5 Facts About America’s Gun Culture From a Liberal Gun-Owning Sociologist (2 Viewers)

[ataraxia]

And once again, one of our astute gun grabbers has good evidence that firearms are associated with "firearm deaths".

No, science and observations has done that. It’s just real world facts.

More Guns, More Death: The Fundamental Fact that Supports a Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Gun Violence in America | Rockefeller Institute of Government

rockinst.org

 

[natman]

I don't want to waste my time. The guy wasn't speaking to people who want more gun safety, he was speaking to the gun cult so they'd buy his book.

So what?

The guy wasn't speaking to people who want more gun safety
i.e. you.

So as soon as you realized that the author wasn't going to support your preconceived notions, you stopped reading.

 

[RF667799]

OK- if you are willing to accept being off the charts in terms of deaths from this hazardous equipment, then that’s a risk that’s obviously acceptable to you.

But then you can’t tell us that they are no big deal perfectly safe to leave free.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Just tell us you want to force us allto live in blood and violence because we are a free people.

But the deaths aren't "off the charts". The deaths are the abnormal occurrence.

Yes, I understand you guys like to tell a different story.

 

[RF667799]

No, science and observations has done that. It’s just real world facts.

More Guns, More Death: The Fundamental Fact that Supports a Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Gun Violence in America | Rockefeller Institute of Government

rockinst.org

Firearms are associated with firearm deaths.

Motorcycles with motorcycle deaths.

Skateboards with skateboard deaths.

Any other astounding facts that your in-depth research and precise powers of observation have revealed?

 

[RF667799]

How many times have you been told they’re obviously not regulated well enough?

How many times have you told the lie that they are unregulated, and then walked it back in this manner?

 

[RF667799]

Your barely concealed insults didn't get a rise, your deflection attempt didn't get a rise so now you are telling me where and what I should and should not post.
That's funny.

I'm quite happy for you to continue to post assertions you won't support. That sort of thing I view as a gift.

 

[Artymoon]

OK- if you are willing to accept being off the charts in terms of deaths from this hazardous equipment, then that’s a risk that’s obviously acceptable to you.

But then you can’t tell us that they are no big deal perfectly safe to leave free.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Just tell us you want to force us allto live in blood and violence because we are a free people.

I don't believe anyone has stated no big deal and guns certainly require responsible use. "Forced to live in blood and violence" is a bit dramatic but falls in line I suppose with current rhetoric. Ownership of arms however is important and certainly was thought that way to be enshrined in the constitution. There are many issues Americans disagree with for one reason or another but in the end I support the individual's right to choose.

 

[lynnwinslow]

The guy wasn't speaking to people who want more gun safety
i.e. you.

So as soon as you realized that the author wasn't going to support your preconceived notions, you stopped reading.

Nah.
I read the guys first assertion and thought well, that's odd. Then I researched him and realized he was just trying to sell a book. That's all. No reason to read any more into it than that.

 

[natman]

Nah.
I read the guys first assertion and thought well, that's odd. Then I researched him and realized he was just trying to sell a book. That's all. No reason to read any more into it than that.

Well, you've certainly done an excellent imitation of someone who stopped reading as soon as he found something he disagreed with:

I stopped reading after "Guns are normal".

 

[lynnwinslow]

Well, you've certainly done an excellent imitation of someone who stopped reading as soon as he found something he disagreed with:

Reread the comment you replied to again, this time for comprehension.

 

[RF667799]

Reread the comment you replied to again, this time for comprehension.

I'm still waiting for you to support your implicit claim that gun ownership isn't normal.

In this sub-forum, you might find better preparation to support your outbursts might be helpful.

 

[lynnwinslow]

I'm still waiting for you to support your implicit claim that gun ownership isn't normal.

In this sub-forum, you might find better preparation to support your outbursts might be helpful.

Your comments sound like you're posting from your Mom's basement so I hope you grabbed a snack and went potty first.
It will be a long time before I respond seriously to your troll posts.

 

[RF667799]

Your comments sound like you're posting from your Mom's basement so I hope you grabbed a snack and went potty first.
It will be a long time before I respond seriously to your troll posts.

I guess this outburst should convince me that you aren't here for serious discussion.

I should have been convinced when you stumbled into the thread announcing that you weren’t going to even be considering the OP.

 

[natman]

Reread the comment you replied to again, this time for comprehension.

Nothing wrong with my reading, it's your waffling and rewriting your own posts that's the issue.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Nothing wrong with my reading, it's your waffling and rewriting your own posts that's the issue.

It's a debate site, not a thesis presentation. Just because I didn't put every thought I had about the article and the author in my original post doesn't make my subsequent posts invalid.

 

[Slavister]

Nonsense. Probabilities don't stack in that manner.

What? I could always be wrong of course, but until you show me how, I don't see it.

 

[Slavister]

Explain how limited gun ownership decreases murders using knives.

Pretty obvious. Most people wanting to carry or use a weapon, whether for defensive reasons or offensive ones, will use a gun over a knife, given a choice. That's why they have guns in the first place. And guns are more lethal than knives.

 

[Slavister]

I didn't take it that way. This was one person's perspective who came to own guns later in life in an admittedly anti-gun area and came up with some interesting observations. I didn't read or find any nuance in the article that suggested guns could not be dangerous.

Well by selecting this quote, you appear to think one of his "interesting" observations was that " at least 99.99% of guns and 99.95% of gun owners were not directly involved in fatalities that year."

I then added my own interesting observation to that - which is based on analogous (and some same) numbers he was relying upon, and with same logic - implying that in a 50-year lifetime of gun ownership 1 in 14 gun owner get to be injured or killed by a gun.

 

[VanceMack]

I found this article to be a good read so thought I'd share it. The author makes some interesting observations about guns and gun culture in the U.S.

5 Facts About America’s Gun Culture From a Liberal Gun-Owning Sociologist | Shooting Wire

Today, 1 in 4 black Americans, as well as 1 in 5 Latinos and 1 in 4 women, personally own a gun. Twenty percent of gun owners consider themselves politically liberal. For every four evangelical Protestants who own handguns, three people who don’t identify with any religion own them too. Scholars are even beginning to discover the importance of LGBTQ+ gun owners.

Despite high rates of firearm suicide and homicide, most guns in the U.S. will not kill anyone, and most American gun owners will not commit violence against themselves or others. My calculations, based on the 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, indicate that just one gun death occurred per 8,560 firearms and 1,840 gun owners – meaning at least 99.99% of guns and 99.95% of gun owners were not directly involved in fatalities that year.

To different people, they are fun and frightening, dangerous and protective, diffuse and concentrated, unifying and divisive, attractive and repulsive, interesting and controversial, useful and useless, good and bad, and neither good nor bad.

The problem with statistics is that they are as flawed as the people that feed in the data.

In any given year, the vast majority of firearm related homicides are committed by non law abiding citizen firearm owners. The factual reality is that a small percentage (approx 3%-black males aged 18-25) of a minority population (black Americans = approx 13% of total population)accounts for the vast majority of homicides. The incidence of firearm related homicide committed by law abiding firearms owners is a statistical zero.

 

[VanceMack]

Well by selecting this quote, you appear to think one of his "interesting" observations was that " at least 99.99% of guns and 99.95% of gun owners were not directly involved in fatalities that year."

I then added my own interesting observation to that - which is based on analogous (and some same) numbers he was relying upon, and with same logic - implying that in a 50-year lifetime of gun ownership 1 in 14 gun owner get to be injured or killed by a gun.

Same statistical problem with your calculations. The extreme vast majority of the 70 million gun owners are not in any way related to the approx 10k firearm deaths that occur in majority minority communities, perpetrated by a small percentage of criminal gun owners.

 

[pinqy]

So then there is no problem with nukes in the hands of Iranians, or anyone else who wants them. Put them on sale at Walmart. Do something only if they hurt someone.

No. Nuclear weapons, by their nature, pose a danger whether or not they are used (same for chemical and biological weapons). Any mistake can be fatal for many many people.

And (before you try to make other false equivalencies, guns and knives are anti-personnel weapons and can only harm a monetary at by accident. Area-effect and anti material weapons cannot have a single target.

That being said, no-one has been killed by a nuclear weapon in the last 80 years.

 

[ataraxia]

No. Nuclear weapons, by their nature, pose a danger whether or not they are used (same for chemical and biological weapons). Any mistake can be fatal for many many people.

Mistake or in the hands of a lunatic: why does that matter?

And (before you try to make other false equivalencies, guns and knives are anti-personnel weapons and can only harm a monetary at by accident. Area-effect and anti material weapons cannot have a single target.

You can take out a whole concert hall or elementary school in very short order with an AR.

Looks to me like a bomb went off here from the Vegas massacre:

. .

That being said, no-one has been killed by a nuclear weapon in the last 80 years.

Sure. Because there has been so much oppressive big government tyranny and regulation on this class of nuclear arms- at least so far. It's probably unconstitutional. The Constitution just says "the right to arms shall not be infringed".

 

[lynnwinslow]

The problem with statistics is that they are as flawed as the people that feed in the data.

In any given year, the vast majority of firearm related homicides are committed by non law abiding citizen firearm owners. The factual reality is that a small percentage (approx 3%-black males aged 18-25) of a minority population (black Americans = approx 13% of total population)accounts for the vast majority of homicides. The incidence of firearm related homicide committed by law abiding firearms owners is a statistical zero.

I suspect most of your paragraph is misleading or inaccurate but I'll just concentrate on the low hanging fruit.

Please provide a link that corroborates your assertion that "The incidence of firearm related homicide committed by law abiding firearms owners is a statistical zero"

 

[Diomedes]

I found this article to be a good read so thought I'd share it. The author makes some interesting observations about guns and gun culture in the U.S.

5 Facts About America’s Gun Culture From a Liberal Gun-Owning Sociologist | Shooting Wire

You want sociology? How about the fact that guns offer an illusion of power for those who did not attain power in the corporate world? It's kind of like how their lucky hat helps their team win.

 

[RF667799]

What? I could always be wrong of course, but until you show me how, I don't see it.

Consider extending your extrapolation even further...250 years perhaps. Then see if reality supports the proposition that 35% of people who have ever lived in that time have been killed or injured by someone using a firearm.

How many of those years considered as a single event for probability purposes must we stack before we find that everyone has been injured or killed by someone using a firearm?

You see, even if a coin flip has been tails 10 times in a row- the next flip is still a 50% probability of being heads. The odds haven't stacked through the considered events.