Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mfcorey1

(10,997 posts)
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:22 PM Mar 2014

10 things the gun industry will not tell you.

"Owning our product may be hazardous to your health."

In the U.S., there are now somewhere between 270 million and 310 million guns, according to the Pew Research Center — that's almost one gun for every person in the nation. Judges and legislators across the political spectrum recognize the constitutional right to bear arms. And gun and ammunition sales to private citizens are a significant part of a nearly $15 billion industry that's seeing plenty of growth: Last week, for example, Smith & Wesson (SWHC) reported that its fiscal third-quarter profit rose to $20.8 million, up from $14.6 million a year ago .

What makes the gun industry so controversial, of course, is the ever-shifting debate about how to reconcile gun rights and public safety. Each year in this country, more than 31,000 people are killed by firearms, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate — roughly 85 people per day. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership and one of the highest rates of firearm-related deaths per capita across developed countries around the world.

What's more, a growing body of research suggests that simply owning a gun is correlated with an increased likelihood that you'll be a victim of violence. A study published this January in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who live in homes with firearms are over three times as likely to die from suicide and two times as likely to be a victim of homicide as those who don't have access to firearms. The study analyzed the results of 16 other studies and found that in all but one, access to guns was linked to a higher probability of murder or suicide. In another study published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, two Harvard researchers conducted a review of 26 studies on gun availability and homicide in multiple countries and found that most of them "are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate."

To be sure, the kinds of correlations shown in big social studies aren't the same thing as a proven cause-and-effect relationship. Many in the gun industry — including some gun and ammunition manufacturers and organizations of gun owners like the National Rifle Association, "the premier firearms education organization in the world" — disagree sharply with conclusions like these. And Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, points to a different correlation: While gun ownership is now at an all-time high, the murder rate (in total, not just from firearms) is near an all-time low.

http://money.msn.com/investing/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
10 things the gun industry will not tell you. (Original Post) mfcorey1 Mar 2014 OP
#5 daleanime Mar 2014 #1
what the article forgot mention gejohnston Mar 2014 #3
What the article didn't mention about those health studies gejohnston Mar 2014 #2
Shhh! Don't upset the gun lovers. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #4
that has actually been debunked as a gejohnston Mar 2014 #5
I believe that gun defenders are either NRA, or behave as if they were. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #8
Actually the article was complete nonsense gejohnston Mar 2014 #9
LOL! Says someone who uses as data a letter from students. :) nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #10
says someone who gejohnston Mar 2014 #11
I'm not interested in discussing the greatness of murder-machines with a murder-machine lover. nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #14
Why didn't you just say, La la la la I can't hear you. clffrdjk Mar 2014 #15
You know, when I meet a gun lover that admits the truth, I might be more pleasant Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #16
So now you are calling me, 4 other people in this thread and countless others liars . clffrdjk Mar 2014 #17
Yes. I'd love to hear a gun lover tell the truth for once. nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #18
Why don't you tell US the truth? And be able to argue for it. n/t oneshooter Mar 2014 #21
Where have I lied? clffrdjk Mar 2014 #22
Look, until you people start admitting the truth, that guns have created a nightmarish environment Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #27
guns have created a nightmarish environment gejohnston Mar 2014 #30
Sorry you are right the world was perfect before the Chinese invented gunpowder. clffrdjk Mar 2014 #32
What is this "a group such as yours" you speak of? pipoman Mar 2014 #38
Not a singular group clffrdjk Mar 2014 #39
Mr. Johnson what do you do just lurk around waiting to doc03 Mar 2014 #34
Actually I do gejohnston Mar 2014 #35
It just seems like anyone I know that has your position on guns doc03 Mar 2014 #36
Like I said, I have positions on other issues gejohnston Mar 2014 #40
Here is the United Nations study Lurks Often Mar 2014 #12
There are 106 countries that have a lower rate of murder per capita than the U.S. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #13
That last sentence in the OP. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #24
That last comment... Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #26
so the UN, FBI and CDC are gun lovers? gejohnston Mar 2014 #28
They're not private citizens packing heat. The private citizens packing heat are the problem. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #29
drug dealers who kill each other gejohnston Mar 2014 #31
La la la la she can't hear you clffrdjk Mar 2014 #33
That was Nixon's exit strategy from Vietnam. Straw Man Mar 2014 #41
The drop in homicide is more like decade-to-decade. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #46
And there were 102 countries with a higher murder rate Lurks Often Mar 2014 #42
You must have a sh*t opinion of the U.S. unless you failed to notice which have the higher rates. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #43
Bermuda, Greenland, the Bahamas and Jamaica are dangerous, war torn countries? Lurks Often Mar 2014 #44
Once again this is a strange place for you to be if you don't want to have a conversation clffrdjk Mar 2014 #45
"Inventive insults" now include "White Wing." Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #47
Guns are inherently dangerous. MicaelS Mar 2014 #19
That's far more honest than what I've heard so far. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #20
So you believe that the firearms do fire without outside assistance? n/t oneshooter Mar 2014 #23
lie about stats gejohnston Mar 2014 #25
Guns are Token Republican Mar 2014 #37
Humans killed each other for thousands of years.. MicaelS Mar 2014 #48
Makes sense Token Republican Mar 2014 #6
Thanks anyway...I'd rather be safe than sorry. ileus Mar 2014 #7

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. what the article forgot mention
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:47 PM
Mar 2014

the none of the studies mentioned were verified, and the "two times more likely" study was savaged by criminologists as being invalid shill studies.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
2. What the article didn't mention about those health studies
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:40 PM
Mar 2014

was that none of them were peer reviewed or valid studies. The Harvard studies were funded by the Joyce Foundation, which also astro turfs the Brady Campaign, and published by their inhouse organ. The department is also funded entirely by the Joyce Foundation. None of them are peer reviewed, nor have they ever been replicated by independent researchers.

A study published this January in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who live in homes with firearms are over three times as likely to die from suicide
They miss the correlation, assuming the study was half way valid. Gun ownership is higher in rural areas anywhere in the world. Suicide rates are higher in rural areas anywhere in the world, including countries where private gun ownership rates are almost nonexistent.
and two times as likely to be a victim of homicide as those who don't have access to firearms. The study analyzed the results of 16 other studies and found that in all but one, access to guns was linked to a higher probability of murder or suicide.
This was based on a series of shill studies (actually, the same study but readjusted the numbers every few years) by Auther Kellerman, the ER doc that got a couple of million from the CDC to do. It happened to attract the attention of criminologists who expressed their doubts about the validity of the study. When criminologists Gary Kleck and Don Kates asked for his data for peer review and to try to replicate the findings, Kellerman told them to pound sand. This inspired the NRA to lobby congress to end CDC's gun control lobbying and spending money on such studies, which criminologist James Wright described as about as scientific as NRA propaganda.

Simply because a study shows or doesn't show something doesn't prove anything. In this case, if the study was done by MDs in medical journals are almost always examples of advocacy research, which is a nice way of saying shill study.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
4. Shhh! Don't upset the gun lovers.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 05:33 PM
Mar 2014

"... simply owning a gun is correlated with an increased likelihood that you'll be a victim of violence."

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
5. that has actually been debunked as a
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 05:37 PM
Mar 2014

shill study. Criminologist James Wright called it as bogus as NRA propaganda. Reading the letters to the editor in the medical journal Kellerman published it are very interesting:

To the Editor:
As we discussed the article by Kellermann et al. during our graduate statistics class, several questions arose, which we hope you will address. First, the authors state, "In the light of [other] observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes," implying that a gun in the home is a causal factor in homicide, suicide, and unintentional death. The study sample comprised people who had been killed in their homes and controls matched according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age. On what basis can one generalize from a sample of people who have been murdered to a population of people who keep guns in their homes?

Second, the authors list alcohol use, domestic violence, and illicit drug use as contributing factors to homicide. Although they state that the use of alcohol was "strongly associated with homicide," did they take into account the possible multicollinearity among the independent variables of living in a rented home, living alone, having a history of domestic violence, having an arrest record, using illicit drugs, and keeping guns in the house?

Finally, the authors also state, "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects." This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6 percent of the homes of the case subjects. In how many of the homicides was the victim killed with a gun that was kept in the house rather than a gun that was brought to the house by the perpetrator?

The students of Dr. Mark Ferris's Mathematical Statistics 460
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63108

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
8. I believe that gun defenders are either NRA, or behave as if they were.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:37 PM
Mar 2014

Anyone who gives a mistaken impression and knows he does, understands that he will be confused for the very thing. Behave like a member of the NRA, and you are, for all practical purposes, NRA.

"Any company wants to protect its profits from bad press, restrictive laws and opinions that hurt the bottom line. The gun industry is no exception."

The above (taken from the OP article), is what real base issue behind the whole gun-loving propaganda is about, and the reason for the NRA's existence.

What's amazing to me, is that your rebuttal to the OP is a letter written at some point by some students. ?????????? I looked it up, and the Internet is rife with copies and pastes of the letter from the students. Every gun-loving site seems to have the student letter.

People aren't stupid. You might love your guns, but no amount of copying and pasting the letters from some students is going to make us somehow go blind and deaf and dumb so as to think that guns are not the source of this advanced country having one of the (if not the #1) highest rate of murder per capita).

Are you trying to fool me? That doesn't work very well you know.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
9. Actually the article was complete nonsense
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:57 PM
Mar 2014

based on shill studies paid for by the likes of Bloomberg.

People aren't stupid. You might love your guns, but no amount of copying and pasting the letters from some students is going to make us somehow go blind and deaf and dumb so as to think that guns are not the source of this advanced country having one of the (if not the #1) highest rate of murder per capita).
People like Bloomberg, and his former Monsanto PR flack that is MDA, actually assume people are, or at least lack critical thinking skills. They assume that people will blindly buy into any nonsense without doing their own research. Propaganda works because they are.
us somehow go blind and deaf and dumb so as to think that guns are not the source of this advanced country having one of the (if not the #1) highest rate of murder per capita)
There is a logical fallacy for that. It is called post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are an infinite reasons a countries murder rate would be higher than any other. There are a lot of reasons why murder rates will drop, but there is no evidence that gun laws affect any of them. If guns were the reason, other high gun ownership countries like Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, and Sweden should have higher murder rates than UK. France and New Zealand should have the same murder rates as Florida.
Using the term "advanced" is used to cherry pick. In terms of development, it can be defined one of two ways: by GDP, which puts the US with Western Europe, or by wealth inequality, which puts the US closer to Mexico.


What's amazing to me, is that your rebuttal to the OP is a letter written at some point by some students. ?????????? I looked it up, and the Internet is rife with copies and pastes of the letter from the students. Every gun-loving site seems to have the student letter.
What amazes me is that you ignored that those students were from a 400 level statistics class, and you did not address any of the substance of the letter. There is a logical fallacy for that too.

I don't try to fool anyone, only educate people who have been fooled by ideologues and propagandists like Bloomberg and Watts.
Whenever you see writings about "gun violence" or "gun suicide" ask yourself this: what about the other 80 percent of violent crime that does not involve guns and the other 48 percent of suicides in the US. My answer is simply: people like Bloomberg others in the gun prohibition lobby don't care about them. They care about the gun related victims only if they can use them for political purposes. Otherwise, they are statistics. How? Simple. The gun control movement is astro turf pushed by some in the political and economic elite and most of the victims are part of the 99 percent, as are the many people who defend themselves with guns, mostly without firing a shot. The FBI estimates those numbers to be 100K, some criminologists like Phil Cook, who was funded by gun control groups, and Gary Kleck, funded by DoJ, put the actual number in the low millions.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
11. says someone who
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 09:10 PM
Mar 2014

take a discredited study by an ER MD who bent the the results to match a predetermined conclusion at face value. Please read my update. I picked that letter, which is one of many, because it pointed out the flaws in the math.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
15. Why didn't you just say, La la la la I can't hear you.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 10:52 PM
Mar 2014

Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)

You are in the wrong place if you don't want to discuss gun laws and the right to keep and bear arms.

Also being called a murderer really makes me want to work with you to restrict my rights. Heck just a few weeks ago someone compared me to a child molester and a heroin addict because I own guns, you would think that a group that is sorely lacking the support of the voters would be more interested in winning people over than driving them away.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
16. You know, when I meet a gun lover that admits the truth, I might be more pleasant
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 10:53 PM
Mar 2014

about it. Right now I've met only gun lover after gun lover that lies and lies, nothing but lies.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
17. So now you are calling me, 4 other people in this thread and countless others liars .
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:00 PM
Mar 2014

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Care to back up that claim? Heck I will be nice all you have to do is point out the lies from each of the rkba supporters in this thread.
It really seems like all you have is name calling.

P.S. anyone want to place bets on how long until the first penis reference?

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
22. Where have I lied?
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:13 PM
Mar 2014

How about you prove your claim of all of us being liars then I promise to answer any question you ask with complete honesty.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
27. Look, until you people start admitting the truth, that guns have created a nightmarish environment
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:21 PM
Mar 2014

I have nothing more to say. Goodbye.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
30. guns have created a nightmarish environment
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:27 PM
Mar 2014

assuming such powers to inanimate objects always struck me as kind of superstitious. Ever look at what the world was like before guns were invented? Most people were either feudal serfs or slaves.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
32. Sorry you are right the world was perfect before the Chinese invented gunpowder.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:30 PM
Mar 2014

That's fine until you prove your claim or retract it I really don't care about what you might have to say.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
39. Not a singular group
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:49 AM
Mar 2014

But meant as polite, short and all encompassing way to refer to those who wish for more restrictions on gun ownership.

Removed the "such as yours" to make it more clear.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
34. Mr. Johnson what do you do just lurk around waiting to
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:40 PM
Mar 2014

jump on a gun thread? You have 95% of your posts in Gun Control & RKBA. Do you have any progressive positions on anything or is defending gun manufacturers the only reason you are here? Seriously?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
35. Actually I do
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:48 PM
Mar 2014

I just don't comment much. I support all individual rights and what Enlightenment writers called "natural" rights. Since we agree on those other subjects (choice, health care, marriage equality etc) there isn't anything to really debate. Also, not all progressives ae liberals, although I'm not sure all liberals are progressives. Mostly, I believe in being logically consistent.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
36. It just seems like anyone I know that has your position on guns
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:04 AM
Mar 2014

would never ever vote for any Democrat I know. I mean you have as radical an agenda on guns as Wayne LaPierre. With your views on guns I can't picture you voting for Nancy Polosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or even Joe Manchin. They are all gun grabbers to the NRA.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
40. Like I said, I have positions on other issues
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:00 AM
Mar 2014

Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:25 PM - Edit history (5)

and I'm not a single issue voter. Everything goes on the scale.
Also, if I don't have anything of value to add in GD or any of my subscriptions I read, I don't say it. If I do, I do. I'm not a one liner kind of guy. If a post in GD mentions something about something stupid Bachman said, I don't type "what an idiot" although I would be thinking it simply because I don't think it would add anything to the conversation.
Does the fact that I prefer Ethics Alarms over either Think Progress or its conservative equivalent make me a reactionary or a progressive? It makes me a liberal in the truest sense of the word, open minded and free from dogma.

It just seems like anyone I know that has your position on guns would never ever vote for any Democrat I know.
Which has nothing to do with me. BTW, I think that is an ecological fallacy.

I mean you have as radical an agenda on guns as Wayne LaPierre.
I seriously doubt that, although I don't know what his views actually are, since I'm not on his mailing list. I do think he and Nugent the cause more harm than good enough to make me wonder if they are Brady moles. I do know that his scapegoating of the mentally ill was pretty disgusting, and was pretty appalled, but not surprised, when gun control activists jumped on his bandwagon.

With your views on guns I can't picture you voting for Nancy Polosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or even Joe Manchin. They are all gun grabbers to the NRA.
Around here, the Democrats are pretty pro gun. I have read about a Republican in Goshen County being anti gun. I figured Romney and McCain as gun grabbers too. They had the added faults of disagreeing with me on pretty much else too, not to mention having really poor choices VPs. Ryan is still clueless about the real world beyond Daddy's McMansion and Palin is still profoundly intellectually lazy. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, Obama twice, Al Gore and Kerry as well. The other three are not in my districts.

I support current federal laws, although there are a few provisions in the GCA and NFA I would tweak. For example, it doesn't make sense have a single shot .22 rifle be regulated the same as a machine gun if it has a 15 inch barrel, yet have an AR as a Title I weapon with the longer barrel. Can we agree that's not really "common sense" or "sensible"?
I support UBC, although not some specific mechanisms. Some means are better than others. In the past, I have said that I would also support each state having a FOID. I don't think Wayne does. I oppose registration for the same reason New Zealand dumped it in the 1980s, a lot of cost with no benefit. Unlike Wayne, I oppose forced national reciprocity because I think it would violate the 10th Amendment. If you do a search, you will find where I said it.

If it does as advertised, I would support it. If it is some irrational bullshit pushed by Popvox Public Relations LLC (you know them as MDA) and their client Bloomberg, or something written by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, then no. That isn't being conservative or progressive, it is critical thinking. That is what a voter and citizen is supposed to do to make any democracy work.

CCW, either shall issue or not at all. How stringent or liberal the requirements are isn't that important, just that they spelled out in the statute and not give some cop arbitrary power. My take on guns is the same as it is on pot or anything else. It is up to those who wish to restrict it to prove that it will do as advertised. They failed to do that. My views on guns, and anything else, on my basic values, that are quite rigid, and what empirical evidence says. If it conflicts with my first impressions were or belief I had, I change the belief to match the facts. The empirical facts from most criminologists and the National Academy of Science, and even the most recent CDC study under Obama, says gun laws don't save lives. Liberalized CCW has not caused blood to run in the streets. Those are the facts. That's not Republican or Democratic, that's simply reality based on the data. In fact, I see a lot of parallels between breed specific legislation and and gun control
http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/08/beyond-the-myth-disturbing-and-revealing-lessons-about-more-than-pit-bulls/

Basic values: consistency in all things. I detest hypocrisy. I detest assholes and bigots regardless of their party ID or what network they happen to work for. We all called out Glen Beck for his Islamaphobia, and rightfully so. But where were you when Larry O'Donnell went on his equally disgusting and bigoted anti Mormon screed? I don't care if he is MSNBC instead of Fox, he is still a bigoted POS just like Beck. The fact that I agree with him on more things than not doesn't change that. He is still an asshole and a bigot. I detest them both equally. If I applauded O'Donnell because "he was my guy" then I wouldn't actually have set of values. Why point that out? Partly it stood out, and partly because Harry Reid is a Mormon. So was my dad. Clear?

Intellectual honesty: it either is or it isn't, and it trumps all other things. Simple as that. See above. That is the biggest problem the gun control movement has. I am not convinced by strings of appeals to emotion, name calling, false statistics, and various other logical fallacies. If I came here agnostic on the issue, I would land up being pro gun simply because of who has the most rational arguments. That's how the chips fall.

The Democratic Party reflects my views and values more than the Republican Party, that is why I vote for the Democrats. That does not mean that I agree with the party , or any individual in it, on every issue. Just most of them. That also does not mean I will applaud O'Donnell's bigotry, Martin Bashier's disgusting personal attacks or Bill Mahar's Misogyny. It is as disgusting when it comes out of their mouths as it would be out of Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush. Sometimes I support the ends, but might have doubts about the means. You are going to think whatever you are going to think. One thing I don't like about either party is the cafeteria approach to rights and civil liberties. You can't be for someones right to self defense and be against abortion when the mother's life and health is in danger, as some extreme anti choice people do. Conservatives don't view health care as a right. I say bullshit. I say it, like food and clean water, is a natural right that should be protected under the ninth Amendment.
How much of what I have shared like the other "radical" pro gun people you know?
Your interest in this is what exactly?
 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
12. Here is the United Nations study
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 09:25 PM
Mar 2014

I presume that is sufficiently a neutral source for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

And I'm sure that that Jamaica, the Bahamas, South Africa, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Greenland, Bermuda, among others will appreciate your condescending view of them as less advanced.

On edit: You might also want to look up the gun control laws in some of those countries, but you might not like what you find. Private ownership of guns is banned altogether in Bermuda and heavily restricted in Jamaica and the Bahamas.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
13. There are 106 countries that have a lower rate of murder per capita than the U.S.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 09:43 PM
Mar 2014

Did you click the arrow to place them in order of rate?

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
26. That last comment...
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:19 PM
Mar 2014

The fact that the death rate drops in July up again in August, then drops in September, and gun lovers use a drop of a few points to make it appear that the death rate is dropping, is an awesome manipulation of stats by gun lovers. It allows them to say, "OH, but the death rate dropped! Look!" Of course it dropped. But it goes up and down every month. It remains one of the highest per capita death rates on the planet.

The fact stands that the U.S. is one of the countries with the highest per capital death gun rate on the planet, versus all kinds of countries, advanced, not advanced, etc.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
28. so the UN, FBI and CDC are gun lovers?
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:25 PM
Mar 2014

who knew. 2/3 of our gun deaths are suicides. If they didn't have guns, there still would be the same number of suicides.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
29. They're not private citizens packing heat. The private citizens packing heat are the problem.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:27 PM
Mar 2014

Now let's drop it. I'm through with this. When I hear a gun lover admit the truth and tell me that he knows guns are the problem but likes them anyway, maybe, just MAYBE then I'll feel a little respect of some sort. Until then, nothing.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
31. drug dealers who kill each other
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:30 PM
Mar 2014

and innocence caught in the crossfire are the problem. Bong owners contribute more to gun violence than any target shooter or hunter.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
33. La la la la she can't hear you
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:37 PM
Mar 2014

Really guys stop proving her wrong she can't take it. Why can't you just admit you are all liars and turn in your guns!!

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
41. That was Nixon's exit strategy from Vietnam.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:28 AM
Mar 2014
Now let's drop it. I'm through with this.

When faced with certain defeat, declare victory and leave.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
46. The drop in homicide is more like decade-to-decade.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:19 PM
Mar 2014

Unless you wish to question the drop in homicide over the last 20+ yrs, I'll assume you wish to ignore that data. But it's still there.

The only question is "Why?" If anyone has credible research which would shine a light on the answer, we might be able to lower the homicide rate even more by fashioning policies around that research.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
42. And there were 102 countries with a higher murder rate
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 07:52 AM
Mar 2014

Oh I forgot, they don't count because they aren't advanced enough for you. I also noticed that you chose not to address the high murder rates in countries with strict gun control.

Crime is a function of social and economic pressures. Maybe the country should focus on fixing that before enacting even more laws that won't be enforced.

You are aware that the vast majority of NICS background check denials are not prosecuted?

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
43. You must have a sh*t opinion of the U.S. unless you failed to notice which have the higher rates.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 09:52 AM
Mar 2014

You're comparing us with dangerous, war-torn and lowest of the totem pole countries.

Do everyone a favor. Please cease posting to me. I have absolutely no respect for gun-lovers. I suspect almost all of them are right wingers in disguise. Goodbye.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
44. Bermuda, Greenland, the Bahamas and Jamaica are dangerous, war torn countries?
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 10:02 AM
Mar 2014

It's really too bad for you that reality does not match up with what you believe.

You are aware that Switzerland and Finland have some of the highest per capita private gun ownership in the world and yet still have some of the lowest murder rates?

I can see you one of those people who feels that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you is a right winger.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
45. Once again this is a strange place for you to be if you don't want to have a conversation
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:05 PM
Mar 2014

With those that disagree with you. There is another board you can go to if you only want to talk with those that agree with you. Over there you can pat each other on the back for all your new and inventive insults without any worry of the other side responding.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
47. "Inventive insults" now include "White Wing."
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:26 PM
Mar 2014

Funny, someone posted the expression in Guns Discussion (GD), to see if folks thought it was acceptable. Hell, it was test-run in anti RKBA contexts where anything goes already. Why did the poster think that racially-polarizing remark needed Holy Water?

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
19. Guns are inherently dangerous.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:06 PM
Mar 2014

There is no such thing as a safe gun. I am well aware of that. I am a single man with no children or pets, so the only person at risk is myself, and I chose to take that risk. You will not make it for me. As long as guns are legal, I am legally capable of owning them, I am mentally and physically capable of using them safely, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed or guilt tripped into not owning guns. No amount of appeals to emotion, empathy or sensitivity will sway me. The day I decide that I will no longer own guns will be a decision solely up to me.

Sarah Ibarruri

(21,043 posts)
20. That's far more honest than what I've heard so far.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:09 PM
Mar 2014

I don't want to hear anyone say that guns don't shoot themselves or lie about stats. Guns serve only one purpose, and the quicker gun lovers admit that openly and truthfully, the more I will see them as honest. Pretending that guns are not one of the biggest problems we have in this country, is a complete untruth, and (in my eyes) only serves gun lovers in that it makes them appear as liars.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
25. lie about stats
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:15 PM
Mar 2014

have you researched using neutral sources or engage in confirmation bias? Why would you take the word of a conservative and authoritarian billionaire like Bloomberg and a former Monsanto PR executive like Watts over us?

 

Token Republican

(242 posts)
37. Guns are
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:10 AM
Mar 2014

Guns are essentially advanced rock throwers. The purpose of the gun is to fling a projectile very fast. The intention of the shooter determines what that projectile will do.

Believe it or not, I don't doubt your, or most pro gun control advocates, intentions, as I truly believe that for the most part, there is a sincere belief that gun control will reduce deaths. The problem is not so much a difference in end results, but a difference in conclusions looking at the same information.

I could be swayed to support more gun control, or even a total ban, if certain things were proven. Since I don't see that happening, my conclusions are that guns do more good than harm. Here's how I based my decisions; I offer this only to give you and others a bit more insight that not all gun owners are knuckle dragging neanderthals.

The first question is if there was a ban on guns, would that ban save lives, or would the mode of death be shifted to something else. Take suicides for example. If there was some way to conduct a true experiment and it was shown that removing guns resulted in no drop in suicides, then there is little to be gained in this area. I've actually encountered people who have said it doesn't matter, that any drop in suicide by gun is a positive step even if the suicide rate remains the same. Talk about untruths and twisted logic.

The second question is whether a ban on guns would work. The problem I see here is guns are 14th century technology that was more or less perfected about 100 years ago. That means it would be extremely easy to produce guns illegally if conditions were met. Granted, legally produced guns are the largest source of guns used for illegal purposes, but only by default. If guns were banned, there would easily be black market factories set up. In fact, many such factories exist already. A good analogy here is the drug market.

The next question is to determine what good guns can do. I'll ignore the hobby aspect or larger social significance of gun ownership for now, those are worthy of their own threads and I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you if you're interested. For here, I'll limit the discussion to guns saving lives.

Here a lot will depend on where you get facts and how you analyze it. Left leaning sources tend to downplay any positive role guns may play, while right leaning sources tend to play it up. I can say that main stream media almost never reports the use of guns defensively and you really have to dig to find that information. But it is out there.

But that's only half the story. The other part about the positive use of guns is much harder to measure, and probably impossible to get an accurate picture. That is the portion where the existence of a gun prevented an ugly situation from escalating. There's a lot of anecdotal stories but I'm not aware of any comprehensive study. But I can give one good example to illustrate the point.

Take the Gabby Giffords shooting. Other issues aside, the people who tackled the shooter were carrying. Based on the interviews, they ran towards the shooter because they were armed. One side claims that proves CCW did nothing, as the shooter was tackled, but the other side says the CCW was the reason they felt they could rush the shooter in the first place. Again, this is an example of how different people can reach opposite conclusions from the same set of facts.

I hope this sheds a little light on how the other side thinks, and while I don't expect to change your mind, I do hope you can at least understand the thought process even if you don't agree with it.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
48. Humans killed each other for thousands of years..
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:37 PM
Mar 2014

Before guns were invented.

If you believe guns are the sole problem in the world, that guns are an evil corrupting force in the world, that if all the guns in the world were destroyed, we would suddenly have World Peace™ and we could all hold hands and sit in the shade and sing Kumbaya, then you are exceedingly naive, and that is being polite.

You ignore thousands of years of human history where people slaughtered each other with rocks, sticks, bone tools, then eventually progressed to edged metal weapons, then to gunpowder and firearms. Because ignoring all that would mean the real problem isn't weapons, it is that humans like to kill one another and will find any means to do so.




 

Token Republican

(242 posts)
6. Makes sense
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 05:53 PM
Mar 2014

If a gun is used to harm someone, then the manufacturer is liable. Just like cars manufacturers are liable for every traffic death.

You can't have guns under certain age unless you have parental permission in accordance with the law. But complying with the law is skirting the law. Just like its illegal to have kids go on field trips without parental permission, but giving parental permission is skirting the law.

Gun control works because states with restrictive gun control laws still have gun problems due to states which respect the second amendment. Just like speeders in one state can be stopped by changing the speed limit in another state.

The gun lobby is unbeatable. LOL.

There's no law banning sales to people on the terrorism watch list. Just like we should deny all rights to anyone on a secret list. Star Chamber much?

Guns use ammo. Just like cars use gas. And ammo is used in guns. just like gas is used in cars.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
7. Thanks anyway...I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:36 PM
Mar 2014

safety first, disarm and be a willing victim later...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»10 things the gun industr...