Pro-gun myths busted

[CorvallisBMW]

Like guns? Read this. Hate guns? Read this.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". BUSTED:



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" BUSTED:

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

"Having a gun in the house makes you safer" BUSTED:

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

(In other words, you're 22 times more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love than an intruder. Want to play the odds?)

Isn't it interesting that for the past several decades the NRA has blocked all federal funding for ANY research in to gun violence and actively tries to pass laws forbidding states from sharing their own data on gun violence with one another. Gee, I wonder what they're trying to hide? It seems like common sense that if you're position is the right one, and is backed up by real-world data and happenings, you'd want everyone to know about it, right? I mean, why would they want to hide the truth that guns are amazing and that we need more of them and that more guns is always better? Surely if they're so confident in their positions they wouldn't have any trouble with people doing some basic research on it, right? Unless....

[einhander]

In before nonsensical arguments about 2nd Amendment.

[mrsleeve]

I see we are trying to use a mother jones as some kinda of source with out a bigger agenda than the NRA FFS.


I can play this game too with a little more creditable and less biased source than mother jones whos sole existence is to further gun control laws and further restrictions.

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in “road rage” or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns

I suggest you DL this and read it before you fully comply with the mother jones BS..

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

Another fun one form Mr Kleck

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

[e30slidewayz]

I believe every American should be required to own and gun and that gun education classes should be mandatory for all Americans; like driver's ed. I agree, stupid people with guns that don't know how to operate them properly or teach their loved ones about gun safety is indeed a hazard. And yes, the more people that own guns in a given state will lead to increased stupid people owning guns in said state. However, I don't believe those dumb people and their mishaps should play into the types of guns I own or the quantity of rounds the magazine can hold. I possess a Master's of Science in Clinical Research, and most statistics you read are horribly misrepresented and interpreted. I'd like to see the design of the studies in question. There are so many confounding factors to these types of studies, the results don't mean much anyways. Did they take into account the number of mass murders prevented due to the possibility of citizens possibly possessing firearms? My guess is no, it'd be impossible. There are tons of other confounding factors that bias the shiz out of the statistics. Think about this... "Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years"... how do you know if it wouldn't have been a mass shooting if they were stopped. The guy could've shot only 2 people but a civilian take him out... the criminal could've planned to shoot massive amounts of people but we won't know because they were stopped. That statement itself is stupid. But thank you for reading and reporting what you read. It's from teh internetz, must be correct. You have fun in your gunless household. I'll keep my beside the bed, loaded and ready.

[einhander]

I believe every American should be required to own and gun and that gun education classes should be mandatory for all Americans; like driver's ed. I agree, stupid people with guns that don't know how to operate them properly or teach their loved ones about gun safety is indeed a hazard. And yes, the more people that own guns in a given state will lead to increased stupid people owning guns in said state. However, I don't believe those dumb people and their mishaps should play into the types of guns I own or the quantity of rounds the magazine can hold. I possess a Master's of Science in Clinical Research, and most statistics you read are horribly misrepresented and interpreted. I'd like to see the design of the studies in question. There are so many confounding factors to these types of studies, the results don't mean much anyways. Did they take into account the number of mass murders prevented due to the possibility of citizens possibly possessing firearms? My guess is no, it'd be impossible. There are tons of other confounding factors that bias the shiz out of the statistics. Think about this... "Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years"... how do you know if it wouldn't have been a mass shooting if they were stopped. The guy could've shot only 2 people but a civilian take him out... the criminal could've planned to shoot massive amounts of people but we won't know because they were stopped. That statement itself is stupid. But thank you for reading and reporting what you read. It's from teh internetz, must be correct. You have fun in your gunless household. I'll keep my beside the bed, loaded and ready.

Honestly, everything you just said about the credibility of research design that results in anti-gun results could be applied to research design that can be applied to pro-gun findings.

It's difficult to conduct an experiment for mass shootings because you'd have to actually have a mass shooting.

And no one wants that.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Like guns? Read this. Hate guns? Read this.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". BUSTED:



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" BUSTED:



"Having a gun in the house makes you safer" BUSTED:

(In other words, you're 22 times more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love than an intruder. Want to play the odds?)

Isn't it interesting that for the past several decades the NRA has blocked all federal funding for ANY research in to gun violence and actively tries to pass laws forbidding states from sharing their own data on gun violence with one another. Gee, I wonder what they're trying to hide? It seems like common sense that if you're position is the right one, and is backed up by real-world data and happenings, you'd want everyone to know about it, right? I mean, why would they want to hide the truth that guns are amazing and that we need more of them and that more guns is always better? Surely if they're so confident in their positions they wouldn't have any trouble with people doing some basic research on it, right? Unless....

Everything mother jones says about guns is bullshit.

Average number of fatalities when an armed bystander stops a mass-shotting: 2.3
By setting their threshold to 5 deaths for a mass-shooting, MJ deliberately excluded the things they were trying to show don't exist.

Don't need to say more and actually have things to do today...

[CorvallisBMW]

I see we are trying to use a mother jones as some kinda of source with out a bigger agenda than the NRA FFS.

I can play this game too with a little more creditable and less biased source than mother jones whos sole existence is to further gun control laws and further restrictions.

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

I suggest you DL this and read it before you fully comply with the mother jones BS..

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...gh-Targets.pdf

Please note that the Cato institute is a Libertarian think-tank, so don't go thinking it's "unbiased". Here's a quote from the Executive Summary on page 5:

What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense?

Right there, in the second paragraph, this "study" has already shown not only it's extreme bias, but also that it's flat-out wrong. NO ONE, not a single person in Congress or anywhere else in the federal government, is proposing, suggesting or even hinting that law-abiding citizens be stripped of their rights to own a gun. NO ONE. Closing the gun show background check loophole doesn't do that. Requiring a waiting period doesn't do that. Requiring background checks for private party gun sales doesn't do that. Requiring licencing and training doesn't do that. Keeping guns out of schools, bars, courthouses and public buildings doesn't do that. NONE OF IT DOES. Any law-abiding parson could still buy the same guns that he/she could buy today even if every single one of those reforms were enacted. The people is WOULD prevent from buying guns are criminals, the mentally ill, drug abusers, domestic abusers, etc... i.e. all the types of people that we don't want getting guns in the first place.

Let me reiterate: Requiring background checks for all gun sales does not, in any way, prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm. Neither does a waiting period, or licensing, or any of the other rules that have been proposed over the last several decades. You can still buy the same guns at the same places that you do today. The only people that laws like that effect are the criminals and mentally ill people that they're designed to. Period.

Another fun one form Mr Kleck

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

This is the same highly-flawed 1991 study that has been debunked over and over by every single peer review that's ever been done on it. It was completely unscientific and not one single study since then has ever shown similar results. The mere fact that you still refer to it now, 25 years later, shows that you have nothing better to rely on. Here's an excerpt from the very first page:

Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns

Does that sound very accurate, scientific or reliable to you? This guy did his own study but has no idea whether the answer is 800,000, 2,500,000, or somewhere in between...

Here's the thing sleeve... nothing you posted is EVIDENCE to back up your claims. There's no data, no facts, nothing... it's all just opinions, talking points and conjecture. In other words, it's all useless.
Do you actually have any data or facts to support your belief that more guns = less crime? I'm always open to actual evidence, I've been proven wrong plenty of times in my lifetime and had to change my views on things when new evidence and/or facts come to light. If you could provide some, I'd happily look at it. Hell, I might even change my mind. But a bunch of debunked studies and think-tank propaganda isn't facts or data.

[CorvallisBMW]

Average number of fatalities when an armed bystander stops a mass-shotting: 2.3

Do you have any data or sources to back this up? For all we know you just pulled that number out of thin air.

By setting their threshold to 5 deaths for a mass-shooting, MJ deliberately excluded the things they were trying to show don't exist.

I disagree. I don't think 2.3 deaths is considered "massive". Remember, we're talking about MASS shootings, not singular homicides. Including shootings that result in 1 or 2 deaths in to the category of "mass shootings" would corrupt and skew the data, as those events do not meet the criteria. Is 1 death considered a "mass shooting"? No. Is 2? No. What about 5? Ya, I'd say you're getting there with 5. There's no written-in-stone rule for just how many deaths constitute a "mass shooting", but 5 is a very reasonable place to start. 1 or 2 is not.

[BraveUlysses]

I believe every American should be required to own and gun and that gun education classes should be mandatory for all Americans; like driver's ed. I agree, stupid people with guns that don't know how to operate them properly or teach their loved ones about gun safety is indeed a hazard. And yes, the more people that own guns in a given state will lead to increased stupid people owning guns in said state. However, I don't believe those dumb people and their mishaps should play into the types of guns I own or the quantity of rounds the magazine can hold. I possess a Master's of Science in Clinical Research, and most statistics you read are horribly misrepresented and interpreted. I'd like to see the design of the studies in question. There are so many confounding factors to these types of studies, the results don't mean much anyways. Did they take into account the number of mass murders prevented due to the possibility of citizens possibly possessing firearms? My guess is no, it'd be impossible. There are tons of other confounding factors that bias the shiz out of the statistics. Think about this... "Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years"... how do you know if it wouldn't have been a mass shooting if they were stopped. The guy could've shot only 2 people but a civilian take him out... the criminal could've planned to shoot massive amounts of people but we won't know because they were stopped. That statement itself is stupid. But thank you for reading and reporting what you read. It's from teh internetz, must be correct. You have fun in your gunless household. I'll keep my beside the bed, loaded and ready.

You have to be a real grade A fucking retard to think that everyone should be forced to own a gun. Even dumber than those who wish they could all disappear tomorrow.

Everything mother jones says about guns is bullshit.

Average number of fatalities when an armed bystander stops a mass-shotting: 2.3
By setting their threshold to 5 deaths for a mass-shooting, MJ deliberately excluded the things they were trying to show don't exist.

Don't need to say more and actually have things to do today...

The FBI classifies any non-gang active shooter event involving 4 or more homicides as a mass killing, so they applied a higher standard than the FBI to determine that number.

PS your uncited quotation regarding an average of 2.3 fatalities relies on a very shitty math to come up with that number

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/1332

Fourteen incidents were stopped by police with a total of 200 dead. That comes to 14.3 murdered victims per incident. Fifteen incidents were stopped by bystanders with a total of 35 dead. That comes to 2.3 murdered victims per incident.

[ST1G]

In before nonsensical arguments about 2nd Amendment.

[Roysneon]

I like guns. I grew up in a house with guns in it, it was assumed that all our neighbours had guns as well. While I don't really believe in carrying sidearms around I'm not 'afraid' of guns in general and I think that the laws here are obviously doing something. Would I like to own a semi auto AK based rifle or shotgun? Hell yeah! Am I mad that I can't because of the gun laws? Not really.

As someone who grew up around, handling and being taught about guns (My Christmas present when I was 12 was a rifle), I feel as though I have a respect for firearms but not some sort of worship for them as it seems many that are labeled as 'gun nuts' do.

[Dakotademon7]

I like guns.

[mbenning]

Guns don't kill people, oh wait... yes they do.

[Dakotademon7]

Cars kill people to.

[mbenning]

You're seriously comparing the two?