guns kill more people they werent supposed to kill, than stop or defend against crime

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn shame...

No, don't say that.

Tell him to provide evidence right after you provide some contrary to his statement. Google a bit.

Biker
 
It's inherently dishonest.

It's based on the premise that you have defended yourself with a firearm ONLY if you have shot someone to death.

If someone threatens or attacks me, but runs away when he sees my firearm, have I NOT defended myself?

If the answer is "no", then does that also mean that you have not defended yourself with the martial arts unless you've beaten or choked someone to death?

Does that mean that the only chemical spray you should carry is Sarin nerve gas?

In terms of honesty, anti-gunners are nearly indistinguishable from Holocaust deniers.
 
I'd say, there are a lot of stupid people in the world that won't read the directions, let along take a course. In the case of accidental discharges, Darwin rules.

Yes, I've used a gun before against a guy with a knife, but never had to fire a shot, just drew the gun and he ran. That one never made the statistics and it happens more often than not when defending one's self with a handgun.

Besides, I ain't everyone. I grew up shooting. If I'd grown up fist fighting or using a knife for other than skinning game or buttering my toast, I might choose another tool.
 
"guns kill more people they werent supposed to kill, than stop or defend against crime"
What is the response to this? I have a friend that keeps telling me this.

Exactly why I need a gun. I don't want be be on the stat page of "more people they weren't supposed to kill".

Its like this.

Take away all the guns, just like they did with drugs. Now no one has anthing and the world is happy. But sooner or later (and it WILL be sooner) someone will realize that if they go down to Mexico they can get their guns (just like their drugs). Now they will take those up where there will be a market for them - the defenseless streets of America. Yes, without any guns in honest peoples homes to steal, they will just go get them elsewhere and now honest people won't have any to defend themselves with. And they think street gangs are dangerous now.... :cool:

Oh the accidental shoots? Hogwash. You can't accidentally shoot someone unless you didn't follow the rules of gun handling. Why do little kids shoot themselves? Because daddy didn't teach them properly. Toddlers? They didn't keep the gun away from the really little ones properly. A 3 year old is not going to load a 1911 magazine and rack the slide. But they might pull the trigger of a DA revolver that is loaded.

Get a Gun Vault for your self-defense pistol if you have little kids and lock up the others. Problem solved.

You can't save everyone from stupidity...thats what natural selection is for. Some people were not cut out to have kids.

Gang bangers are just the less desirables that justify our need for a gun every single day.
 
To echo sentiments

First off, ask him to back it up with some evidence. And then inform him guns don't have to kill to defend.
 
Tell your friend to stop watching the news. Go take a NRA certified firearms course and learn gun safety.
Hopefully, you'll open his eyes that guns are just a tool. Handle them responsibly and with knowledge and you will be fine.
Most incidents involving guns are just the result of people who lack self control.

Oh, and tell him not to be such a sucker for soundbites.
 
guns kill more people they werent supposed to kill, than stop or defend against crime

OK, homicide + suicide + accident ~30,000 deaths per year.

NSPOF survey 1.48 million people defended themsleves with guns
against crime 4.7 million times in 1994 (the year of the survey).

OK even the 30,000 gun deaths are not "people they weren't
supposed to kill" because Marvin Wolfgang reported that in some
jurisdictions 20 to 30 percent of shooting himicides were eventually
adjudicated as justifiable (that does mean "people they WERE
supposed to kill") and sad to say suicides (most gun deaths) are
intentional, which does leave most homicides and all accidents that
do not fit the "Darwin Award" criteria, still less than 30,000.
 
Simple: Ddon't bother to respond. Getting involved with people who use "statistics" like those is about as useful as the proverbial 're-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.' No matter what you say to them they'll find or imagine some way to get around your facts. Save your energy and your sanity and just walk away.
 
Who is Gary Kleck ?

http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
Gary Kleck describes how he became a gun control skeptic: (Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates].

--

Gary Kleck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

Gary Kleck (born March 2, 1951) is a criminologist at Florida State University who is a leading expert on the links between guns, violence and gun control laws in the United States.

He has done statistical analysis of crime in the United States and argues that while in 1993 there were about four hundred thousand crimes committed with guns, there were approximately 2.5 million crimes in which victims used guns for self-protection.

In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.

--

Gun Control:

GunCite - http://www.guncite.com/index.html

--
What is the response to this? I have a friend that keeps telling me this.

I just shared a few verifiable resources to bust your friends myth. There are other resources with the verifiable statistics to continue busting this myth your friend has, - and countless others.

Armed Society is a Polite Society - RAH

Knowledge is the first and best thing to continue to arm oneself with. - me
 
tell him he's right, that governments with guns have killed more of their people who had none. That's why it is important for us all to have them.
 
I recently sent this information to somebody asking the same question

The information you quoted while we were on vacation was most likely the 1986 Kellerman study. We all know that statistics can be twisted to meet ones personal agenda. The link below explains how they got their numbers and why the information is misleading.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209#FABLE%20I:

Remember that by the time the police arrive, (and no reasonable person could expect the police to respond to a call faster than 10 minutes) the would-be assailant will have most likely commited the crime and on their way out. It is also important to know that the police can't be held responsible to arrive in time to protect the individual person (Unless they are under the witness protection program. But basically it is your responsibility to protect yourself). They are only required to protect society as a whole. I can provide case law for that fact if you want to research it further. Some people suggest to give-in to the assailant wishes. According to U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics data, having a gun and being able to use it in a defensive situation is the most effective means of avoiding injury (more-so even than offering no resistance) and thwarting completion of a robbery or assault.

It isn’t all doom and gloom. Most likely you will never need a gun, other than to sit in a safe, but if you ever do end up needing it, nothing else will suffice. The point is a gun is not 43 times more likely to injure a family member or one self (Unless used in a suicide, which is irrelevant because if somebody wants to kill themselves they will find a way). With the proper training, responsible storage, and common sense a gun will do more good than harm.
 
guns kill

There's the first fallacy right there. Guns don't kill. Knives don't kill, swords don't kill, clubs don't kill, pointed sticks don't kill. People kill each other, some justified, some not. Inherent in this fallacy is the additional fallacy that all killing is immoral. It is in fact, immoral to stand by and allow harm to come to another through inaction.

A gun is simply a tool that allows one to take a certain course of action that may be appropriate in some circumstances and not in others. Having only a gun would suck when you needed a fire extinguisher or a first aid kit. Better to have all available, even if you hope never to use any of them.
 
Carl N. Brown

NSPOF survey 1.48 million people defended themsleves with guns
against crime 4.7 million times in 1994 (the year of the survey).

That is very interesting! Can you cite that reference? I believe you, but I always want to see the facts for myself.

Q: of those 1.48 million defenses, how many times were the victims successful in their own defense, and how many were justifiable situations, and not random brandishing of a weapon under false pretenses (e.g. answering the door with a shotgun to find it's just the paper-boy.)
 
sm, that was an incredible article. what a great presentation that would make in any given waste of time sociology class in any given american university. here is one fantastic snibbet:

In stark contrast to this nuanced, sophisticated assessment, the spirit animating the health advocacy literature on firearms is illuminated by the frank admission of one outspoken advocate of its political agenda, Dean Deborah Prothrow-Stith of the Harvard School of Public Health: "My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered and all other guns would be banned."[48] A review of the anti-gun health advocacy literature suggests that such unconstrained, unabashed emotive bias helps account for many of its anomalies and for the remarkable difference in tone and conclusion from the criminological scholarship on firearms issues.

and yet another:

Anti-gun health advocates seem blind or unconcerned about the danger that their emotions may preclude rational evaluation of gun ownership. Psychiatrist Emmanuel Tanay, who admits that he loathes guns to the point of being unable to look upon or touch them with equanimity, asserts that gun ownership betokens sexual immaturity or neuroticism.[49] As evidence of this, Dr. Tanay asserts that (p.529)gun owners actually "handle ... with obvious pleasure" these horrid objects which so repulse him, that collectors "look after" their collections, and that owners "clean, polish and pamper" their guns.[50] "The owner's overvaluation of his gun's worth is an indication of its libidinal value to him."[51]

Further, Dr. Tanay invokes Freud's purported view of the sexual significance of firearms in the interpretation of dreams.[52] Invoking Freud is particularly ironic because Freud's comments were not directed at gun ownership. Insofar as Freud addressed the matter at all, he seems to have equated fear and loathing of guns with sexual immaturity and neuroticism.[53] We are emphatically not endorsing Freud's view as either applicable to Dr. Tanay or explanatory of his views. Our concern is with the effect fear and loathing of guns has on the intellect, not on the libido. The effect on Dr. Tanay is that he cannot recognize how gun collectors' tastes might differ from his own or how they might comprehend passages from Freud; in fact, he is unable to read them without imposing a meaning almost opposite of what they actually say.

Dr. Tanay is by no means the only anti-gun health advocate to exhibit such an emotion-based reading disability (or "gun-aversive dyslexia" as we shall hereinafter call it).


Brilliant:D
 
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms

Note the authors, Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig, are antis.

Abou the only line in there that was really bad was this...

Although training programs usually include
suggestions on how to store guns safely, it does
not appear that trainees are paying attention. More
than half (56 percent) of owners had received some
form of "formal" training from the military, law
enforcement, National Rifle Association, National
Safety Council, or other source. As a group, owners
who received such training were no less likely than
others to keep guns loaded and unlocked. This
surprising result is consistent with other recent
studies.[12]

Not paying attention? Maybe those people just know how to handle their firearms.

EDIT: I quit reading shortly after that.
 
carlrodd,

I am glad you found it useful.

So many times a person of "authority" or "in the public viewing" makes a statement of personal feeling and its interpretation as being founded on solid , correct, authenticated "fact" is used to further mis-information by being part of policy, mission statement, and/or often quoted and cited as being as such.

Lies, damn lies.

Akin to "follow the money", trace these various "facts" back to roots and one often finds personal beliefs at the root. Mob Mentality, brainwashing, propaganda and all perpetuates the lies.

Kleck and others mentioned, have the data, to back up what they share.
Tyranny really hates it when the truth is revealed.

:)
 
guns kill more people they werent supposed to kill, than stop or defend against crime

So do knives, Clorox, swimming pools, ladders, cars, small screws, peanuts, mosquitoes, nightsticks, electrical outlets, the sun, farm equipment, elevators, printing presses, dogs, ice, football, bathtubs, vending machines...
 
Here is how the game is played:

--He made the assertion; he should provided the evidence that his assertion is true.
--You are not under obligation to disprove an assertion which has not been demonstrated as having been true.
--Once he provides evidence in support of his assertion, you can then provide counter evidence.

You can shut down any discussion in the future by simply saying, "Please provide evidence in support of your position. I'll refrain from responding until I see the evidence."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top