Shooting in Texas

[Boges]

Hook 'em

Edited July 14, 2014 by Boges

[Derek 2.0]

Guns kill a lot more people daily than they save.

Not in the United States:

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Statistically, you are far more likely to be shot if you own a gun than if you don't.

Those “stats” are skewed, for they also include criminals and members in law enforcement…….I’ve no doubt that an armed gangster is likely to be killed by another gangster, but where said stats fall apart is when you use law abiding gun owners…….For example, this is no indication that I am sixty times more likely to be shot then yourself.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

There are a pile of stats that backup what MG has pointed out and they don't cover criminals. Many of them cover people who carry a gun to "protect" themselves against criminals and end up getting shot anyway.. And then there are those who have them in the home for the same reasons and end up with them being used in the home in domestic violence or suicide cases. What it boils down to is you can pretty much make stats say whatever you want them to. Especially in this gun crazy stuff. As a for instance, how can you say a shooting was actually prevented (which I'm sure the NRA and such people will say) by someone having a gun when you can't prove it would have hapenned without said gun.

[Derek 2.0]

There are a pile of stats that backup what MG has pointed out and they don't cover criminals. Many of them cover people who carry a gun to "protect" themselves against criminals and end up getting shot anyway.. And then there are those who have them in the home for the same reasons and end up with them being used in the home in domestic violence or suicide cases. What it boils down to is you can pretty much make stats say whatever you want them to. Especially in this gun crazy stuff. As a for instance, how can you say a shooting was actually prevented (which I'm sure the NRA and such people will say) by someone having a gun when you can't prove it would have hapenned without said gun.

So you're saying there are stats that back up the statement of the other member, then state stats can be skewed to fit a given agenda..........alright.

[On Guard for Thee]

One stat that can't really be skewed is the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths. Check the stats between US and Japan.

[Derek 2.0]

One stat that can't really be skewed is the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths. Check the stats between US and Japan.

Check the stats between the United States and Mexico.......

[On Guard for Thee]

Mexico! Can you imagine if they had the amount of guns the US has, there'd be no Mexicans!

[Derek 2.0]

Mexico! Can you imagine if they had the amount of guns the US has, there'd be no Mexicans!

How is that? Despite having gun laws stricter then even Canada, the Mexicans have nearly four times the number of gun related homicides when compared to the Americans…………As such, one could surmise that Mexican owned guns are more lethal then American guns -or- rates of both gun ownership, gun control and gun related homicide factor little into the “stats”, demonstrating that gun crime is the root result of a myriad of sociological factors.

[waldo]

Not in the United States:

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

imagine! A gun lobby organization... and you... trumpeting that 20 year old study that presumes to speak to "defensive gun use". Alternatively, the U.S. CDC presents National Crime Victimization Surveys that contend only ~ 55,000-to-80,000 victims use guns against offenders in a given year. I appreciate this is being presented by a government agency... and you militia types have a thing about governments 'gitin yer guns', but that's an incredible discrepancy in numbers of "defensive gun users". Go figure!

.

[On Guard for Thee]

I totally agree with your closing statement. However with regard to laws, there may be a ton on the books with regard to guns and other things in Mexico, but how often and how well are they enforced? So the fact that it seems Mexicans are able to shoot more of each other with less guns goes back to your statement. However the fact that Americans, even with all their law enforcement, still have the most guns and the most homicides on the planet still is an issue that is hard to ignore.

[Derek 2.0]

imagine! A gun lobby organization... and you... trumpeting that 20 year old study that presumes to speak to "defensive gun use". Alternatively, the U.S. CDC presents National Crime Victimization Surveys that contend only ~ 55,000-to-80,000 victims use guns against offenders in a given year. I appreciate this is being presented by a government agency... and you militia types have a thing about governments 'gitin yer guns', but that's an incredible discrepancy in numbers of "defensive gun users". Go figure!

.

Ahhh but are those numbers attributed to actually using the gun or having a gun present?

(And Militia type…..come on, if you want an adult discussion leave the unfounded personal attacks out of it)

[Derek 2.0]

I totally agree with your closing statement. However with regard to laws, there may be a ton on the books with regard to guns and other things in Mexico, but how often and how well are they enforced? So the fact that it seems Mexicans are able to shoot more of each other with less guns goes back to your statement. However the fact that Americans, even with all their law enforcement, still have the most guns and the most homicides on the planet still is an issue that is hard to ignore.

The Americans don’t have the highest gun homicide rate on the planet……..let’s stick to the facts.

The Americans also have many gun laws on the books that aren’t enforced, and despite gun sales rising, gun related homicides have been steadily dropping for decades..............

[Moonlight Graham]

Those “stats” are skewed, for they also include criminals and members in law enforcement…….I’ve no doubt that an armed gangster is likely to be killed by another gangster, but where said stats fall apart is when you use law abiding gun owners…….For example, this is no indication that I am sixty times more likely to be shot then yourself.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.U8SAwygvAr1

Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

...

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

As for "skewed stats", the study did account for variables such as "socioeconomic status" and age/sex/ethnicity. Also if more guns make everyone safer, then wouldn't gang members be one the the safest groups possible? According to the "more guns = safer" theory, wouldn't every gang member having guns mean they wouldn't want to use them out of the fear the other gang members have them too?

It just seems completely ridiculous to me to think that if we armed all law-abiding Canadians that gun deaths would go down. That's like saying if everyone carried knives then stabbings would go down, or if 80% less people drove cars then total car accidents would go up. People are human, you give them dangerous machines/tools and accidents will happen.

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.U8SAwygvAr1

As for "skewed stats", the study did account for variables such as "socioeconomic status" and age/sex/ethnicity. Also if more guns make everyone safer, then wouldn't gang members be one the the safest groups possible? According to the "more guns = safer" theory, wouldn't every gang member having guns mean they wouldn't want to use them out of the fear the other gang members have them too?

I noticed you omitted this portion:

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."

According to your meme, I am 60+ more times likely to die from a gunshot then a gangster with one stolen gun……

It just seems completely ridiculous to me to think that if we armed all law-abiding Canadians that gun deaths would go down. That's like saying if everyone carried knives then stabbings would go down, or if 80% less people drove cars then total car accidents would go up. People are human, you give them dangerous machines/tools and accidents will happen.

I’ve never suggested that all law abiding Canadians should own firearms, but those that wish to own them should be able to do so.

[On Guard for Thee]

I noticed you omitted this portion:

According to your meme, I am 60+ more times likely to die from a gunshot then a gangster with one stolen gun……

I’ve never suggested that all law abiding Canadians should own firearms, but those that wish to own them should be able to do so.

Sure, if they want to go hunting. If they are paranoid about their neighbor, not so much.

[Derek 2.0]

Sure, if they want to go hunting. If they are paranoid about their neighbor, not so much.

What if their neighbour is for example a crack dealer or a recently released sex offender?

[On Guard for Thee]

What if their neighbour is for example a crack dealer or a recently released sex offender?

Well that sounds like American paranoia. But OK, so yoiu say the best plan is to equip yorself to shoot them? The stats show if you do that you have a better chance of getting shot yourself. Maybe just go about your business and leave them alone.

[Derek 2.0]

Well that sounds like American paranoia. But OK, so yoiu say the best plan is to equip yorself to shoot them? The stats show if you do that you have a better chance of getting shot yourself. Maybe just go about your business and leave them alone.

I thought you said “stats” can be construed to a given agenda…….None the less, the “stats” don’t account for a whole host of factors……

You just stated you have no issue with firearms ownership for sport (hunting, sport shooting etc), but call into question firearms ownership for personal defence. Is a middle aged sport shooter with 60+ firearms in his household 60 times more likely to be shot then a single women that owns a sole firearm for personal protection?

Edited July 15, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

I thought you said “stats” can be construed to a given agenda…….None the less, the “stats” don’t account for a whole host of factors……

You just stated you have no issue with firearms ownership for sport (hunting, sport shooting etc), but call into question firearms ownership for personal defence. Is a middle aged sport shooter with 60+ firearms in his household 60 times more likely to be shot then a single women that owns a sole firearm for personal protection?

Nope. The stats indicate that she is more likely to be shot.

[Derek 2.0]

Nope. The stats indicate that she is more likely to be shot.

No they don't.........So what of your proclamation of stats being skewed to fit an agenda?

How is the duck hunter with this gun:

less likely to be shot then the single women with this gun:

???????????

[On Guard for Thee]

No they don't.........So what of your proclamation of stats being skewed to fit an agenda?

How is the duck hunter with this gun:

less likely to be shot then the single women with this gun:

???????????

Really, women carry guns like that down there? Wel to answer the question, the duck hunter will be out at the duck pond. Probably not a lot of criminals out there. The interpretation of the stats indicate that people who "carry" may get into trouble because of a false sense of security and may go places they ought not to because of this false sense of security they have by packing. But I doubt like hell many women carry those. Holy doodle.

[Derek 2.0]

Really, women carry guns like that down there?

Why not? A shotgun is one of the most versatile and user friendly firearms on the market……And happens to be the most effective firearm for duck hunting and home defence.

Wel to answer the question, the duck hunter will be out at the duck pond. Probably not a lot of criminals out there.

The Duck hunter never goes home?

The interpretation of the stats indicate that people who "carry" may get into trouble because of a false sense of security and may go places they ought not to because of this false sense of security they have by packing.

No, the members contention was gun owners were more likely to be shot then non gun owners

But I doubt like hell many women carry those. Holy doodle.

Why wouldn't a women own a shotgun? Every women gun owner I know, come to think of it, owns at least one shotgun.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why not? A shotgun is one of the most versatile and user friendly firearms on the market……And happens to be the most effective firearm for duck hunting and home defence.

The Duck hunter never goes home?

No, the members contention was gun owners were more likely to be shot then non gun owners

Why wouldn't a women own a shotgun? Every women gun owner I know, come to think of it, owns at least one shotgun.

Remember the old adage "live by the gun, die by the gun"? It seems to still apply, according to the stats.

[Derek 2.0]

Remember the old adage "live by the gun, die by the gun"? It seems to still apply, according to the stats.

Sure, but more recently:

What it boils down to is you can pretty much make stats say whatever you want them to. Especially in this gun crazy stuff.

Thanks for coming out though!!!

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure, but more recently:

Thanks for coming out though!!!

Anytime, no problem. You done tried hard.