Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense [ARTICLE]
- Thread starter donmontalvo
- Start date
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Hard to regulate stupid.
What is this, a Brady Bunch Forum??? You guys just take this trash at face value? Or worse, did you even read the article?
Link Removed
Billy
PS - I'm going to go read the actual "study" before making any more comments about the title.
John Lott and others have disproven this time and time again.
The US is not another industrialized nation! All you have to do is look at nations that imposed stricter gun laws and the impact on crime to see this is a fallacy! Look at the UK and Australia!
Link Removed
Billy
PS - I'm going to go read the actual "study" before making any more comments about the title.
Yes I read the article and I believe it is just what the authors agenda intended to suggest. If you want, insert automobile for gun. The more cars on the road in the hands of the poorly trained increases accidents and who knows how many are used in suiside or homicide. Bottom line is stupid people do stupid things. If you can find a way to outlaw stupidity we would all be safer.
SonoraRebel
Picture Rocks, Arizona
Just more hysterics from the hopolphobic drama queens who would disarm us all for the errors of the few. Anything can be misused. Anything! Common sense makes us safer, not blanket prohibition,government control or the whinings of some milquetoast like David Hemenway and his ilk.
walther380
New member
Unfortunately one can pull data in a way to make it look however they want. If someone wants to make guns look like evil things they can.
I know this isn't on the same topic but it is an example. There have been studies on the fisheries in Florida that say that the red snapper and grouper are on the decline. Where? I can't keep the damn things off. I can catch 100 snapper in a few hours if my back allowed me to. Grouper is similar but not as aggressive. Don't get me started on jew fish.
I know this isn't on the same topic but it is an example. There have been studies on the fisheries in Florida that say that the red snapper and grouper are on the decline. Where? I can't keep the damn things off. I can catch 100 snapper in a few hours if my back allowed me to. Grouper is similar but not as aggressive. Don't get me started on jew fish.
MECHTESTER
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The medical field needs quit wasting their time on these gun studies. It has nothing to do with medicine. They need to be working on real problems like cancer and diabetes.
I got a kick out of the "banana" mention 
What clowns like this guy never acknowledge is the suicide statistics of the US vs Japan. Japan is virtually gun free, but has a suicide rate twice that of the USA. ARS guy implies (to put it politely) that it's higher in the USA because of guns.
What clowns like this guy never acknowledge is the suicide statistics of the US vs Japan. Japan is virtually gun free, but has a suicide rate twice that of the USA. ARS guy implies (to put it politely) that it's higher in the USA because of guns.
Citing John Lott doesn't help. He has about as much credibility about gun facts as Donald Trump has about birth certificates.
There is no reason to fear David Hemenway's statistics because the conclusions he draws from them are not logical. Referring to Lott just allows the anti-gun extremists to focus the issue on Lott's inadequacies rather than the illogic of Hemenway's conclusion.
We can easily deal with illogical conclusions without getting bogged down in arguments over the viability of the statistics. As many have already noted, statistics can be massaged to promote any agenda - that is equally true about pro-gun stats as it is about anti-gun stats.
Like Lott, Hemenway is not a pure neutral collector of information - he and Lott are agenda driven and it shows in their statistical conclusions and statistical machinations.
We can better promote gun issues by not falling into those traps.
Libs do it all the time.LOL
It's not just the libs. Seems like everytime you turn around someone is trying to regulate stupidity or blame someone else for their stupidity. In fact I often see it on this board. There is no law against being stupid, only acting stupid but what acting stupid is not defined and varies all over the place. What may be stupidity in one person's opinion is normal activity in another's. For instance trying to jump a motorcycle over 15 school buses borders on stupidity to me and we base whether it is stupid or not on the results. Carrying a gun without a safety is perfectly fine until something happens then we claim it was stupid.
donmontalvo
New member
That artical was just typical lib fear mongering!! The fact that some maybe true they want throw out any real #'s like how many 15 to 24 yr olds that were killed had illegal firearms, how many homicides involving 5 to 14 yr olds in accidental shooting were with legal/illegal guns!! Lib's love to get on that soap box and throw out those curve balls twisting the facts.
I'm with you JeepFreak, Many have disproven most everything if not everything in that artical with real number facts over and over!
I'm with you JeepFreak, Many have disproven most everything if not everything in that artical with real number facts over and over!
What proof do you have that Lott's studies are BS? I hear a lot of Anti's (and you) claim that he's not credible, but I've yet to see any proof. Anybody with a little common sense can pick apart Hemenway's study, but I haven't seen anybody actually tell me where Lott's numbers are skewed or his words are tricky. If you can't show the proof, quick giving the Anti's credibility.
Billy
Grognard Gunny
New member
...... the real stats come in where one decides what constitutes "stupidity" and how does one count incidents thereof, versus self defence and the real incidents of THAT.
Do you just count the deaths from each category? Do you count the "self defense" incidents, countable and reportable, reportedly in the hundreds of thousands each year, that do NOT require more than "brandishing"? The same level of incident reporting for "stupidity" would be unobtainable. (Can you envision a "survey" that has the question: "Did you or any member of your family do anything STUPID with the weapon(s) in your house this past year?") (THAT will garner a lot of solid, valid responses. OH YEAH!)
It's another one of those "leading" conclusions. Rather like: "If there is a gun in the house, it is 14 more times likely to be used for the purposes of suicide than in houses without weapons." No kidding, Sherlock! If a person is desirous of checking out of the net, doesn't it make perfect sence to use the tool best at hand to do the job? Therefore, follow this carefully now, the person who is determined to do himself in AND has a gun handy to perform the task is MOST LIKELY to use the gun. Period.
In fact, I'm rather surprised the ratio is ONLY 14 to 1. (This example is from a rather old "study" of a few years ago. Which I found MOST exemplatory in the use of bogus stats to further the anti gun agenda.)
GG
Do you just count the deaths from each category? Do you count the "self defense" incidents, countable and reportable, reportedly in the hundreds of thousands each year, that do NOT require more than "brandishing"? The same level of incident reporting for "stupidity" would be unobtainable. (Can you envision a "survey" that has the question: "Did you or any member of your family do anything STUPID with the weapon(s) in your house this past year?") (THAT will garner a lot of solid, valid responses. OH YEAH!)
It's another one of those "leading" conclusions. Rather like: "If there is a gun in the house, it is 14 more times likely to be used for the purposes of suicide than in houses without weapons." No kidding, Sherlock! If a person is desirous of checking out of the net, doesn't it make perfect sence to use the tool best at hand to do the job? Therefore, follow this carefully now, the person who is determined to do himself in AND has a gun handy to perform the task is MOST LIKELY to use the gun. Period.
In fact, I'm rather surprised the ratio is ONLY 14 to 1. (This example is from a rather old "study" of a few years ago. Which I found MOST exemplatory in the use of bogus stats to further the anti gun agenda.)
GG
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.
