Oh, Snap!

The death of gun control. Long overdue, if you ask me. Enemies of the bill of rights are enemies of freedom. 

First, i will say that I am not aagainst gun control. I own a gun and I keep it locked up.

BUT!,

All these pro gun control stats are very misleading.  Crime rates and burglery are much more related to economic factors rather than gun control.

Further more, they forget to mention that 90% of all gun related deaths are either crimes of passion or accidents.  The number of times that a gun actually saves lives is negligable. (Im not talking cops here, just plain ole citizens.) Instead, the NRA uses bogus stats flaunting all the crime that never happens.

I know, I know, more gun control give criminals guns and leaves the rest of us defenseless.  What I am trying to point out is that it is not the criminals that are shooting us, we are shooting ourselves.

Its Jane shooting John and Cathey for having an affair, its Mike shooting his neighbor over an insult or Mr. Smith shooting his child on accident while polishing his rifle in the house. 

Next to owning a car, its probably the most dangerous thing you can have in your home.

Posted by  on  04/09  at  05:12 AM

Testify, the FBI estimates that one to two million crimes are prevented each year because of individual gun ownership.  Let’s see you try to flaunt your away around that one.

Posted by  on  04/09  at  05:58 AM

Most gun deaths are suicides. Accidents are a tiny fraction. And gun deaths over all are less than many other kinds of deaths by some kind of weapon.

But it’s been shown time and time again that crime goes up in inverse proportion to gun control laws. When England and Australia essentially banned guns, their crime rates shot up. And both have good economies.

Posted by James Hudnall  on  04/09  at  07:42 AM

It’s a junk stat. I don’t trust any stat that cannot be proven or unproven. I can’t even fathom how they came up with that extremely vague number.  Its like second hand smoke or Global warming.  They attribute one unverifiable variable to some extremely complex equations.

I mean, the graph says 2.5 million a year.  What is it 1,2, or 2.5 million?  What about the 134,000 crimes by guns?  What about the US Bureau of Justice Stats show a “plummet” in firearm relates crime that corresponds to stricter laws?  What about the claim that 66% of all murders are committed with guns. Or that guns were used in 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005? What about the stat that says 71 percent of murders by gun are committed by family and friends? Or the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Or American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries?

I am sure there are dozens of stats to contradict me.  Some shadier than others.  (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm)

So taking a step back.  I will address these stats involving guns and crime prevention.  Well, are very, very circumstantial.  I will show you again what I mean.

Chicago and DC: Strictest gun Control=highest murder rate in the nation. (According to map)
New York: Strict gun control= shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds during Rudi’s term.

HOLY SH*T!!! There is conflicting evidence everywhere

How can both be true.  Because they cannot be proven “untrue.” This isn’t science, its decorating.

Funny, huh?…there are lots of stats out there to pick and choose from.

That begs the question, what to do?  Well, first you can look at some more verifiable info.
• 200 people a year are killed by accident.
• 2000 people a year are accidentally injured (This one comes of memory, it may be a bad stat)
• About 2000 homicides are fire arms related and I have no idea how many injuries there are.  (I would guess 20 times…but that would be a guess.)

What does this mean? Well, it means that guns are a very costly way to protect ourselves.  And for every 10 people murdered, 1 is killed by accident, most likely in the house. Even stranger, of those 2000 people who are killed by fire arms, 1400 will be killed by someone they know.  Not some robber, but from Uncle Theo.

However, there is a huge portion of people that remain unaffected by this. Why should they be punished for some redneck’s misgivings? Also, it is our right to be able to defend ourselves.  Despite the obvious drawbacks, a gun is a very good means of self defense.  Taking that away from take away is taking away a very fundamental right. Even though most likely it will be a family member or friends going after you with a gun, that still leaves 600 people a year who could have fought that criminal back. 

Are there any cops on this board?  I would love to here what they think. If we are safer with or without guns in the house.

Posted by  on  04/09  at  07:51 AM

Also, I think comparing countries is a terrible way to judge crime prevention techniques.  If you ask me, the more social, racial, econimic, religous, and political diversity a country has, the more murders there are. 

Just look at DC, my home town. Murder rate here is declining rapidly.  It has nothing to do with gun laws, but everything to do with gentrification.  PG county in Maryland, and you can see their murder rate increase at suspicously the same rate as our decrease.  Funny how that works.

I would recommend reading the book Freekonomics(SP?).  It was a very enlightening expirience for me. Showed my the versatility with stats and how they can be used. (the best is where he link abortion laws to murder rates 15 years later.  Very convincing.)

Posted by  on  04/09  at  08:00 AM

I agree that stats are often used to mislead people. However, all you have to do is go to the OSHA site and see how many people are killed each year in work related accidents (alone) from something other than guns and you’ll see the numbers are way higher.

And I agree that the biggest factor in gun crime is criminals. That’s because people kill people, not guns. If they didn’t have guns, they’d find another way.

The best way to look at the stats is look at the stats from non advocacy sites on what appears to be unrelated sources, like OSHA or other federal stats sites not concerned with gun deaths. You get those numbers, then you go to FBI or other crime statistics sites and get the amount of gun crime numbers.

Sorry, but you’ll find gun crimes are not the boogie man anti-gun people want you to believe. Once again, people are using fear and ignorance to get us to lose our freedoms.

When people the right to carry, crime is lower in those states. Because criminals are more likely to be blocked by a gun in the victim’s hand.

More importantly, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. Any politician or group who attempts to limit or block our rights is an enemy of freedom.

Posted by  on  04/09  at  08:19 AM

“Sorry, but you’ll find gun crimes are not the boogie man anti-gun people want you to believe. Once again, people are using fear and ignorance to get us to lose our freedoms.”

Conversly, criminals aren’t the boggie man that pro-gun folks want you to believe.  Most gun crimes are from family and friends.
Pro-gun folks pretend that accidents dont happen. 

I do not think that I am unique in that I can think of at least 2 or 3 freinds that have had close calls.  Guns gong off in the house or unexpectedly while hunting.  IF you hunt, you have stories. If you dont, then I don’t beleive you.

On the other hand, I dont know a single person who has defended themselves with a gun.  (my buddy shot a gator in his backyard once)

I just hate it when people show half the story with a total disregard to the other side. Through out some lame state and call it day. There is a reason it is controversial.  It is not simple.

Posted by  on  04/09  at  08:34 AM

The thing, Testify, is that there can be found a reason to give away all our freedoms. Smoking? Smokers have three times higher death rate. Alchohol? 50 % of all homicides in America are because of it. Fat foods? There are so many claims of its dangers that I don`t want even to start. Free speech. Naaah, you might insult somebody. Property? It`s not good when some people have more than others. You see where I`m going?
The problem is that it`s not goverment`s role to control our private lives AT ALL. Its ONLY role is to protect our rights, not take them away. That`s the theory anyway…

Posted by  on  04/09  at  09:11 AM

I have defended myself numerous times with a gun, and would not be here today if I hadn’t.

A gun is tool, nothing more noting less.

Posted by  on  04/09  at  09:43 AM

Wow, I guess I have lived a sheltered life.

Would you guys feel safer if there were no gun laws what so ever?

Posted by  on  04/09  at  10:06 AM

Vermont and Alaska have no laws to speak of and they’re not exactly known as the wild west.

When you have cultures that encourage violence, like say, in Iraq, that’s another matter.

But I would rather have the option to defend myself as I best see fit than to be told no. The police and governments can’t protect everyone. At best, they can oppress, not protect.

Posted by James Hudnall  on  04/09  at  10:12 AM

I have hunted for 15 years, and I have never had a gun go off accidentally, nor anyone I ever hunted with.  The percentage of hunter accidents is very small compared with the number of hunters.

Posted by Laurie  on  04/09  at  02:23 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main