Firearms A Danger To Owners
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Firearms A Danger To Owners

  1. #1

    Firearms A Danger To Owners

    Here we go again, so called experts purportedly showing that gun owners are more likely to get shot than non-gun owners. How much do you want to bet the Obama administration will give a grant to this university team to continue the study?

    Firearms, a danger to owners | thespectrum.com | The Spectrum

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    Another BS anti-gun study. IMAO.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

  4. #3
    Just another gun "myth" perpetuated by the charlatins that can't stand the 2nd Amendment as it is.

    When's the last time anyone here shot themselves ? Or, for that matter had one of your family shot by accident ?

    I'm betting ZERO !!!!


    Among the possible explanations for their finding the researchers Speculated that those who carry a firearm may be imbued with a sense of bravado or empowerment that would cause them to take unnecessary risks.
    Speculation is not science, nor is it applicable to random studies of vital statistics. Need I say more ?

    I quit reading after I read that sentence. It makes my head hurt.
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

  5. #4
    Smoke and mirrors, but Ropeadope is right in that when the media perpetuates BS 'studies' like this, the uneducated masses (sheep) soak it up as though it were gospel.
    "There is no consitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (7th Cir. 1982, Bowers v. DeVito)Stay safe, and stay trained.www.sazsatt.com

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by AZSATT View Post
    Smoke and mirrors, but Ropeadope is right in that when the media perpetuates BS 'studies' like this, the uneducated masses (sheep) soak it up as though it were gospel.
    Couldn't have said it any better....well done
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

  7. #6
    And people that have fire extinguishers are more likely to burn to death.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. Read the entire article. Not the study. The author is pretty scathing about the whole concept of the study, doesn't even go into the BS junk-science behind it. it's actually a very conservative little news outlet, as you might expect form southern utah.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ... for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Daugherty16 View Post
    Read the entire article. Not the study. The author is pretty scathing about the whole concept of the study, doesn't even go into the BS junk-science behind it. it's actually a very conservative little news outlet, as you might expect form southern utah.
    Yes, if you read teh whole article it is clearly PRO-gun ownership.

    bill

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by billwot View Post
    Yes, if you read teh whole article it is clearly PRO-gun ownership.

    bill
    Yes the article itself is pro 2A, however, the university study it talks about definitely is not. The main crux of the article deals with this study and it's faults. Who do you think the Obama administration is going to listen to? A pro 2A news reporter or an "educated" university study? I did not post the article as anti 2A but the study it talks about.

  11. #10
    Charles Branas, the director of the study, claims that the question remains whether firearms are "protective or perilous" and that the study is "just a beginning."
    A beginning ? I went to college also and if you expect a certain outcome then you and your team will lead in the direction of that outcome rather than allowing the raw data to achieve either or, for or agains't your desired outcome.

    One study, that I cannot find now, asserted that higher levels of testosterone where present in males in who handled a firearm vs those who did not. No kidding ? If I sit in a Ferrari and turn the key on and take a drive I'm almost sure my testosterone levels are even higher than when I fondle one of my fireamrs. That could be said about many automobiles, not just a Ferrari. Yet another study done with a speculated outcome.

    I certainly do not go out looking for reasons to use my ccw gun, nor do I go out of my way to go to lowley parts of town where drug dealers and gang bangers hangout.

    I'm not sure how you condut the study that University of Pitt want's to do, but I see it as almost impossible to have any measurement of ones behavior other than studying thousands of CCW permit holders behaviors and or just a questionaire, which can be very misleading and taut with corrupt outcomes for a specific desired need.


    Just my .02. Rant over.
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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