WaterfowlForum.Net

Maybe this should be in some other forum, guns or politics or something, but I put it here. Feel free to move it, any of you mods.

There's always talk of people who defend themselves with a gun. I had never heard any "definite" numbers before reading this. If you choose to read the link, it's very short (about a page and a half), but very dry. Basically, it talks about the two most common studies of self defense use of a gun. The high end in one study is 2.55 MILLION times a year people use guns to defend themselves. The low end in the other study is 55,000-80,000 per year (this is the study used by people to downplay the importance of a gun). The article goes on to "rework" the studies, and adjust for sampling bias and some other dry, statistical "stuff", and comes up with an average of 900,000-1.2 MILLION times per year.

Now, my question. Even before the studies were reworked, let's just take the lowest end of the "worst" study (for people who want guns). 55,000 times a year, people use a gun to defend themselves. Over the last 10 years, firearm homicides average 11,198 per year in America. That does INCLUDES justified homicides, so the actual number of criminal uses of a gun to kill someone is actually lower. Now, 11,000 times someone is killed by a gun. 55,000 times a year someone uses a gun to potentially PREVENT from being killed. Maybe as many as 1.2 MILLION people prevent it every year. But guns are bad. How is this sort of thing just ignored? I absolutely hate it when logic and facts are ignored. Maybe that's why I despise liberals. "Let's deprive 55,000 people from being able to defend themselves". Great idea, geniuses.


http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm

Some people are sheep and just want everyone else to be sheep too. They been tamed and caged so long they think everyone should be just like them. They're all proud of getting sheered.

I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing....Howwwwwwl! I mean Baaaa baaaa

Thanks for that Assa. Very interesting.

Listened to John Lott and some liberal debate this awhile back.
John Lott did the same thing you did Assa, he argued from the point that even if 55,000 was the correct number.

Basically the liberal just avoided the content of john's argument.
The liberal just started talking about how he grew up in the inner city and how he watched mrders growing up and said that there are too many guns in America.
John then pointed out that 78% of counties in the US have zero murders a year while 3% account for 75% of murders (which the liberal agreed with). Then John pointed out that about 85% of the guns are owned by people in those 78% of the counties.
The lib followed up with "blah blah blah... The NRA is evil"

I started reading your post but skipped ahead to the idea of acorn bleating like a sheep in Arkansas

That ruined it for me

Woody wrote:Listened to John Lott and some liberal debate this awhile back.
John Lott did the same thing you did Assa, he argued from the point that even if 55,000 was the correct number.

Basically the liberal just avoided the content of john's argument.
The liberal just started talking about how he grew up in the inner city and how he watched mrders growing up and said that there are too many guns in America.
John then pointed out that 78% of counties in the US have zero murders a year while 3% account for 75% of murders (which the liberal agreed with). Then John pointed out that about 85% of the guns are owned by people in those 78% of the counties.
The lib followed up with "blah blah blah... The NRA is evil"

I would like to hear that. I had never heard ANY actual numbers before I came across this. I'd always heard "it's too difficult to obtain any accurate counts of how many times...", so I didn't think anybody ever bothered to even collect it. And another thing- this (as far as I can tell) only includes those instances where a crime was committed, and/or the cops were called. Which means that almost certainly even the lowest number is too low. It's a damn shame what this country has become.

I mean, really. Think about it.

If there are 100 people in a room. Everybody has a gun. One guy is a bad guy, and starts shooting. How many people will get killed before he is killed?

Now let's say there are still 100 people in a room, but only 50 have guns, and one of them is a bad guy. How many people will get killed before he is killed?

And this goes on, until we get to the logical conclusion- 100 people in a room, and one person has a gun. And he is a bad guy. How many die before he is killed?

If the answer in the last example is more than the answer in the first example, then that is proof that gun control doesn't work. It really is that simple.

assateague wrote:

Woody wrote:Listened to John Lott and some liberal debate this awhile back.
John Lott did the same thing you did Assa, he argued from the point that even if 55,000 was the correct number.

Basically the liberal just avoided the content of john's argument.
The liberal just started talking about how he grew up in the inner city and how he watched mrders growing up and said that there are too many guns in America.
John then pointed out that 78% of counties in the US have zero murders a year while 3% account for 75% of murders (which the liberal agreed with). Then John pointed out that about 85% of the guns are owned by people in those 78% of the counties.
The lib followed up with "blah blah blah... The NRA is evil"

I would like to hear that. I had never heard ANY actual numbers before I came across this. I'd always heard "it's too difficult to obtain any accurate counts of how many times...", so I didn't think anybody ever bothered to even collect it. And another thing- this (as far as I can tell) only includes those instances where a crime was committed, and/or the cops were called. Which means that almost certainly even the lowest number is too low. It's a damn shame what this country has become.

I will try and find it, no promises tho... It was on the radio, so it will be hard to find.

I would bet it is in his book "More Guns, Less Crime"
His name is John R Lott.

assateague wrote:I mean, really. Think about it.

If there are 100 people in a room. Everybody has a gun. One guy is a bad guy, and starts shooting. How many people will get killed before he is killed?

Now let's say there are still 100 people in a room, but only 50 have guns, and one of them is a bad guy. How many people will get killed before he is killed?

And this goes on, until we get to the logical conclusion- 100 people in a room, and one person has a gun. And he is a bad guy. How many die before he is killed?

If the answer in the last example is more than the answer in the first example, then that is proof that gun control doesn't work. It really is that simple.

But where is a "Bad Guy" going to get a gun? If he can't pass a background check to buy a gun, we should all be safe, right?

assateague wrote:I mean, really. Think about it.

If there are 100 people in a room. Everybody has a gun. One guy is a bad guy, and starts shooting. How many people will get killed before he is killed?

Now let's say there are still 100 people in a room, but only 50 have guns, and one of them is a bad guy. How many people will get killed before he is killed?

And this goes on, until we get to the logical conclusion- 100 people in a room, and one person has a gun. And he is a bad guy. How many die before he is killed?

If the answer in the last example is more than the answer in the first example, then that is proof that gun control doesn't work. It really is that simple.

Dammit, go ahead and keep posting common sense, they still won't listen.

The argument has nothing to do with reducing crime. Even though those that would see us disarmed claim that's the goal.


And that's what scares the hell out of me.

Yep. It's really easy (and comforting) to say "it can't happen here, we're America". But that doesn't mean squat, when it comes right down to it.

assateague wrote:Yep. It's really easy (and comforting) to say "it can't happen here, we're America". But that doesn't mean squat, when it comes right down to it.

Posted this on the FB yesterday...people better wake the fuck up.