Discussion in 'Firearms and Hunting' started by archives, Apr 6, 2022.
Do you have anything to offer to invalidate it other than a personal opinion not supported by facts?
I didn't have to. Read the thread and the posts above mine that did it for me. You are just spewing propaganda... and then when refuted, this is all you have.
March 15, 2022, the day the study was released
I don't think that's a valid critique. The research question isn't whether gun ownership is responsible for the murder rate. The question is whether a gun owned in the home is more likely to be used to stop a violent death of the occupants of the house, or be used to cause a violent death. Murderous home invasions are so rare, it hardly takes a study to realize that owning a gun is more likely to be used for murder or suicide in the house than defend against the violent home invader. But people don't tend to think they'll murder somebody or kill themselves just because they have a gun. Yet a small proportion do.
I do think that the effect of guns on society could merit further research, but I will say that even if they are unequivocally "bad" for the individual, like drugs, the solution wouldn't be to ban them, because that solution could do more harm than the problem. If guns are "bad" the solution is education, not creating a black market and excluding law-abiding citizens in favor of those who ignore laws.
No one is talking about banning anything, but guns can be regulated, no right, especially those listed in the Constitution is absolute.
Education is the key, but unfortunately, largely due to the gun manufacturers effort, it’s been decades since common sense has been relevant in gun discussions
You are trying to sell "living with a gun in the house" as causation, which is impossible. My "killers looking for armed victims" statement is an example of that. They have no way of knowing who lives with a gun, so it is impossible for the presence of a gun to be a factor.
You mean like the fake information used to come up with such garbage?
If you even attempt to start digging just a little it all falls apart.
Its not like you stumbled on something that hasn't been tried a few thousand times over the last 50 years.
Its just new to you.
Just in the first dig you find out thay have calculated all deaths, and not death with guns. And thats just for starters.
Its an old used up lefty anti gun claim that has been debunked so many times, I'm amazed anyone has the guts to even attempt to post it.
“impossible?” So, consequently, you are saying that those that don’t have a gun anywhere in their surroundings stand the same chance of being a victim of gun violence as those with a gun readily available?
Not true, “
Odd that you used the quote feature to ask me what I said.
Nothing falls apart, far from it, given that well over ninety percent of all homicides are done with guns (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/), pretty safe to conclude that those homicides in the study were largely due to guns, again, common sense
Not at all, rather to highlight the nonsensical quality of your post
I did not compare losing weight to being shot by a gun. I wrote that the psychology behind why people do not want to relinquish their weapons is the same for why some have trouble with dieting. The "lack" is a hard adjustment.
Yeah I'll take my chances.
That's not what I wrote. This is my statement.
"Further, nobody that carries a weapon intellectually thinks that it makes them "badder" on the streets."
Shouldn’t be given the alternative
So the presence of a gun attracting killers makes no sense? I agree.
Fine, but the problem is that others who want to take their chances are using their weapons to shoot up churches, malls, theaters, schools, nursing homes, spas, etc
I don't know what that means.
The people commiting homicides in that third world hell hole Bakersfield aren't the gun owning conservatives. We have a guy with us now from there. Soon that district will flip because everyone is running for the hills.
Would it make more sense to determine how many spouses are killed BY guns?
That wasn't the conclusion.
Pretend that is immaterial of you want. Its mental cartwheels to make this stupid study make sense.
It is also a fact that owning a swimming pool will increase your risk of drowning..
It is so statistically insignificant as to be a non-issue.
I grew up around guns and had one nearby my entire life and I'm still here...
None of that is true. Prove it
And those who would seek to restrict the rights of others and grab their guns often resort to such
Prove it false.... Prove your statement.
Separate names with a comma.