You guys and your guns...

[Wumbologist]

Unmistakable.

[Blind groper]

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

[Wumbologist]

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

Always important to read your own links:

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."

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'.

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.

[JimC]

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

Always important to read your own links:

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."

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'.

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.

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...

[Blind groper]

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.

[FBM]

Anecdotal, but there's a CNN story today that includes 2 separate and recent incidents in which having a handgun prevented women from getting raped: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/17/justi ... f=obinsite

[mistermack]

The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts. This is how you identify a gun-nut, wummy. It's a nut with a gun.

As I've said before, the only people who should be allowed to handle or own a gun, are people who really don't want one.

I had an aunt who owned and ran a liquor store in the Bronx in the seventies. She was held up many times, but retired healthy. If anyone ever needed a gun for protection, it was her.
If she didn't, nobody does.

It's pretty certain that if she HAD had a gun, she would never have lived to retirement age.
This excuse of needing a gun for protection is just bollocks. The study just makes it plainer.

Guns are toys to make wankers feel important.

The only exception I can think of, is if someone lives in the countryside, and needs to kill invasive species of harmful alien animals, like the rabbits and foxes in the australian outback.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts.

So, my wife is nuts?

[mistermack]

The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts.

So, my wife is nuts?

By definition, if she married you, she's nuts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The study mereley adds even more evidence, if more were needed, to the fact that poeple who want guns are nuts.

So, my wife is nuts?

By definition, if she married you, she's nuts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, so you want to ignore any and all information that doesn't agree with your position? Fine. Have a nice life.

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.

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.

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.

The US has widely disparate rates of homicides, from down to like .6 to up over 5, depending on the State. The homicide rates around the world, by country or by state, have absolutely no reliable correlation with the degree of gun control. You folks can't just point to Norway or Holland and say "the US should be like these countries" which are the size of the county I live in.

[MrJonno]

Comparing London,Paris, Berlin to Washington, New York or LA is perfectly reasonable. 1st world major cities.

It's also quite reasonable to compare in the middle of nowhereshire England and some rural farm in the US where the nearest other human being is 150 miles away for crime as well.

I'm almost certain the murder rate in Antartica where firearms are quite legal is almost certainly extremely low but that seems likely to be due to there not being anyone to shoot them as opposed to people utilising their god given rights to carry assault rifles

[Wumbologist]

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.

Found the actual study:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... is_culhane

CTRL+F: License

Reader has finished searching the document. No matches were found.


Oh, interesting. They did such a careful demographic analysis and didn't bother to check whether the people in their study were even licensed to carry a gun. If the study includes people carrying illegally for criminal purposes it absolutely doesn't come as a surprise that they got the results they did. It also means absolutely nothing for the law-abiding citizen who carries a gun. Show me a study that is restricted to law-abiding concealed carry holders only and we'll discuss that.

[MrJonno]

law-abiding citizen

No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caught

[Gawdzilla Sama]

law-abiding citizen

No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caught

Is this the state of the debate in this thread?