OtherGround Forum >> 10 Pro-Gun Myths: Shot Down

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


FACTS, not opinion.

how long before the source is attacked?

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye -  why in the fuck are so many people freaking out about guns, when there are so many other things that kill more people? maybe start with the things that cause the most fatalities and work your way down? oh wait, that would make sense..

are we not also trying to minimize deaths in other areas as well? should we really only focus on 1 thing at a time? should we take all of our cancer funding, for example, and divert 100% of it to heart disease research?

when's the last time you saw a thread about banning tobacco or alcohol? or about deaths from medical malpractice? or about ways to reduce traffic fatalities?

419 - "statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident?"

There are more DGUs than homicide/suicide/accidents.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

BigRyana - 

12SixElbow - 

dabigchet - "FACT: in 2012, in Portland a shooter was stopped because a mall shopper drew on him (Clackamas town center shooting)."

lol. that shooter was stopped BY HIS OWN BULLET. was stopped. you have got to be kidding me...what a series of facts in this here thread.

Sort of...

A shopper drew on him and he shot himself.

Would he have stopped shooting and randomly killed himself right when he started shooting up the mall if that hadn't happened? Doubtful.

 

Correct. I live within a few minutes of the mall this happened at and talked to several people that were there when this happened. Essentially, the CCW drew on the shooter, CCW saw people behind shooter, held off shooting. Shooter saw CCW, quickly broke line of sight and shot himself in head. This is the account of events as I heard them from witnesses anyway. If CCW holder was not there, I have no doubt the shooter would have continued shooting.

And this article is a joke. It shows how some people fail to live in reality with the rest of us. a FACT is something that is provable beyond any ability to dispute. The creator of the article doesn't seem to understand that.

Trust - 

"statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident?"

The better question is statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident, or none of the above?

By ignoring the fact that the vast majority of guns are never involved in any of those types of incidents, your question implies those incidents are more likely to occur than they are actually likely to occur.  

The US suicide rate is around 0.006%, and about half of those, 0.003%, are by gun.  The US gun homicide rate is around 0.005%.  I mean we are talking tiny, tiny numbers compared to a gun doing nothing and harming no one. 

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye -  why in the fuck are so many people freaking out about guns, when there are so many other things that kill more people? maybe start with the things that cause the most fatalities and work your way down? oh wait, that would make sense..

are we not also trying to minimize deaths in other areas as well? should we really only focus on 1 thing at a time? should we take all of our cancer funding, for example, and divert 100% of it to heart disease research?

when's the last time you saw a thread about banning tobacco or alcohol? or about deaths from medical malpractice? or about ways to reduce traffic fatalities?

please take a look at myth #1. i have not seen a "ban guns" thread either.

substitute "ban" for "more regulation", the point is still the same.

likatiga - 

juszczec - I'd be interested in seeing corroborating statistics from a site that has no agenda to push.

I don't read Mother Jones enough to know if they've got a bias.

If you read that article, you've read enough.

Both sides of the argument do this ridiculous dishonest misrepresentation of facts and statistics.

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye -  why in the fuck are so many people freaking out about guns, when there are so many other things that kill more people? maybe start with the things that cause the most fatalities and work your way down? oh wait, that would make sense..

are we not also trying to minimize deaths in other areas as well? should we really only focus on 1 thing at a time? should we take all of our cancer funding, for example, and divert 100% of it to heart disease research?

when's the last time you saw a thread about banning tobacco or alcohol? or about deaths from medical malpractice? or about ways to reduce traffic fatalities?

please take a look at myth #1. i have not seen a "ban guns" thread either.

substitute "ban" for "more regulation", the point is still the same.

oh, then yes there have been plenty of threads about the right level of regulation on drugs, tobacco, etc.

if there have been threads with people complaining that we need more drug regulation i haven't seen them, and there certainly aren't close to as many as about guns. why don't you link to one of these threads with people advocating more tobacco regulation?

ayeandaye - 

juszczec -

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet -

ayeandaye -  why in the fuck are so many people freaking out about guns, when there are so many other things that kill more people? maybe start with the things that cause the most fatalities and work your way down? oh wait, that would make sense..

are we not also trying to minimize deaths in other areas as well? should we really only focus on 1 thing at a time? should we take all of our cancer funding, for example, and divert 100% of it to heart disease research?

when's the last time you saw a thread about banning tobacco or alcohol? or about deaths from medical malpractice? or about ways to reduce traffic fatalities?

please take a look at myth #1. i have not seen a "ban guns" thread either.

substitute "ban" for "more regulation", the point is still the same.

oh, then yes there have been plenty of threads about the right level of regulation on drugs, tobacco, etc.

if there have been threads with people complaining that we need more drug regulation i haven't seen them, and there certainly aren't close to as many as about guns. why don't you link to one of these threads with people advocating more tobacco regulation?

tobacco regulation? has there been a call for additional tobacco regulation? is it even needed? hasn't the information about the negative effects of smoking been publicized to the point that if you missed it then you are deliberately trying to ignore it?

and as far as drug regulation is concerned, we've had 20+ years of "Just Say No" and going after the users. what has it gotten us? a whole bunch of small time users in the legal system. IF the Fed wants to continue the "war on drugs" then then they need to go after the suppliers because I think its safe to say the tactic of concentrating on the buyers has failed.

i was talking about threads on the og. and i wasn't saying that nobody speaks of these things, the point was public discourse in relation to fatality rate. meaning that gun control seems to be given significantly more importance than issues that cause a lot more deaths.

dabigchet - 

Trust - 

"statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident?"

The better question is statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident, or none of the above?

By ignoring the fact that the vast majority of guns are never involved in any of those types of incidents, your question implies those incidents are more likely to occur than they are actually likely to occur.  

The US suicide rate is around 0.006%, and about half of those, 0.003%, are by gun.  The US gun homicide rate is around 0.005%.  I mean we are talking tiny, tiny numbers compared to a gun doing nothing and harming no one. 

well, if you apply that to anything else you can see its a pretty poor way to look at risk. let's apply this method of thinking to carbon monoxide detectors.

if .006% is the suicide rate the death rate by carbon monoxide (not in a fire) is .0006%.

if i asked the question, "does a carbon monoxide detector make you safer", would you answer in the same way? of course not. yet, there are too many needless, preventable carbon monoxide deaths. same with homicides and suicides and injuries with guns that should have never been owned in the first place.

"if i asked the question, "does a carbon monoxide detector make you safer", would you answer in the same way? "

Yes, I would.  

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet - hot topics in the news tend to be talked about here. saying that no one talks about tobacco is kind of like saying "how come there are no mitt romney threads?" it's not newsworthy anymore. however, whenever there are new cigarette labeling laws, or outdoor smoking bans, or whatever other anti-tobacco policies of the day there are, they tend to get discussed quite a bit.

there are around half a million deaths from tobacco every year compared to about 30 thousand from guns, and of those 30 thousand a very small percentage is from AR's. you can try to form circular arguments all you want. but anyone with at least average intelligence can see that it's the media controlling the fools that can't think for themselves.

That's correct.  ARs are not some overwhelming massive problem that needs to be addressed.  They are  not interested in saving lives or in protecting "the children", they just want to push their controlling agenda. 

Trust - 

dabigchet - 

Trust - 

"statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident?"

The better question is statistically, if i buy a gun is it more likely to be used to defend my family or in a homicide or suicide or accident, or none of the above?

By ignoring the fact that the vast majority of guns are never involved in any of those types of incidents, your question implies those incidents are more likely to occur than they are actually likely to occur.  

The US suicide rate is around 0.006%, and about half of those, 0.003%, are by gun.  The US gun homicide rate is around 0.005%.  I mean we are talking tiny, tiny numbers compared to a gun doing nothing and harming no one. 

well, if you apply that to anything else you can see its a pretty poor way to look at risk. let's apply this method of thinking to carbon monoxide detectors.

if .006% is the suicide rate the death rate by carbon monoxide (not in a fire) is .0006%.

if i asked the question, "does a carbon monoxide detector make you safer", would you answer in the same way? of course not. yet, there are too many needless, preventable carbon monoxide deaths. same with homicides and suicides and injuries with guns that should have never been owned in the first place.

"if i asked the question, "does a carbon monoxide detector make you safer", would you answer in the same way? "

Yes, I would.  

New Leaf 1.0 - The source should be attacked, just like you would attack it if the source was known to provide dishonest and biased information the other direction.

Anyone who intentionally reads Fox/Huffington/Mother Jones has no place in a real conversation about issues. Those who intentionally seek misinformation should be ignored.

BTW - there are plenty of "facts" that dispute the "facts" in that article.

Let me know when you can overcome the "fact" that Switzerland has the third highest rate of gun ownership in the world and one of the lowest incidents of violence around. I can produce "fact" after "fact" after "fact" to dispute your "facts." The difference being I use legitimate sources and actually fact check my facts, instead of just assuming they are true because they support what I want to be true.

I still remember you producing a list of "facts" about how much profit a bunch of big companies made and your "facts" were easily disputed by public records and you still thought they counted as "facts." I believe that list came from mother jones too.

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet - hot topics in the news tend to be talked about here. saying that no one talks about tobacco is kind of like saying "how come there are no mitt romney threads?" it's not newsworthy anymore. however, whenever there are new cigarette labeling laws, or outdoor smoking bans, or whatever other anti-tobacco policies of the day there are, they tend to get discussed quite a bit.

there are around half a million deaths from tobacco every year compared to about 30 thousand from guns, and of those 30 thousand a very small percentage is from AR's. you can try to form circular arguments all you want. but anyone with at least average intelligence can see that it's the media controlling the fools that can't think for themselves.

awilson82 -

 

 In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides."

 

Many of which are ruled justifiable or at worst manslaughter and the source is quoting the amount reported not the amount of convictions.

419 - Mother Jones cited Kellerman's 1998 study, which used the same methodology as his earlier work. Not all DGUs involve a shooting. The low estimate for DGUs is 100K, which is more than the 30K gun homicide/suicide/accidental deaths.

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet - 

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet - hot topics in the news tend to be talked about here. saying that no one talks about tobacco is kind of like saying "how come there are no mitt romney threads?" it's not newsworthy anymore. however, whenever there are new cigarette labeling laws, or outdoor smoking bans, or whatever other anti-tobacco policies of the day there are, they tend to get discussed quite a bit.

there are around half a million deaths from tobacco every year compared to about 30 thousand from guns, and of those 30 thousand a very small percentage is from AR's. you can try to form circular arguments all you want. but anyone with at least average intelligence can see that it's the media controlling the fools that can't think for themselves.

have tobacco related deaths increased or decreased in the last 50 years or so? why has that happened?

i'm sure they've decreased, but that doens't change that ridiculous ratio of 500,000/30,000. not to mention the fact that you can at least make an argument (i'm aware that it's debatable) that less gun regulation is beneficial, comapared to what possible benefits for alcohol and tobacco? it's a question on emphasis, not whether the issues are discussed at all.

419 - I already posted this link:

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html