Gun Facts

[calvinhobbesliker]

http://gunfacts.info/

Discuss.

 

[SpaceCDT]

There's some interesting stuff there, for example how hangun homicides in the UK peaked in 2000 - 3 years after the handgun ban!

If I had the time I'd like to go through and read this through properly.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

http://gunfacts.info/

Discuss.

A pile of dishonest bullshit.

Page 11: Fact: Crime has been rising since a sweeping ban on private gun ownership.

Bullshit: private gun ownership is not banned in Australia - there are however restrictions; you can't walk to the supermarket and pick on up. You need a lenience and a clear record. There is also restrictions on types. Over 5% of our population own private guns.

In the first
two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms,
government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity.61 In 2001-2002,
homicides were up another 20%.62

heh, but these dishonest twats forgot to mention there was a 25% decrease in the number of firearms homicides during that time.

The grand total of homicides during that 2001-2002 period was 354, and for various reasons... read them here
National Homcide Monitoring Program 2001-2002 Annual Report


I would go through it more - but I don't have the patience to debunk such dishonest bullshit.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

There's some interesting stuff there, for example how hangun homicides in the UK peaked in 2000 - 3 years after the handgun ban!

If I had the time I'd like to go through and read this through properly.

I'd check it against some reliable sources if I were you... the authors may not be aware of what a "fact" actually is.

 

[BrainBlow]

Oh my, this thread'll be interesting to watch :3
As long as I have my shotgun, I'll be happy.

 

[SpaceCDT]

There's some interesting stuff there, for example how hangun homicides in the UK peaked in 2000 - 3 years after the handgun ban!

If I had the time I'd like to go through and read this through properly.

I'd check it against some reliable sources if I were you... the authors may not be aware of what a "fact" actually is.

You're absolutely right mate - no debate is fought with more bullshit statistics on boths sides than gun laws!

 

[Prolescum]

(Please note, the pages inside the book are in black and white only)

Enough said.

 

[Netheralian]

Fact: In 1996, even though there were around 80 million people who owned a firearm,
there were only 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10, or about 0.0001%.244

Only??

I don't actually doubt many of their "facts" - the problem is that it's full of logical fallacies that it's almost meaningless.

This one is my favorite:

Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with "assault weapons."30 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the
ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. "You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement."

You could always more somewhere safer...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Discuss.

You first.

 

[RichardMNixon]

One statistic I always wanted to see was a really good analysis of how often a gun actually prevents a violent crime. In my eyes, trying to draw a concealed handgun if you're being mugged means you get murdered instead: the mugger is already aiming at you.

I had read that this one, or at least the authors thereof, are cited a lot by the NRA and others that guns are miraculous anti-crime devices: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=973FA70CE9D5D6476CAE09D96A474EFD.inst3_3b?docId=5001654692

This other one disputes that though: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000567174

The two expressions that make my blood boil are "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," along with an explanation that spoons don't make you fat. Bullshit, guns do kill people, that's what guns are for. And if guns are outlawed, the police will still have guns, and guns will be harder for the outlaws to obtain.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The two expressions that make my blood boil are "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," along with an explanation that spoons don't make you fat. Bullshit, guns do kill people, that's what guns are for. And if guns are outlawed, the police will still have guns, and guns will be harder for the outlaws to obtain.

I don't know about that one. With the way the economy works, making gun ownership and manufacture illegal in the US will just mean a spate of gun factories opening in northern Mexico.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Less guns would be better. The last mass shooting that happened, the guy on the scene with a gun came to rescue his unarmed fellows... and nearly shot one of the people who wrestled the gun away from the shooter.

I'm not against gun ownership, but the NRA position on gun control is fucking stupid and dishonest. Of course, it helps sell guns, which is the real point and a higher priority than human lives. Without fear-mongering demand would go down for guns and profits would suffer, because generally people don't really need guns. We don't have the citizen militias that were the point of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, and besides subsistence hunters and some few cases of a real need for protection private citizens have no real need to own a firearm of any sort. I don't think that means you ban guns outright, but I have zero problem with strict laws, strongly enforced.

 

[RichardMNixon]

besides subsistence hunters

That's not a very fair characterization of hunters. I know of many people who hunt as a hobby or because they like venison and none because they're hungry. Deer are overpopulated in my area and hunting is actually good for ecology in that respect.

That said, hunting and shooting for fun don't require semi-automatics. Want a bolt action rifle? Knock yourself out! On the other hand there is no fucking reason a civilian needs a 33 round clip.

Want to fire a full-auto? Get a fucking paintball gun.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's not a very fair characterization of hunters.

I don't see how it is "unfair" since I used the phrase specifically to differentiate from sport hunters.

 

[televator]

Yeah, I'm not against gun ownership, but I am at odds with the NRA's single minded pursuit of increasing gun sales. In that pursuit people have thrown out all debate on what would be within reason. I own a gun myself and have had training with rifles, but I'm not a "from my cold dead hands" zealot. People who lack the mental capacity for responsible use should definitely be kept away from weapons -- that includes children.

It's all wholesome family fun and games with grandpa's stash of guns next to Timmy's bed, until Timmy shoots mom in the head: http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=2696

Or dad and his buddy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/11child.html

 

[Eidolon]

What is it with this topic that seems to make everyone think that if there were no such thing as firearms that the world would somehow be a utopia?

Damnit people, if guns didn't exist we would still kill either other by bashing each others skulls in with hammers. The tool or method which is used to kill people is irrelevant as any tool of any nature can be used as a deadly weapon by those who choose to utilize it in that matter. A gun may be considered a weapon yes, but its nothing more than a tool for putting small holes into objects at a fair distance. The same way a hammer is not a weapon, but can still smash cranial material at a close distance. It doesn't matter what the tool is "intended" for, its how its used. I can own a gun, and just target shoot for fun if I want too. It doesn't mean it will ever be used to shoot someone. However, if im ever in a position where I could possibly be harmed, I would much rather have my own means to defend myself than to rely on someone else to protect me. Hell if I'm getting mugged and happen to have a hammer on me, you'd better believe that the mugger is going to get a nice bashing with it. And frankly, a quick shot from a pistol would probably be more preferable since it would be much less gruesome.

 

[BrainBlow]

Yes, apparently people won't try to kill other people unless they have a gun. :roll:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have seen that before, in a discution long ago (even before LoR). Basically it goes like this, it is full of shit, nothing more then the shar shoter falacy, cherry picking, correlation=causation, and distortion of facts. The fact that it is clear in the language employed that this is gun advocate propaganda did not raised any sckepticism and fact checking in allot of people. And they really wan't to have has convinced that if there were no guns at all that gun violence would reach its peak, or that because people get stabed then it is ok to give them guns (so they can get shot?).
It is just warped reasoning.

Yes, apparently people won't try to kill other people unless they have a gun. :roll:

It's not that they wont try to, it is more that they actually can't achieve that and probably lose interest down the line.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yes, apparently people won't try to kill other people unless they have a gun. :roll:

Oh, they might... they won't also strangle or poison 5-6 innocent bystanders at the same time.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Hell if I'm getting mugged and happen to have a hammer on me, you'd better believe that the mugger is going to get a nice bashing with it. And frankly, a quick shot from a pistol would probably be more preferable since it would be much less gruesome.

I'm pretty sure that if you were getting mugged and pulled out a hammer or pistol instead of a wallet, you'd get shot. Congrats, you lost a whole lot more than $40 and your driver's license.

Also pretty sure Loughner wouldn't have been able to hit 19 people with a hammer before he got taken down.