Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense [ARTICLE] - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense [ARTICLE]

  1. #21
    ...... 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.)

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  3. #22
    Tell a lie often enough, and people will believe it. If someone questions a statement you know to be true, you begin to question it even if in your own mind. Example: I left the keys on the kitchen counter. Wife: I did not see them there. Result: doubt.
    I believe we must start to counter the lies with truth that can be read by the average person on a daily basis. I never thought of myself as a writer, but I am willing to try. Some on this forum and other forums are very good at the written argument. Perhaps we should all try writing editorials and submitting them to publications. We our preaching to the choir on gun forums. We need a forum in the local news paper for the rest of the community to read.

  4. #23
    This is like running through a freshly plowed field. Try this on for size:
    Women, Guns, and the Medical Literature --- A Raging Debate

  5. #24
    Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense

    I didn't bother to read the article but I can't argue with the above statement at all and would be shocked if it wasn't true. I would be greatly surprised if the number of times guns are used in self defense comes anywhere close to the number of times that they are used stupidly. Now you can argue all you want to about what is meant by being used stupidly but to me most are of pure stupidity. For instance I have no other description for it when two friends get in an argument over a $10 football bet and one shoots the other. Or how about when a 17 year old at a party decides to scare everyone by shooting someone with what he thought was an unloaded gun. Or maybe the fellow standing in line at Wal-Mart and has his gun suddenly go off in his pants pocket. How do you want to define stupidity or how about self-defense. Maybe the fellow who is defending himself from the perils of two teen agers who decided to cut across his front yard while walking home.

  6. #25
    Re the above: "Accidental" gun deaths, US; 400-600 per annum. Deliberate murders, of all degrees, US; 14-18K per annum.

    Notes: Most murders of deliberate (1st degree) are drug/gang related. (Roughly half of all, IIRC.) Mainly illegal gun "holders" at that. "Rage" murders happen, amongst illegal gun holders as well as legal gun holders. The same is true for those who "go postal".

    The above from some analysis I did a couple of years ago, building a "case" to use against "hype stats" anti-gun types. .... and represents as well as I can remember the "facts" and numbers.

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  7. #26
    Oh, nearly forgot the important factoid: Number of BGs "dispatched" by home owners, generally less than 100 per annum. (However, if you count the number of times a gun is brandished by a home owner, ending the confrontation right there..... the NRA insists it runs into the hundreds of thousands, which, I might add, I don't quite believe is quite that high..... but even five thousand avoided more serious incidents a year makes it worth the while, IMHO.)

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  8. My papaw used to say don't try to feed me a crap sandwich and call it steak. Crap is crap. I also think that if someone is that desperate to get out of this world they will do it whether they have a gun, a rope, or a bottle of pills. I am truly sorry for people that have these problems and feel like suicide is the only way out.

  9. I am a bit late to this party but, let me clear a few things up. First this is a review study, meaning it takes into account many studies on a subject and tries to form a conclusion. Its primary weakness is that it is very subject to inclusion bias. Meaning you can skew your study results in any direction you want depending on what inclusion criteria you select.

    Review studies are also subject to the strengths and weaknesses of the studies that are used. Garbage in equals gargage out. Since this was a public health study it likely included only other public health studies. The majority of these studys were performed using a case-control model. All of these were flawed studies and have been discredited elsewhere. There is significant bias introduced in what you call a "case" and what you call a "control" with multiple confounding factors which can be difficult to control for.

    I expect that within the body of the public health literature there are quite simply not enough studies, and not enough studies of a varied design to compensate for the weaknesses of previous studies and a review will only echo the flawed results of those studies.

    Lastly, many academics discount the uninted or unseen results. Like in the classic economic fallicy of the broken window, you cannot see what you cannot see. You cannot see the women who are NOT raped because they showed a gun. You cannot see those who are not killed or robbed because they pulled a gun.

    Gary Kleck and John Lott have been criticized for attempting to examine this portion of the equation. If the public health profession would examine the criminology literature they would find that over the last several years it has been evolving away from a gun control model and toward a "responsible ownership" model.

    Because this does not suit the ideology of some, it has been discounted.

    Academia is a mess.

  10. #29
    Typical anti-gun hit piece by socialist wanna be bureaucrat.
    War to the Knife, Knife to the hilt.
    If we don't want to live in a trashy area, we all have to be willing to help pick up the trash.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Life Is Tough, Even Tougher If You're Stupid ~John Wayne
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts