mistermack wrote:
Unmistakable.

mistermack wrote:
Unmistakable.
Always important to read your own links:Blind groper wrote:Seth
I really do not think that the NRA is a reputable authority on this issue. Its bias is extreme.
Have you heard of the research that shows carrying a gun actually increases your risk of getting shot?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html
The mere act of carrying a weapon is certainly not going to magically attract bullets, so yes, there are likely to be behavioral roots. Could it be that some CCW holders are more likely to be shot because they allow it to provide them a false sense of confidence? Sure. The simple solution is don't fucking do that shit. I sure as hell don't. I avoid conflict the same as I did before I carried, and I don't go looking for trouble in bad neighborhoods just because I'm packin'.While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
Good points, and I understand your view that a responsible and sensible gun owner my not be liable to such effects. However, it is certainly possible that there is a real overall statistical effect over gun owners as a whole...Wumbologist wrote:Always important to read your own links:Blind groper wrote:Seth
I really do not think that the NRA is a reputable authority on this issue. Its bias is extreme.
Have you heard of the research that shows carrying a gun actually increases your risk of getting shot?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html
The mere act of carrying a weapon is certainly not going to magically attract bullets, so yes, there are likely to be behavioral roots. Could it be that some CCW holders are more likely to be shot because they allow it to provide them a false sense of confidence? Sure. The simple solution is don't fucking do that shit. I sure as hell don't. I avoid conflict the same as I did before I carried, and I don't go looking for trouble in bad neighborhoods just because I'm packin'.While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
I'd guess the study also fails to take into account the possible motivations for carrying in the first place. Some people who carry do so because they're already at a particular risk, perhaps due to a job that involves them carrying valuables or large quantities of cash regularly. Maybe they've received threats in the past, carried as a defense, and were still attacked. There are a lot of potential confounding factors to account for, but at the end of the day I highly doubt that the mere existence of a concealed chunk of metal on my hip or in my pocket is going to act as a magic bullet magnet by sheer force of its being there.
So, my wife is nuts?mistermack wrote:The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts.
By definition, if she married you, she's nuts.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:So, my wife is nuts?mistermack wrote:The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts.
mistermack wrote:By definition, if she married you, she's nuts.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:So, my wife is nuts?mistermack wrote:The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts.
Actually, the murder rate is not "horrendous" -- it's down to 4.7. Just 1-2 years ago Europe was at 5.4, and Europe took a good drop just in the last two years, for some reason. That is higher than 7 or 8 countries in western Europe, but there are PLENTY of countries worse off than the US, and plenty of those countries have severe gun restrictions. The US is kind of in the middle with it's homicide rate. The ones that are very low, however, tend to be very small, homogeneous countries.Blind groper wrote:Or to translate your sarcastic comment into plain English, you believe that the people who should not have hand guns (criminals) will not break the law to get them. That makes sense.Gawdzilla Sama wrote: Okay, so you want to ignore any and all information that doesn't agree with your position? Fine. Have a nice life.
The reality is that as long as hand guns are widely available, local restrictions will not limit criminals from getting all the hand guns they want. It is in countries where hand guns are largely banned nationwide that hand gun homicides are rare. In the USA, hand gun homicides account for almost half of all murders. And the murder rate is horrendous.
Found the actual study:Blind groper wrote:Wumbologist
The study showed that people who carry hand guns had an increased likelihood of being shot, and indeed, killed, by more than 400%. This margin is not something to shake off lightly. It shows that carrying a gun is dangerous to whoever carries it.
The study included a demographic analysis of the people in the study, and showed that most of those who carried a gun and were shot were in what would otherwise be low risk demographics - older people, educated people, successful people, female people. So the principle applies not just to criminals, but to anyone who carries a gun.
Do not get fooled by the typical scientist reluctance to commit to firm conclusions. The study clearly points out that carrying a gun, far from helping with self defense, actually and substantially increases risk.
No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caughtlaw-abiding citizen
Is this the state of the debate in this thread?MrJonno wrote:No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caughtlaw-abiding citizen
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests