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

juszczec - 

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.

and why do you suppose that is?

What's wrong with the truth, some verifiable statistics? Why do we have to have outrageous claims from both sides that really do nothing except confuse the issue?

likatiga - 

juszczec - 

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.

and why do you suppose that is?

What's wrong with the truth, some verifiable statistics? Why do we have to have outrageous claims from both sides that really do nothing except confuse the issue?

Exactly.

Both sides are just trying to "win" and neither really care about the root of the issue, which is to prevent people from dying at the hands of guns. There are very powerful motivators for both sides of course; money & political advancement carrying the most weight.

Really sad.

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


FACTS, not opinion.

how long before the source is attacked?

dabigchet - the issue is that the kleck number is so ridiculously inflated, than any low number give the impression of "well, it should be at least this much".

surveys are not a good indicator of defensive gun use. if we have a squabble and both pull a gun, we are likely both going to declare it a defensive use because of our biases. if i perceive myself to be threatened, i am going to report that as a defensive gun use. the only way to measure it consistently is to actually consider reported crimes and gun uses. i accept that this will under count some legitimate defensive uses that were not reported (but probably not too much). and every time they are looked at by that criteria they are far outweighed by suicide, homicide and injury.

How often do you think legal permit holders pull out their gun in an argument? Id venture to say almost never.

If all you look at is reported crimes and uses they skews the picture too much and is too narrow of a scope.

Regardless factoring in suicides and accidents also skews the picture for one there arent very many accidental shootings at least not when you factor in the number of people who own guns in this country and if you learn and practice safe weapon handling you will never have an accident. Suicides are not caused by guns and if you know you are not suicidal then its a non issue my risk of gun suicide is 0% and frankly u are suicidal or you arent and there are plent of other non-gun ways that are just as easy Japan has no guns and their suicide rate is much higher. Point is assuming you and those in your household know gun safety and arent suicidal then you can remove those from your risk assessment.

The only way to balance wether a gun makes you more or less safe imo is to compare the number of DGUs vs the number of gun owners shot by someone else intentionally with their own gun.

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?

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?

Violent crimes and gun homicides have gone down, too.  Even after the expiration of the AWB, and many states passing "shall issue" laws. 

juszczec - 

likatiga - 

juszczec - 

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.

and why do you suppose that is?

What's wrong with the truth, some verifiable statistics? Why do we have to have outrageous claims from both sides that really do nothing except confuse the issue?

Exactly.

Both sides are just trying to "win" and neither really care about the root of the issue, which is to prevent people from dying at the hands of guns. There are very powerful motivators for both sides of course; money & political advancement carrying the most weight.

Really sad.

And have you noticed - every single major issue that our country is treated like this.

The extremists on either side line up and start screaming. Politicians react to them for fear of their lobbying groups AND .... nothing changes.

I only hope the silent majority gets pissed off and stops being silent.

ayeandaye - 

dabigchet - 

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.

the notion of "X is a bigger problem than Y, so we should ignore Y" is lazy and the only person who would argue such an argument is someone with a vested interested in Y that they can't defend with a rational argument.

i am all ears for ideas to prevent tobacco and alcohol deaths if you have them. feel free to create a thread if you feel like we can cut into these numbers more than we already have, and i will be happy to participate!

Wow, your lack of reading comprehension tells the story. Where did I say gun control should be ignored? Did I not state it was a question of emphasis? Where did I say that I personally believe tobacco and alcohol should be regulated more heavily?

lol at accusing me at lazy thinking.. Speaking of lazy thinkers, why aren't the gun control advocates asking themselves why the media has been puting a heavy emphasis on AR's when an overwhelming amount of homisides are commited using hand guns? And I'm aware that there are handgun restrictions being suggested, but again, it's a question of emphasis. Could it be that high powered rifles would be one of the most affective ways for the public to protect thmeselves from a tyrannical government/corporate controlled fascist state?

Trust - 

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?

Violent crimes and gun homicides have gone down, too.  Even after the expiration of the AWB, and many states passing "shall issue" laws. 

419 - "i accept that this will under count some legitimate defensive uses that were not reported (but probably not too much)."

What was that about bias?

dabigchet - 

Trust - 

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?

Violent crimes and gun homicides have gone down, too.  Even after the expiration of the AWB, and many states passing "shall issue" laws. 

sure. i would think we could find common ground on these points:

- that gun crime reduction is largely driven by our incarceration rate
- "assault weapons" don't make up a statistically significant portion of total gun crimes

Yes.  

Why do you think there is such intensity among people who want to ban assault weapons?  (this isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking your opinion)

They are involved in a very small fraction of gun crimes, and they are no more lethal than their ordinary semi-automatic rifle counterparts which have been specifically exempted.   

dabigchet - about twice as many people died in mass shootings in 2012 than what typically die from lightning strikes in a year.

i don't believe this thread is specifically about mass shootings though. it is about gun myths. i am most interested in the defense vs danger ratio. i believe the data is clear that overall owning a gun = less safety. that doesn't make any judgment about AR-15s or tobacco deaths or the second amendment or anything else, although i have opinions about all of those.

it just means that owning a gun is more dangerous to your household than not owning one. pretty interesting if you ask me.

I still have to somewhat disagree with this, and let me see if I can explain it.  

The statistics imply, yet fail to prove that those homicides and suicides would not have occured but for the presence of a gun in the house.  If you can prove to me that if there had been no gun, then those people wouldn't have found some other way to do what they did, then I would consider it at least valid. I will concede that it would be rational to assume that some of those people would not have commited those acts without the ease of doing so that is provided by a gun and they may have re-thought/cooled off/changed their mind.  Likewise, some of those people would have found another way to commit those acts.  Furthermore, the studies imply that the mere presence of a gun is responsible for those things, which ignores the fact that it took a person to decide to use the gun to commit those acts.  So it seems to me those studies impute a person's decision to the gun, which is unreasonable to me.  

dabigchet - " Why do you think there is such intensity among people who want to ban assault weapons? (this isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking your opinion"

because of their involvement in mass shootings. they appear to be good for that sort of thing.

But when looking at gun violence in general, they make up a tiny fraction of the weapons that are used. The overwhelming majority are handguns. Why focus on the smaller and more insignificant part of "the problem"?