Gun Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Joey**

SOFDC wrote:
Branas's study found that people (In a pool in which half were selected from police reports of shooting victims. I'm sure that won't skew the numbers or anything though.) who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens(In Philadelphia). When the team looked at shootings (In Philadelphia) in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.(In Philadelphia)

Statistics are like lightposts. They are intended to be used for illumination, not as a convenient place to lean for support.

Someone claims that guns help you defend yourself.
I produce evidence to the contrary.
Stop whinging.

**streamdragon**

Joey wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.
They're more likely by your definition anyway.

Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.

AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!

I never said anything about martial arts classes.

Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.

Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.

My house hold consists of a 31 year old male (myself), a 30 year old female (my sister) and a 56 year old woman (my mother) whose family has NO history of heart attack. None.

So you can tell me heart attack is more likely, but like I said, I've had to pump the shotgun twice to protect my property. Fortunately for me, I'm in a loosely populated area where crime isn't an issue, but animals are. For someone in an area that borders a city or high crime area however... My father's house has been broken into twice. Fortunately for him and us, he wasn't home either time because both time the perps were armed when police caught them.

I know, I know anecdote anecdote lol, lol. But until you bust out numbers, or really anything to back up what you're saying I don't really need more than that.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

But you can prove anything with facts, eh?

The study you linked even admits that it included peope with at-risk lifestyles (read: gang members) in its numbers. It also includes those who take their guns outside their homes:

Your link wrote:
While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

So your study isn't exactly the situation we're referring to: home protection. It also doesn't filter out people in high-risk professions like police or security guards, who are likely to get shot in the line of duty. These are also not people protecting their homes, which is what I (and many others) have been talking about.

**SOFDC**

It was very poor evidence, and you can do better. So do better.

**AustonT**

SOFDC wrote:
Branas's study found that people (In a pool in which half were selected from police reports of shooting victims. I'm sure that won't skew the numbers or anything though.) who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens(In Philadelphia). When the team looked at shootings (In Philadelphia) in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.(In Philadelphia)

Statistics are like lightposts. They are intended to be used for illumination, not as a convenient place to lean for support.

fething epic quote