Post by sassypantzz on Jan 27, 2015 15:23:28 GMT -5
I preface my response with the knowledge and RESPECT that ALL people should not need to own guns, but I get very defensive about being called, an idiot, or less intelligent, or unreasonable for being EDUCATED and TRAINED and CHOOSING to own a gun. I could make this post go forever, but I KNOW what side of this I want to be on.
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
* The following commonly cited statistic does not meet Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns." * Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:
1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]
2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]
3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])
All facts can be misconstrued, all people are entitled to have an opinion, but I don't want to be berated for mine.
Post by theseaword on Jan 27, 2015 15:29:40 GMT -5
It's not berating. It's educating. If it was against anti vaxxers it would be the same thing. Pro gun folks have their taking points, but ultimately, more hand guns are hazardous to our society and provide little benefit. It really is common sense.
It's not berating. It's educating. If it was against anti vaxxers it would be the same thing. Pro gun folks have their taking points, but ultimately, more hand guns are hazardous to our society and provide little benefit. It really is common sense.
Respectfully, yes, all sides to all debates will have talking points. Valid, factual talking points at that. HOWEVER, your benefit and my benefit greatly differ and that is completely ok. Is is, however berating to be called an idiot. I AM EDUCATED, both in a collegiate sense and by way of the risk/benefit of MY FAMILY choosing gun ownership by people qualified to teach and train.. not FB. Also, it isn't common sense. Common sense would be don't hand a loaded firearm to a child and tell them to go play.. THAT is common sense. Don't shoot what you can't see. Common sense. What it is, is a decision that every person/family has a right to make. Are there people that own firearms and shouldn't? HELL yes, but to group every gun owner in that category IS UNEDUCATED. (NOT calling you or anyone on the board uneducated.. please know this! I do love yall!)
Post by sassypantzz on Jan 27, 2015 17:01:35 GMT -5
I read it and found a lot of valid talking points in it. I haven't had time to look into the credibility of their sources, but at face value yes it sounds good. All in all, I can see and understand both sides. I have personally had experience with a not so fantastic situation myself (CVS robbery), and my neighbor (I use this term loosely.. more the neighborhood down the way) was held at gun point with her baby in the middle of the day and taken hostage into her own home where those fuck threatened to dump boiling water on her 9mo old because she wouldnt give up drugs THAT SHE NEVER HAD. It was her husband who came home armed where she was inside with two assholes that was able to shoot one and scare the other. Is this ideal? Of course not. I never try to meet these debates with personal anecdotes, because they are just that. However, I am confident in my decision and just don't want called an idiot for my feelz.
Holy shit. Guess Casey Anthony can be absolved too. Jurors are never wrong.
No. And I'm not absolving anyone in any circumstance. But just pointing out that it's not public opinion that makes the fact above but tried cases. Again. Not stating my opinion on the case just that it would indeed count for protect as that was what was determined in the courts and prt of the factual data used to make statistics.
Post by sassypantzz on Jan 27, 2015 18:36:14 GMT -5
Straying from the point here. But I'm going to end it with -I respectfully disagree with some of the arguments but not all. I am just putting my "I'm not changing your mind and your not changing mine" stake right here.
I always genuinely love educated banter with you all. I can always say I learn something
Then Comes Family, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising
program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.