the anti gives an example of how a firearm was used to murder someone, then acts as if their example negates mine.

I'm not sure how to respond to it other than stating that infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding for the sake of the criminal's actions doesn't make any sense. I've heard the "84 million firearm owners killed no one" cliche, but is there any meat to that argument? It would seem to me that the overwhelming number of firearms in this country are owned and used for legitimate and legal purposes (not just self defense), but I'm not sure as to how I should go about presenting the purported statistics.

Any help is appreciated!
 
Last edited:
I give an example of how proper use of a firearm saved a person's life, and the anti gives an example of how a firearm was used to murder someone, then acts as if his example negates mine.

Well, first off, even if for the sake of argument the good and the bad exactly canceled each other out (not true, but let's assume the worst case), then we'd still win because the RKBA is the natural right of the people, and the heavy burden of proof is on the antis--they need to prove that there would be a significant overall benefit to society to even begin to suggest infringing on anybody's rights.
 
While they are not really analogous, one could say the same thing about marriages. So is it the institution of marriage that's the problem or the participants' expectations? Anyway, few are proposing doing away with marriage; in fact, many are looking to expand its participant base.

Besides that, you can point out that the observation is anecdotal. Can they point to the research that shows that for every time a gun is discharged, half of the outcomes will be "bad"? You'll have to forgive me, but I'm currently taking a course on discrete mathematics which includes suppositions like the one you've put forward. In discrete form, it would look something like this:

∀ "gun stories", ≥ 1/2 have a negative outcome

which sounds ridiculous. It assumes that I have a complete set of "gun stories," and that "bad" is finitely measurable.

If you want to start arguing with facts, throw in something you can prove on paper with math.
 
Last edited:
By the same logic and given the facts below (from MADD's website) it's obvious that we need to outlaw private automobiles. Only the military and highly-trained professionals should be allowed to drive....

Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.
Blincoe, Lawrence, et al. “The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000.” Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002. NHTSA FARS data, 2011.


On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “The Traffic Stop and You: Improving Communications between Citizens and Law Enforcement.” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March 2001, DOT HS 809 212.


In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.


An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest. (Centers for Disease Control. “Vital Signs: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults — United States, 2010.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. October 4, 2011.)


50 to 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license. (Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49 and Beck, KH, et al. “Effects of Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers with Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Randomized Trial in Maryland.” American Journal of Public Health, 89 vol. 11 (1999): 1696-1700.)


Drunk driving costs each adult in this country almost $500 per year. (Taylor, et al 2002) Full cite: Taylor, Dexter; Miller, Ted; and Cox, Kenya. "Impaired Driving in the United States Cost Fact Sheets." Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002.
- See more at: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#sthash.VUTABZBr.dpuf
 
Don't forget, when the anti's talk about "gun violence" they mean any use of a gun that harms another person - including victims using guns in self-defense against a criminal. They will say that something must be done about the "X" number of victims of gun violence - completely ignoring the fact that the majority of the "X" number of "victims" were criminals themselves that were shot either by their intended victims in self-defense or by other criminals.
 
Here a clearly anti-gun biased report by ABC news:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/

So - the article says in 2010 there were 16,454,951 NICS checks done and only 78,211 denials - so that means 16,376,740 approvals in one year alone. The article makes a point of declaring that more than one gun may be transferred on a single NICS approval!

Then the article says there were a whopping 47,856 people murdered by firearms over a 4 year period.

So.... one must ask - how does 47,856 murders by firearm over a 4 year period come close to being equal to 1/2 of the 16 MILLION firearms transactions occurring in one single year? Or is not a person who just owns a gun and doesn't really do much with it considered a "good" gun story?
 
Last edited:
This is just like arguing that seat belts are bad because in a few accidents people are thrown free and survive while the belted occupants are trapped and die. Yeah.... it sometimes happens... but not often enough to tip the pan of the scale. Ditto firearms statistics.


Willie

.
 
Maybe you could simply point out that that your story proves that if the victim in their story had a gun they could have survived and save themselves but for the restrictions that prevented them from having one, all the while doing nothing to keep a gun out if the hand of the criminal that killed them.




Then pull one out of their own play book noting that any restrictions that would reduce fire arm sales would directly hurt the children due to the lost revenue schools would receive from the sales tax.:) Then if they disagree you can simply say they hate children.

Point is, you can't do much to argue with someone that uses emotion as a basis for reason, as by it's nature it is irrational.

Sad as it is there is no restraint on the radical element of the Democrat party right now. It is impossible to come to terms and try to find a solution when there are so many of the radical element trying to find any such avenue available to reach their ultimate goals of banning or eliminating gun rights either by one swoop, or by little steps.
 
When it comes to the self rightous anti gunners, My motto is.
"To argue with a "FOOL" makes two fools".
So I just walk away from them, with My "smug smile" and laugh, knowing that I am right. :D
 
You can trade examples all day, and not get anywhere. What matters is what happens in the aggregate. "For example" proves nothing.

There have been many, many studies done on the efficacy of restrictive gun laws. The vast majority show either no positive effect, or no effect at all.

Since a positive effect for stricter gun laws has never been conclusively demonstrated, there is no compelling reason for the government to to expand gun restrictions. The antis have the burden of proof, since they are the ones wanting the changes. Since they don't have the proof, their argument fails.
 
Arguing with antis is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and cause yourself stress. Just smile, blow them a kiss, and walk away. Let 'em wrestle with that for awhile.
 
Point them to the Obama ordered CDC study on guns that blew up in his face - http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Pri...e-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

For that matter point them to the ultra liberal Slate Magazine article on the study - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html. Despite Slate's best attempts to put an anti gun spin on the study they failed. Then, point out the flaws in Slate's spin. Slate's talking points were:
1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem.*According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
"Gun violence" is a fallacy. Violent crimes are violent crimes, and it doesn't matter what tool is used to commit then. Homicides are homicides as well, again, regardless of the weapon used. Point out that US has lower homicide and violent crime rates than many other industrialized nations. That's what's actually important.
2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
So, even within the fallacy of "gun violence" deaths are down. Deaths from gun accidents are down too, so that refutes the anti's position that "only highly trained" military and police should have guns.
Their point #4 is countered by point #7
4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”
but
7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “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 … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “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.”
Look at those last few sentences that I've highlighted. That flies in the faces of the lie that the anti's have perpetuated for decades. It also counters Slate's own assertion that handguns are the problem. Handguns are used by the good guys and the bad guys for the same reason: They're easily carried on one's person. You can also use that entire talking point #7 from Slate to counter your anti friend's assertions. The facts from the CDC report clearly back what we, the the pro gun side, have known to be true.
 
Last edited:
Point them to the Obama ordered CDC study on guns that blew up in his face - http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Pri...e-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

If you think this report "blew up in his face," you probably don't understand what the report is.

The title of that report is:

"Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence"

There is NO unique research in the report. It is just a collection of previous research (good, bad, or otherwise) to indicate what the CDC will be investigating. When THAT report comes out, then we will have something to talk about.

Everything in the "Priorities" report is old data that has been available for years, just compiled into one place and, based off the wildly inconsistent and incomplete data, sets priorities for a CDC study that is yet to come.
 
Pizzapinochle said:
If you think this report "blew up in his face," you probably don't understand what the report is.

The title of that report is:

"Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence"

....

When THAT report comes out, then we will have something to talk about.
The report was released earlier this year. It's already out. Instead of telling me I don't know what the report is, why don't you use the link I provided to downloaded the PDF of the report and read it yourself? Despite the title of the report, it didn't support what Obama and the anti-gun far left wanted. So, yes, it's already has already blown up in his face. As I noted above when I was adding to my post, even Slate had trouble spinning it to the liberal agenda. So, which one of us doesn't know what the report is?
 
It's all about emotions,,,

...then acts as if their example negates mine.

My best example is when I say,,,
"My sister and I are alive because my Mom carried a handgun and had the guts to use it."

Even when I trot that one out,,,
Their reaction is negative.

I ask them,,,
"Why should someone have to sacrifice their life so our governing bodies don't have to deal with their acts of self defense?"

I just get blank stares.

You can't have a rational discussion with a person whose opinion is completely emotional.

My favorite quote is the one that goes:

"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal gun wound."

But the people I say that to just scoff and say I'm being ridiculous.

I tell them that this type of thinking basically asks someone to die rather than defend themselves, all so we can have a more orderly society.

Again I get scoffs.

I don't even try to talk to these people anymore,,,
Instead I talk to people who are on the fence,,,
I offer to take them shooting at my range.

I actively promote gun ownership and training,,,
To those who aren't in either camp.

I'll never change an anti's mind,,,
I might however influence a fence-sitter.

Aarond

.
 
I assure you, I have already read the report.

If you want to pick out the pro-gun research that it compiles from the pro-gun researchers (Kleck and Lott in particular) then it appears very pro-gun. If you want to pick out the anti-gun research that it compiles, the it appears very anti-gun.

Dissecting it would get too far off topic from the OP to chase that rabbit, but if you want to cite the findings in that report that favor gun rights, then cite the original research, every piece of information in the report is referenced in the extensive bibliography. Don't say that "Obama's report says" to make it look like this is a new study finding new information. Everyone who knows anything about the gun control issue knows about John Lotts writing, just because it got cited in a summary of research doesn't make them new findings.

Also-

Point out that US has lower homicide and violent crime rates than many other industrialized nations.

What industrialized nations does the US have a LOWER homicide rate than?

Next chance I get, I'll answer the OPs question.
 
Tell them to get back to you when a gun becomes the only way to murder someone. Until then, you can replace "gun" with hundreds of mostly household, readily available items. Why should guns be singled out? It's easier to kill someone with a car.
 
Advice #1

Don't follow the advice outlawman just gave.

As ugaarguy said "Handguns are used by the good guys and the bad guys for the same reason: They're easily carried on one's person."

I would add to that, they are also highly effective.

Acting like there is no difference between a gun and a hammer will never get you anywhere.
 
Even when I speak with actual gun owners who tout their vast hunting benefits, I get a blank stare about
the real reason for the 2A. They are uncomfortable with even thinking about distrust-of-the-gov't...
as though the very thought of such a thing is prohibited. I therefore always propose a Bizarro 2nd Amendment
for them to consider as they depart:

"A well-regulated population is necessary to the security of a well-policed state"
 
The hoods in my neighborhood got their guns illegally in the first place, which included theft not only from homes or vehicles, but from stores, police and even military.

As far as I am concerned, the legal restrictions on the lawabiding by gun control can mean the end of the good gun stories without stopping the bad gun stories. Provided the lawabiding stay that way.

More realistically, gun control carried to the extreme would mean the good guys and bad guys would all be patronizing the black market.
 
Last edited:
How can that be when there are more peaceable people with guns than criminals or accidents with guns? 300 million guns in the US. The good stories just never get press.
 
There was a German fellow who worked for a head of state who wore a mustache, who said that if you repeat a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it. He was right.

One of the lies that has been told long and loud is that the US is the most violent of the developed countries. That is simply not true.

There are some countries that have done an admirable job of reducing violence. Some of them do have homicide rates 5X better than ours. But then there are countries that have homicide rates 5X (and even more) worse than ours. Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, South Africa, and the Dominican Republic come to mind. If you look at the whole list instead of cherry picking, the US is right in the middle: Not the best, and not the worst.

So could we do better? Sure. But a lot of the anti arguments are built on a lie. Most people have come to believe that the US is the most violent developed country. It certainly is not. Not even close.
 
One of the lies that has been told long and loud is that the US is the most violent of the developed countries. That is simply not true.
.

If you use the IMF list of developed countries only Estonia (5.2) has a higher incidence of homicide than the US (4.7).
By way of comparison with other developed nations, this is VERY high.


Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, South Africa, and the Dominican Republic come to mind.
The Ukranian IHR (5.2) is only a few tenths higher than the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top