18 Jun 2012, 1:32 am
18 Jun 2012, 2:01 am
18 Jun 2012, 3:29 am
18 Jun 2012, 3:33 am
18 Jun 2012, 4:26 am
18 Jun 2012, 5:12 am
AceOfSpades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
And oh yeah, none of the gun control folks have ever shown evidence for this "More guns create a culture of violence" theory of theirs. Then again, your definition of "violent" clearly means "Anyone who owns a gun regardless of whether or not they are responsible with it". I'm convinced that terms like "gun culture" or "culture of violence" are nothing more than obfuscating horses**t.
Isn't this simple outgroup Vs ingroup stuff. Gun owners tend to mix with other gun owners because of common interests (i.e. gun clubs, shooting ducks, game, clay pellets etc). Of course when gun owners mix with their fellow gun "enthusiasts" they feed each other with the usual justification of why they have guns and of course why society "needs" civilians to have guns. The outgroup here are people who "don't" own guns and who may find it objectionable and downright scary that their neighbor has a cache of weapons.
I just wanted to address one more thing though since this is so laughably stupid:
cyberdad wrote:
Does it ever occur to you why you never hear never hear about the heroic dad who saves his family from armed intruders with a gun? The reason is because it's a myth.
No sh** sherlock, if it bleeds it leads. In 92% of cases where a legal gun owner brandishes a gun, either no shot is fired or a warning shot is. Not so sensational for the headlines is it? Yeah, I'm sure a a story of a man pointing a gun at an intruder until the cops arrive is going to get so much more ratings than a cracked out intruder who kills the man's whole family 
Quote:
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.1 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.
Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.2
Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.
Fact: When using guns in self-defense3:
83% of robbery victims were not injured.
88% of assault victims were not hurt.
76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.
Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.4
http://www.gunmyths.com/2008/12/23/myth-private-ownership-of-guns-is-not-effective-in-preventing-crime/Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.
Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.2
Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.
Fact: When using guns in self-defense3:
83% of robbery victims were not injured.
88% of assault victims were not hurt.
76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.
Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.4
This alone s**ts on every argument you've brought to the table. But that's okay, you don't have to accept that. I've given up already so nobody's stopping you from cherry picking my arguments and dodging my points. But at least I can actually call myself civilized with a straight face since I actually do things to deserve the label, such as conducting myself respectfully and not being a self-righteous bigot.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf
Here is the full source for those "facts". It is a fact that a study has been done to estimate those numbers but it is not a fact the the numbers have been proven as accurate.
The author covers himself with a disclaimer at the beginning of his "research"
Quote:
Sources
All sources cited in this work are accurate to the best of my research. I use the most recent data I can easily find. If any more recent data is available (even if it weakens my arguments), I welcome receiving the same.
All sources cited in this work are accurate to the best of my research. I use the most recent data I can easily find. If any more recent data is available (even if it weakens my arguments), I welcome receiving the same.
He's under no obligation to correct any off his statements, nor does he suggest that he will in this statement.
Some of the stretches included comparing statistics on crime in 1920 in Canada, before gun restrictions were imposed as opposed to 1986. The same methodologies to measure crime that existed in the 80's did not even exist in 1920.
Quote:
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide
rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 9 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).10
rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 9 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).10
The suggestion that violent crime rate was more than double of the US, was not based on actual statistics for homicides
The figures below are based on actual crime statistics for homicides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada
Quote:
The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[18] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[19]
By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [17]
Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[20]
By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [17]
Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[20]
He also suggests that there were gun controls implemented in 1977 prohibiting handgun possession for protection, which is not an accurate description of the gun control laws that were passed per Bill C-51 in Canada in 1977:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Quote:
In 1977, Bill C-51 required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm, and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. Applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before receiving the FAC.
Laws vary by countries per what the definition of violent crime is. Homicide rates between countries are considered the only reliable measures of comparing violent crimes across countries.
I suppose that he his betting on the odds that not many of the fans of his "facts", will check the actual sources and compare them to other sources for this "free" gun myths "fact" checker download on the internet used as a teaser to purchase his book. But, the "facts" as presented, when checked, do not make a good argument for those who oppose stricter gun control laws.
Last edited by aghogday on 18 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
18 Jun 2012, 5:36 am
18 Jun 2012, 5:52 am
18 Jun 2012, 3:21 pm
18 Jun 2012, 3:58 pm
18 Jun 2012, 4:23 pm
18 Jun 2012, 6:25 pm
Dox47 wrote:
^
You've got a few problems; a massive base of already possessed firearms, a Constitutional right, and a lack of proof that it's Canada's gun regulations and not other aspects of their law and customs that are responsible for the differing crime levels. I'm mostly interested in that last one.
Based on years of immersion in this debate and thousands of hours of research, I'm quite confident that I could air-drop millions of pistols into Canada (or Japan for that matter) without seeing a jump in violent crime; it's not the guns that cause violence but the underlying conditions. There may be an argument for national healthcare or other state welfare programs in there, but not one for gun control.
You've got a few problems; a massive base of already possessed firearms, a Constitutional right, and a lack of proof that it's Canada's gun regulations and not other aspects of their law and customs that are responsible for the differing crime levels. I'm mostly interested in that last one.
Based on years of immersion in this debate and thousands of hours of research, I'm quite confident that I could air-drop millions of pistols into Canada (or Japan for that matter) without seeing a jump in violent crime; it's not the guns that cause violence but the underlying conditions. There may be an argument for national healthcare or other state welfare programs in there, but not one for gun control.
There is always an argument for gun safety. Safety saves lives; there is no question about that.
I agree it would would be impossible to enforce it among existing gun owners, but worthwhile as an increased measure of safety, for new individuals registering guns.
Would it ever happen? Not likely in the US.
Canada rates #4 on the global index of peace; the US rates #88. Many reasons for that.
One reason is it is two different cultures and two very different ways of thinking among the general population, on issues like health care, gun control, state welfare programs etc. The society is healthier than the Society in the US.
I suspect the fact the country has one of the lowest overall population densities has more to do with overall levels of homicide, than any other factor. My understanding is that levels of homicide are much higher in the urban areas close to the American boarder.
There is going to be violence in New York City, with or without guns. It is an issue for most mammals when population densities and competition for resources are increased.
Guns provide a deterrent for violence as well as a cultural adaptation to overcome the natural aversion to kill another member of the same species. Not unlike nuclear bombs, they aren't necessarily a bad thing unless one becomes a victim of the weapon.
People in Japan still have a much different view point of nuclear weapons than we do, as one of the few populations that have ever actually been directly impacted by the weapon.
If anarchy ever results in the US, it's not likely that guns are going to be seen as a good thing in the streets of the US, with more people victimized by the weapon. Withstanding that potential, the factors of crime associated with guns, appear to be fairly well under control.
It's less likely that there will be an issue like that in Canada, because of the health of the society that is evidenced there above and beyond the US. If one can can stand the cold, it appears to be a much safer place, overall, to live.
18 Jun 2012, 8:48 pm
19 Jun 2012, 4:25 am
Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world, and they also eat a lot of sushi. Neighboring countries eat far less sushi, and off themselves at far lower rates, so obviously all that sushi is what's making the Japanese suicidal. A political hack filmmaker with a history of lying made a documentary about it, so I know it's true...
19 Jun 2012, 5:43 am
19 Jun 2012, 5:48 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hello, from Australia. New here.. |
02 Feb 2024, 5:06 am |
| There's a store called Target in the US and Australia. |
16 Apr 2024, 9:58 pm |
| What do people expect people of a certain age to look like? |
29 Feb 2024, 9:19 pm |
| How Many People Are Here These Days? |
18 Apr 2024, 12:50 pm |
