Dumb arses and guns...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT
Their are heaps of studies that support AA's points. I live this every week (as I work in the industry) and frankly, prefer to put my time into fighting our Gov't than discussing with someone who is not going to influence the outcome here or in the US.
Now that gun owners, shooters and hunters in this country are getting more organised,we have the info and data t back things up. Luckily the US has the NRA who have been very strong for a long time and unlike in the Greenie movement, have been able to counter the anti gun nuts.
And FYI, the anti gunners, anti hunters are very very adapt at skewing statistics for their own means and very good at getting the media to publish them without holding them to account as to where they came from or how they were achieved.
PETA is one of the best examples.
Their are heaps of studies that support AA's points. I live this every week (as I work in the industry) and frankly, prefer to put my time into fighting our Gov't than discussing with someone who is not going to influence the outcome here or in the US.
Now that gun owners, shooters and hunters in this country are getting more organised,we have the info and data t back things up. Luckily the US has the NRA who have been very strong for a long time and unlike in the Greenie movement, have been able to counter the anti gun nuts.
And FYI, the anti gunners, anti hunters are very very adapt at skewing statistics for their own means and very good at getting the media to publish them without holding them to account as to where they came from or how they were achieved.
PETA is one of the best examples.
Last edited by 500N; 23rd Jan 2013 at 23:29.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ AA
I said it pages back, and the truth of it is that there's lies, damned lies, and people who misuse and misunderstand statistics.
You did respond, and you'd have made yourself look far less prone to hyperbole if you'd simply given some times for changes for ordinary people.
Your premise appears to be that reducing magazine capacity does nothing to reduce firepower in the hands of the competent. I'm still looking for your reason why you would be against it in that case.
My premise is that the capability should be taken away from the irresponsible (a catchall phrase which I partially defined earlier, so please don't take it literally) who are, by definition, unlikely to be quite as competent.
@ 500N
Then for God's sake link them here! I'm not averse to changing my mind on this if some actual evidence is brought out, but so far all I've read is anecdotal evidence and some flimsy reasoning about "feeling safer".
I'm no advocate of that behaviour by anyone. The media are as culpable for the lamentable state of comprehension of statistics (and numerous other areas) as anyone.
There's lies, bloody lies and statistics...
I responded... You're making yourself look silly.... You can't refute my premise...
Your premise appears to be that reducing magazine capacity does nothing to reduce firepower in the hands of the competent. I'm still looking for your reason why you would be against it in that case.
My premise is that the capability should be taken away from the irresponsible (a catchall phrase which I partially defined earlier, so please don't take it literally) who are, by definition, unlikely to be quite as competent.
@ 500N
Their are heaps of studies that support AA's points.
And FYI, the anti gunners, anti hunters are very very adapt at skewing statistics for their own means and very good at getting the media to publish them without holding them to account as to where they came from or how they were achieved.
PETA is one of the best examples.
PETA is one of the best examples.
Last edited by PTT; 23rd Jan 2013 at 23:37.
Well AA if you do not give a rats arse about anyone you don't know then you obviously do not shed a tear over the deaths/murders of children that you do not know. And you really had better carry that gun because your Government is overseas and has been for years bringing freedom to people that have been cowed by deathspots and tyrants (often put in power by the USA) and I'm betting no-one knows most of those people. But I guess it does not matter if the soldier you don't know is killed over there.
Do I care about people I don't know...... call me a lair. Floods, fire, famine, tornado's who cares.
Do I care about people I don't know...... call me a lair. Floods, fire, famine, tornado's who cares.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure glad I don't have to bow to a Queen or a King...I'm sure glad I live in a place where I can be trusted with a gun, and to pay my taxes on time (with representation in congress).
The NRA actually has provided enough ''gun lessons'' to make sure that young people entering the army already know how to shoot well. In fact that was part of the charter of the NRA.
GUN CONTROL legislation will not bring back those kids. AS soon as people understand that, things will settle down a bit.
gun control legislation won't prevent another lunatic from killing dozens.
And if every gun on the planet was destroyed, a lunatic could still find a way to kill innocents.
Lock up the nuts, but it is a right to own a gun. IF someone wants to try to repeal the 2nd amendment...that is their right.
I think more people could be saved by repealing the 21st amendment.
And yes, our constitution didn't do away with slavery from day one. But it held within it the mechanism which was used with the 13th amendment which did away with slavery.
I sure see alot of crap on this forum from people from different countries...well that's fine.
How about doing away with KILTS?
How about doing away with Warm Beer?
How about doing away with rotten smiles?
sheesh.
Oh and how about it England, we have a ship in our navy named after Winston Churchil...with a Royal navy officer as part of her crew. When are you going to do something nice for us in return...HMS Marlbourgh has been decomissioned for some time now.
The NRA actually has provided enough ''gun lessons'' to make sure that young people entering the army already know how to shoot well. In fact that was part of the charter of the NRA.
GUN CONTROL legislation will not bring back those kids. AS soon as people understand that, things will settle down a bit.
gun control legislation won't prevent another lunatic from killing dozens.
And if every gun on the planet was destroyed, a lunatic could still find a way to kill innocents.
Lock up the nuts, but it is a right to own a gun. IF someone wants to try to repeal the 2nd amendment...that is their right.
I think more people could be saved by repealing the 21st amendment.
And yes, our constitution didn't do away with slavery from day one. But it held within it the mechanism which was used with the 13th amendment which did away with slavery.
I sure see alot of crap on this forum from people from different countries...well that's fine.
How about doing away with KILTS?
How about doing away with Warm Beer?
How about doing away with rotten smiles?
sheesh.
Oh and how about it England, we have a ship in our navy named after Winston Churchil...with a Royal navy officer as part of her crew. When are you going to do something nice for us in return...HMS Marlbourgh has been decomissioned for some time now.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are starting to come out of the woodwork...As a sporting shooter, I'm a member of the NRA-Australian branch, Hardly anti-NRA.
As to the Queen nonsense, it doesn't apply to the commonwealth nations and doesn't even apply to the UK, He/She is just a figure head without real power, that stops a president getting ahead of himself against the wishes of the Parliament who wields the power of the people.
Sensible gun laws and I give Australia as an example, work. The most effective of these are having checks on nutters, proper training, guns locked away when not in direct use and restricted semi-auto rifles to need. Needless to say gun carry is silly, we don't even allow police to carry when not on duty
As to the Queen nonsense, it doesn't apply to the commonwealth nations and doesn't even apply to the UK, He/She is just a figure head without real power, that stops a president getting ahead of himself against the wishes of the Parliament who wields the power of the people.
Sensible gun laws and I give Australia as an example, work. The most effective of these are having checks on nutters, proper training, guns locked away when not in direct use and restricted semi-auto rifles to need. Needless to say gun carry is silly, we don't even allow police to carry when not on duty
Last edited by JSFfan; 24th Jan 2013 at 02:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFFan
"Sensible gun laws and I give Australia as an example, work. The most effective of these are having checks on nutters, proper training, guns locked away when not in direct use and restricted semi-auto rifles to need."
- having checks on nutters Criminal records check only
- proper training, Where ?, you do not need to do a training course.
- guns locked away when not in direct use I don't have a problem with that
- restricted semi-auto rifles Knee jerk reaction to one or two events.
"Sensible gun laws and I give Australia as an example, work."
Do they ?. Have you read the papers lately. 23 or so shootings in Sydney
in the last month. Even the police minister is saying it is with illegal and illegally imported hand guns.
Melbourne - tit for tat killings by the criminal gangs for quite a few years.
The cops weren't doing too much to stop it because they were killing each other at night, out of the public view UNTIL one of them did in two of them
in a car at a Sunday football match. Then the cops jumped down their throats but another 10+ died before it was stopped. And it only stopped because all the protagonists were dead, over 36 of them.
What about the 2 Lebbo families shooting at each other for the last 5 years ?
All the above were done with illegal firearms.
"Sensible gun laws and I give Australia as an example, work. The most effective of these are having checks on nutters, proper training, guns locked away when not in direct use and restricted semi-auto rifles to need."
- having checks on nutters Criminal records check only
- proper training, Where ?, you do not need to do a training course.
- guns locked away when not in direct use I don't have a problem with that
- restricted semi-auto rifles Knee jerk reaction to one or two events.
"Sensible gun laws and I give Australia as an example, work."
Do they ?. Have you read the papers lately. 23 or so shootings in Sydney
in the last month. Even the police minister is saying it is with illegal and illegally imported hand guns.
Melbourne - tit for tat killings by the criminal gangs for quite a few years.
The cops weren't doing too much to stop it because they were killing each other at night, out of the public view UNTIL one of them did in two of them
in a car at a Sunday football match. Then the cops jumped down their throats but another 10+ died before it was stopped. And it only stopped because all the protagonists were dead, over 36 of them.
What about the 2 Lebbo families shooting at each other for the last 5 years ?
All the above were done with illegal firearms.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: hotels
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@PTT
Show me any other study done like the Kellerman study. Kellerman, who is an ER doctor, had his infamous study funded by gun control advocates and then received several multi-million dollar grants from the Center for Disease Control for the sole purpose of re-categorizing gun crime as a health problem to open a new front for the gun control lobby's war on the Second Amendment.
That alone makes anything that comes out biased. Period. Much like the vast majority of 'climate' science. Follow the money. But I digress...
The fact that he used the same statistical analysis to originally claim that you are 43 times more likely to die with a gun in the house as he later revised down to 2.7 times means he either can't figure out his own numbers or, alternatively, he's manipulating the data to suit his outcomes. Follow the money.
But don't believe just little old me. After all, I'm only smart enough to fly planes...and barely at that. I'm certainly no doctor. And these were just on the first two pages of google. There is nothing else that supports or corroborates Kellerman's 'study' although there's plenty of pages citing it.
note: some of these are cached pages on google
Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
Kellerman Debunked!
Federal Observer Articles - Federal Observer
Editorial: Deconstructing Kellermann | The Truth About Guns
The Gun Zone RKBA -- Suter "Outs" Kellerman
I can cut & paste article upon article and study upon study showing causality contrary to Kellerman. You can find only one study that supports that view - Kellerman's.
And you, like Kellerman, completely ignored the times when guns save lives. Which, I admit, is a difficult statistic to map. Nevertheless, you cannot dismiss it. If you do not measure that which is important, you will ascribe undue importance to that which you can measure.
The crime rate data I provided was from 2011, which you seemed to dismiss, so for grins, I pulled the stats from the FBI for the three counties in question for 1992. King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders. Shelby Co (Memphis) 1552 and 28 and Cleveland 604 and 11.1. National averages for '92 757 and 9.3. And just like today, in 1992 I'd rather live in Seattle than Memphis or Cleveland. So while you completely dismissed my 2011 data because it wasn't 1992 data, my point is that the relativity is largely the same.
You also disregarded my point about the continual decrease in both violent crime and murder rates and the correlation of the increase in concealed carry in all of the states. There are fewer deaths with guns this year than last despite there being more guns in households this year. So you cannot possibly correlate guns in households with increased gun deaths. And while I concede correlation does not equal causation, in this instance, it flies in the face of your 'common sense'.
Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. While that's a nice sound bite, there's a lot of truth in it.
I'm glad you find your own gun control history a yawn. I suppose that's because you lot all just laid down and went to sleep. It is precisely this characteristic subtle erosion of liberty and rights that is assuaged by the passage of time that makes it all feel okie-dokie. That won't happen here.
Show me any other study done like the Kellerman study. Kellerman, who is an ER doctor, had his infamous study funded by gun control advocates and then received several multi-million dollar grants from the Center for Disease Control for the sole purpose of re-categorizing gun crime as a health problem to open a new front for the gun control lobby's war on the Second Amendment.
That alone makes anything that comes out biased. Period. Much like the vast majority of 'climate' science. Follow the money. But I digress...
The fact that he used the same statistical analysis to originally claim that you are 43 times more likely to die with a gun in the house as he later revised down to 2.7 times means he either can't figure out his own numbers or, alternatively, he's manipulating the data to suit his outcomes. Follow the money.
But don't believe just little old me. After all, I'm only smart enough to fly planes...and barely at that. I'm certainly no doctor. And these were just on the first two pages of google. There is nothing else that supports or corroborates Kellerman's 'study' although there's plenty of pages citing it.
note: some of these are cached pages on google
Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
Kellerman Debunked!
Federal Observer Articles - Federal Observer
Editorial: Deconstructing Kellermann | The Truth About Guns
The Gun Zone RKBA -- Suter "Outs" Kellerman
I can cut & paste article upon article and study upon study showing causality contrary to Kellerman. You can find only one study that supports that view - Kellerman's.
And you, like Kellerman, completely ignored the times when guns save lives. Which, I admit, is a difficult statistic to map. Nevertheless, you cannot dismiss it. If you do not measure that which is important, you will ascribe undue importance to that which you can measure.
The crime rate data I provided was from 2011, which you seemed to dismiss, so for grins, I pulled the stats from the FBI for the three counties in question for 1992. King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders. Shelby Co (Memphis) 1552 and 28 and Cleveland 604 and 11.1. National averages for '92 757 and 9.3. And just like today, in 1992 I'd rather live in Seattle than Memphis or Cleveland. So while you completely dismissed my 2011 data because it wasn't 1992 data, my point is that the relativity is largely the same.
You also disregarded my point about the continual decrease in both violent crime and murder rates and the correlation of the increase in concealed carry in all of the states. There are fewer deaths with guns this year than last despite there being more guns in households this year. So you cannot possibly correlate guns in households with increased gun deaths. And while I concede correlation does not equal causation, in this instance, it flies in the face of your 'common sense'.
Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. While that's a nice sound bite, there's a lot of truth in it.
I'm glad you find your own gun control history a yawn. I suppose that's because you lot all just laid down and went to sleep. It is precisely this characteristic subtle erosion of liberty and rights that is assuaged by the passage of time that makes it all feel okie-dokie. That won't happen here.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"had his infamous study funded by gun control advocates and then received several multi-million dollar grants from the Center for Disease Control for the sole purpose of re-categorizing gun crime as a health problem to open a new front for the gun control lobby's war on the Second Amendment."
A well known tactic of the vocal minority.
Get the Gov't to pay for things the Gov't wants to control.
As the poster above says, follow the money
A well known tactic of the vocal minority.
Get the Gov't to pay for things the Gov't wants to control.
As the poster above says, follow the money
So we'll all be safe if we keep weapons out of the hands of the nutters eh?
You guys really believe that? This incident Hoddle Street massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was concocted by a bloke that had been examined twice by psyche's, once when he joined the army, and once again before he was accepted as a Staff Cadet (officer trainee) at RMC Duntroon in Jan 1987. I know, he was a former classmate of mine.
Unless you are suggesting that all members of the population get regularly examined by a psyche (annually? monthly?) you cannot say that otherwise rational people cannot flip out and do something lethal. The term "Going Postal" did not come from an escaped inmate of a mental asylum. The more lethal the device, the more serious the outcome.
So unless you are happy for the entire community to be regularly tested by a shrink, this 'plan' will not work. besides, this bloke: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...vpv6lTK3CjuX8w
on the basis of this performance would probably be certified as paranoid or insane.
You guys really believe that? This incident Hoddle Street massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was concocted by a bloke that had been examined twice by psyche's, once when he joined the army, and once again before he was accepted as a Staff Cadet (officer trainee) at RMC Duntroon in Jan 1987. I know, he was a former classmate of mine.
Unless you are suggesting that all members of the population get regularly examined by a psyche (annually? monthly?) you cannot say that otherwise rational people cannot flip out and do something lethal. The term "Going Postal" did not come from an escaped inmate of a mental asylum. The more lethal the device, the more serious the outcome.
So unless you are happy for the entire community to be regularly tested by a shrink, this 'plan' will not work. besides, this bloke: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...vpv6lTK3CjuX8w
on the basis of this performance would probably be certified as paranoid or insane.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ HrkDrvr
Not one of the 5 articles you linked attempts anything different to the one you previously linked which I showed to be flawed.
A case control study can be carried out by anyone who cares to do so. and has been done. Has your google-fu, so face-value strong when trying to find debunks of the study, failed you here? For example, there is a case control study which looks at firearms and adolescent suicide, or a national case control study on suicide and homicide risk associated with firearms in the home, and that after another 20 seconds of my precious time.
As shown, not true. And as you say, follow the money: your articles have thus far been solely on pro-gun sites, making them overtly biased. Kellerman's is available on a universities' website and funded by CDC, while the last two are on the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health website.
Clearly not. While your previous "point" was that all of those areas close to or well above the national average in 2011, the data shows that in 1992 two were below the national average, which pretty much invalidates your original point regarding the data bot being representative. Sure, I'd rather not live in Memphis either, but that's no big surprise, nor does it counter anything I've said so far.
You've failed to provide any data at all. What needs addressing?
That's a chuckle - I've never claimed "common sense" as a support for my argument at all. And if the data shows a correlation then there is highly likely to be (I can even tell you how likely, of you like!) a correlation.
Here's some more data: Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership ← Inductio Ex Machina
It's not the history I find a yawn, it's the continual use of anecdotal "evidence" as some sort of crutch. It's pointless lantern-swinging which doesn't actually counter any data at all; it merely proves that there are statistical outliers no matter where you look.
@ 500N
What makes you think those who want gun control are a minority? Poll: Majority of Americans back stricter gun laws - CBS News
Not one of the 5 articles you linked attempts anything different to the one you previously linked which I showed to be flawed.
Show me any other study done like the Kellerman study.
I can cut & paste article upon article and study upon study showing causality contrary to Kellerman. You can find only one study that supports that view - Kellerman's.
The crime rate data I provided was from 2011, which you seemed to dismiss, so for grins, I pulled the stats from the FBI for the three counties in question for 1992. King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders. Shelby Co (Memphis) 1552 and 28 and Cleveland 604 and 11.1. National averages for '92 757 and 9.3. And just like today, in 1992 I'd rather live in Seattle than Memphis or Cleveland. So while you completely dismissed my 2011 data because it wasn't 1992 data, my point is that the relativity is largely the same.
You also disregarded my point about the continual decrease in both violent crime and murder rates and the correlation of the increase in concealed carry in all of the states. There are fewer deaths with guns this year than last despite there being more guns in households this year.
So you cannot possibly correlate guns in households with increased gun deaths. And while I concede correlation does not equal causation, in this instance, it flies in the face of your 'common sense'.
Here's some more data: Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership ← Inductio Ex Machina
I'm glad you find your own gun control history a yawn. I suppose that's because you lot all just laid down and went to sleep. It is precisely this characteristic subtle erosion of liberty and rights that is assuaged by the passage of time that makes it all feel okie-dokie. That won't happen here.
@ 500N
A well known tactic of the vocal minority.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT
Re Polls
I wouldn't rely on them too much. Often media driven and questionable questions. i know how to write questions to get the answers I need.
The vocal minority sit there and skew the data by sending out an
email to everyone to log on and do multiple responses.
We now do the same to counter balance because we were losing all
the polls. Now we don't lose them the newspapers / TV programs etc
just delete them as they don't support the angle they are pushing.
You know the other thing we have noticed. They are ahead during the day
until the shooters / hunters come back from work and then we tend to overtake them in the evening
Re Polls
I wouldn't rely on them too much. Often media driven and questionable questions. i know how to write questions to get the answers I need.
The vocal minority sit there and skew the data by sending out an
email to everyone to log on and do multiple responses.
We now do the same to counter balance because we were losing all
the polls. Now we don't lose them the newspapers / TV programs etc
just delete them as they don't support the angle they are pushing.
You know the other thing we have noticed. They are ahead during the day
until the shooters / hunters come back from work and then we tend to overtake them in the evening
Last edited by 500N; 24th Jan 2013 at 06:16.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O well. Churchill said that jaw jaw was better than war war. And the contributors to this interesting thread could win prizes for jaw jaw.
I have a certain sympathy for the poor chap who lives in Detroit.....
Republican state legislature will probably pass NRA sponsored laws.
I would much rather live in New York City. State leglislature there shows good sense.
And all you chaps who believe or pour scorn on statistics, have you read that interesting little book called Freakonomics, by Stephen Levit?
PS I still don't know what this all has to do with military aircrew?
I have a certain sympathy for the poor chap who lives in Detroit.....
Republican state legislature will probably pass NRA sponsored laws.
I would much rather live in New York City. State leglislature there shows good sense.
And all you chaps who believe or pour scorn on statistics, have you read that interesting little book called Freakonomics, by Stephen Levit?
PS I still don't know what this all has to do with military aircrew?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 500N
I don't rely on polls; you're the one claiming to know who the majority and the minority are. Evidence please.
@ mary
Freakonomics is a fun enough read, but doesn't actually say anything about statistics themselves, rather it looks at some examples where statistics "say" surprising things. "Thinking Statisticallly" by Uri Bram is a good primer and well written for the layman.
I don't rely on polls; you're the one claiming to know who the majority and the minority are. Evidence please.
@ mary
Freakonomics is a fun enough read, but doesn't actually say anything about statistics themselves, rather it looks at some examples where statistics "say" surprising things. "Thinking Statisticallly" by Uri Bram is a good primer and well written for the layman.
Last edited by PTT; 24th Jan 2013 at 06:25.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HrkDrvr
Here's 162 pages of such stories. Assuming each page has approximately as many examples as the first page, (40), that appears to be almost 6500 times in my lifetime or an average of about one incident every three days. I'd call that statistically significant and a nice easy calculation that can't be slewed by "weighting" the results.
PTT:
One wonders what the likelihood of dying by the gun of people who break into armed homes? I'll bet it's a lot higher than 2.7 times that of some criminal that breaks into the unarmed home. So, weighing the figures I'm quite happy to accept Kellerman's questionable figures knowing that the guns in my house raise the chances of my burglar dying almost infinitely over him breaking into an unarmed household. Thank you for helping to prove the point for me.
Mary:
You don't need to worry about me, I'm a well armed, well protected, responsible gun owner. I can look after myself... 
And you, like Kellerman, completely ignored the times when guns save lives.
PTT:
One wonders what the likelihood of dying by the gun of people who break into armed homes? I'll bet it's a lot higher than 2.7 times that of some criminal that breaks into the unarmed home. So, weighing the figures I'm quite happy to accept Kellerman's questionable figures knowing that the guns in my house raise the chances of my burglar dying almost infinitely over him breaking into an unarmed household. Thank you for helping to prove the point for me.
Mary:
I have a certain sympathy for the poor chap who lives in Detroit.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Have you seen this photo outside of a house in the US ?
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...219775365.jpeg
It says
"My net door neighbor wants to BAN all GUNS.
Their house is NOT ARMED.
Out of RESPECT for their opinions, I promise NOT
to use MY GUNS to PROTECT THEM.
and a big red arrow pointing to the house next door
Have you seen this photo outside of a house in the US ?
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...219775365.jpeg
It says
"My net door neighbor wants to BAN all GUNS.
Their house is NOT ARMED.
Out of RESPECT for their opinions, I promise NOT
to use MY GUNS to PROTECT THEM.
and a big red arrow pointing to the house next door
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ AA
For the nth time, it's not random armed intruders who do most of the killing. It's people who are known to you. I don't doubt you could protect yourself from said armed intruder, but he's not the main threat.
Your list of anecdotes, assuming your figure of 6500 is correct, goes back to 1959, so at least 53 years, so a massive 123 a year. That compares to the >100,000 homicides per year by gun (source - CDC).
In all honesty, I'm done with this. The same tired old arguments keep coming up, specifically about protection from unknown intruders, and those who keep bringing them up simply aren't willing to accept that the main danger is from their own family and/or friends. If someone wants to show some actual studies of the protective benefit of guns then I'd be truly delighted to read it (and no, AA, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data").
For the nth time, it's not random armed intruders who do most of the killing. It's people who are known to you. I don't doubt you could protect yourself from said armed intruder, but he's not the main threat.
Your list of anecdotes, assuming your figure of 6500 is correct, goes back to 1959, so at least 53 years, so a massive 123 a year. That compares to the >100,000 homicides per year by gun (source - CDC).
In all honesty, I'm done with this. The same tired old arguments keep coming up, specifically about protection from unknown intruders, and those who keep bringing them up simply aren't willing to accept that the main danger is from their own family and/or friends. If someone wants to show some actual studies of the protective benefit of guns then I'd be truly delighted to read it (and no, AA, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data").
Last edited by PTT; 24th Jan 2013 at 14:11.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
duncan...that's the of yo you isn't it?
we'll keep our guns and will try to make sure that they are only used in a legal manner.
and we do hope you take piers morgan back to your side of the pond.
wow...australian cops don't have a right to their gun on off duty hours...what a waste.
you all realize that our pilots are allowed (after training) to carry guns on the flight deck of airliners, right? (USA)
we'll keep our guns and will try to make sure that they are only used in a legal manner.
and we do hope you take piers morgan back to your side of the pond.
wow...australian cops don't have a right to their gun on off duty hours...what a waste.
you all realize that our pilots are allowed (after training) to carry guns on the flight deck of airliners, right? (USA)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT:
Thanks for checking my maths... 123/year = "about one every three days".. 
I don't know... I haven't read all 6500 to try to determine how many potential victims were saved but, as our dear President says "if it only saves one life then it's worth it"...
I don't care. I care about the random armed intruder. I don't care that Kellerman thinks I'm 2.7 times more likely to die because I have a gun. I'm far more interested in the fact that the intruder has a much higher chance of dying than my 2.7 times if he enters my house. He has an infinitely higher chance of death in my house than he does entering the unarmed house down the road. I like those odds. Again, thanks for helping me clarify that...
Your list of anecdotes, assuming your figure of 6500 is correct, goes back to 1959, so at least 53 years, so a massive 123 a year
That compares to the >100,000 homicides per year by gun
For the nth time, it's not random armed intruders who do most of the killing.