Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home

[TurtleDude]

Just an observation:







You addressed her, specifically, in your response post. This is why I don't, usually, venture into gun debates. I do not want a gun in my house. I do not have a problem with you having a gun in your house (as long as those there use it safely). For this set of comments, I get attacked for trying to elimintate a gun owner's rights. No where do my previous comments claim that. Telling someone, like me, to put a sign on my door saying I don't have a gun for self defense, is an obnoxious and overgeneralized attempt to pigeon-hole anyone who doesn't want a gun as someone against your rights to have one.

I do not want a gun. You want a gun. I do not have a problem with you wanting and having a gun, Why do you have a problem with me not wanting or having one?

I don't-I have a problem with anti gunners as opposed to non gunners. That is fairly obvious and I was using the anti-gunner as a springboard to note that those who want to brag about having a gun free home (and if you read the other posts of that individual-they are ANTI GUN and the comments were clearly ANTI GUN). 1069's post agreed with the thread starter who was attacking gun ownership.



I think people who feel that way about guns shouldn't be hypocrites and sponge off the safety umbrella people like me provide to others.

 

[reaganburch]

Amen to all that....especially if you have renter's or homeowner's insurance. :mrgreen:

Though I'd be ticked if we lost our computer, because every picture ever taken of our son is stored on here. I really need to get off my butt and get those onto a CD. Sure, I've got a few prints, but they're not even a drop in a bucket to all of the pictures I've taken!

Hey Stace, I'm a father of a 9-month old and I use a USB Flash Drive to store all my pictures. It's easier to keep updated and it stores more than the 640 MB limit... just FYI ... I have a 2 GB flash drive that I keep all my son's pictures on...

 

[americanwoman]

what sort of real man would give his wife a frgn taurus? I have a stock Smith and Wesson MP in my car-my wife -I just got her a Bowie Tactical Concepts Home Page signature Glock !!!:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Lucky gal! I am feeling a little small with my .380 over here.

Maybe there are higher rates with gun owners because we can shoot any ******* that breaks into our homes with intentions to harm us.

 

[KidRocks]

I don't-I have a problem with anti gunners as opposed to non gunners. That is fairly obvious and I was using the anti-gunner as a springboard to note that those who want to brag about having a gun free home (and if you read the other posts of that individual-they are ANTI GUN and the comments were clearly ANTI GUN). 1069's post agreed with the thread starter who was attacking gun ownership.



I think people who feel that way about guns shouldn't be hypocrites and sponge off the safety umbrella people like me provide to others.

Who the hell died and made you my protector? The fact is you have a problem with gun-control, period. I personally do not care if you possess guns as oppossed to you who hates people who choose to run gun-free homes. Our home is and probably will always be gun-free and we are proud of that fact, live with that pal.

The fact is that many of the people with guns in their homes that I've visited are scary characters, those people are very insecure, some are racist and some are just gun-nuts period. They are ant-government, they are anti liberals and they just would love to do as they please without rules and regulations to encumber their ways and beliefs.

Finally, you don't provide me any sort of safety umbrella at all pal, guns do not protect freedom, the Constitution provides me all the freedom and protection I need.

Face it, guns are overrated my friend.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Who the hell died and made you my protector? The fact is you have a problem with gun-control, period. I personally do not care if you possess guns as oppossed to you who hates people who choose to run gun-free homes. Our home is and probably will always be gun-free and we are proud of that fact, live with that pal.

The fact is that many of the people with guns in their homes that I've visited are scary characters, those people are very insecure, some are racist and some are just gun-nuts period. They are ant-government, they are anti liberals and they just would love to do as they please without rules and regulations to encumber their ways and beliefs.

Finally, you don't provide me any sort of safety umbrella at all pal, guns do not protect freedom, the Constitution provides me all the freedom and protection I need.

Face it, guns are overrated my friend.

I honestly don't think guns are the problem. If guns were successfully banned, people would find other weapons. I don't see any problem with someone having a gun in their home as a method of protection. Of course, proper care and responsibility is important and people who are unable to follow that accordingly shouldn't have guns or any weapons for that matter. I do, however, have a problem with the gun nuts out there who cling so tightly to the 2nd Amendment and are unwilling to compromise in the least by registering their firearms for fear that the government will take them away. It's an absurd notion.

 

[TurtleDude]

Who the hell died and made you my protector? The fact is you have a problem with gun-control, period. I personally do not care if you possess guns as oppossed to you who hates people who choose to run gun-free homes. Our home is and probably will always be gun-free and we are proud of that fact, live with that pal.

The fact is that many of the people with guns in their homes that I've visited are scary characters, those people are very insecure, some are racist and some are just gun-nuts period. They are ant-government, they are anti liberals and they just would love to do as they please without rules and regulations to encumber their ways and beliefs.

Finally, you don't provide me any sort of safety umbrella at all pal, guns do not protect freedom, the Constitution provides me all the freedom and protection I need.

Face it, guns are overrated my friend.

you are psychobabbling You are making stuff up that has no factual support

 

[KidRocks]

you are psychobabbling You are making stuff up that has no factual support

Not at all, the fact is I'm making much sense, you probably cannot see that because you in all probability...fit the profile!

 

[TurtleDude]

Not at all, the fact is I'm making much sense, you probably cannot see that because you in all probability...fit the profile!

you are continuing to psychobabble. You have made stuff up with no support in the factual dat base. The USA has one of the lowest rates of home invasion crimes because of armed citizens. The fact is-people who are anti gun are usually cowards

 

[Stace]

No need to be so abrasive towards each other, fellas. Let's all play nice....

 

[KidRocks]

you are continuing to psychobabble. You have made stuff up with no support in the factual dat base. The USA has one of the lowest rates of home invasion crimes because of armed citizens. The fact is-people who are anti gun are usually cowards

How, in the world, are anti-gun people cowards? If you stop to think, that, in itself, is a contridiction in terms, is it not?

I can become awfully brave with a gun in my hand, I can instantly feel invincible, indeed, I can purchase bravado for just about, what, 200 dollars, with a Saturday night special, can I not? Of course I can. And many do.

 

[Stinger]

Why not put your guns on your living room table in plain sight for all to see and be impressed?

I don't own any guns.

So instead of dodging the question how about an answer?

Put one under your childrens pillows also, no use taking chances that they might be caught unarmed.

My children are US Marines, I don't have to put guns under their pillows.

So instead of dodging the question how about an answer?

Don't worry about your children or any children because I'm sure they are well versed in gun-safety.

Mine are including full automatics, Sharpshooters each.

So instead of dodging the question how about an answer?

 

[TurtleDude]

How, in the world, are anti-gun people cowards? If you stop to think, that, in itself, is a contridiction in terms, is it not?

I can become awfully brave with a gun in my hand, I can instantly feel invincible, indeed, I can purchase bravado for just about, what, 200 dollars, with a Saturday night special, can I not? Of course I can. And many do.

Post some studies-I have already cited Snyder.

 

[KidRocks]

Post some studies-I have already cited Snyder.

What is it with your wanting studies?

Read closely what I've written and you will find reasonable rebuttal, no wild declarations, no disrespect, just an abstract of common-sense.

 

[TurtleDude]

What is it with your wanting studies?

Read closely what I've written and you will find reasonable rebuttal, no wild declarations, no disrespect, just an abstract of common-sense.

LOL-common sense? LOL again
you make stuff up

 

[KidRocks]

LOL-common sense? LOL again
you make stuff up

Whatever you say TurtleDude... you can't refute most of what I say and it bothers you that I can refute most of your wild claims.

Let's just agree to disagree and call it a draw, ok?

 

[TurtleDude]

Whatever you say TurtleDude... you can't refute most of what I say and it bothers you that I can refute most of your wild claims.

Let's just agree to disagree and call it a draw, ok?

you make statements that are without a factual basis such as claiming that gun waiting periods stop crimes. I note that you can't find any studies that support your claim and lives have been lost by the waiting period and you can't dispute that so you claim that I didn't refute your nonsense

TFF

 

[KidRocks]

you make statements that are without a factual basis such as claiming that gun waiting periods stop crimes. I note that you can't find any studies that support your claim and lives have been lost by the waiting period and you can't dispute that so you claim that I didn't refute your nonsense

TFF

You must have me confused with another poster, scroll back and you will discover that I never made such a claim, I never went there TurtleDude.

 

[faithful_servant]

I always knew there was a good reason for my mother to ban and forbid all types of guns in our household, why, my mother would not allow us to even play with toy guns, they to were banned from our home.

It's as simple as that, guns kill, our entire family has always lived without guns in our homes, thank God we never needed them for any reason.

But hey, you want guns in your homes, go ahead, I don't care, what ever turns you on, but please be careful with guns around children...

remember, guns don't kill people, people with easy access to guns kill people!











Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home - Yahoo! News

Guns are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in the United States, and new research shows that easy-access guns in the home make a difference. Homicide rates are highest in states where more households have guns, the national survey concludes.

The finding held even after taking into account socioeconomic status and gender.

"Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes," said lead researcher Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health.

You're making a huge assumption that the possession of guns is what is leading to the high homicide rates. It's far more likely that the high homicide rate is what is leading to the high rate of gun possession. You also don't know what the homicide rate would be if law abiding citizens didn't own guns. The article is an astounding example of selective interpretations of data. It draws conclusions that aren't warranted and are instead based on assumptions by the researchers about the cause and effect. It also has no baseline to compare to and is far from being a scientific study (no dbl-blind studies, no control groups, no actual science, just a poll). What it does do however is throw the people who think that the criminals should have free run in society yet another tool to stop law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

 

[TurtleDude]

You must have me confused with another poster, scroll back and you will discover that I never made such a claim, I never went there TurtleDude.

Right you are-my bad:2wave:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I don't-I have a problem with anti gunners as opposed to non gunners. That is fairly obvious and I was using the anti-gunner as a springboard to note that those who want to brag about having a gun free home (and if you read the other posts of that individual-they are ANTI GUN and the comments were clearly ANTI GUN). 1069's post agreed with the thread starter who was attacking gun ownership.



I think people who feel that way about guns shouldn't be hypocrites and sponge off the safety umbrella people like me provide to others.

I'm not going to get into semantics about the sequence of posts I described. I don't necessarily agree with you, but you could be right, so agruing the point would be silly.

A problem I see here, in the entire gun debate, is that it is analogous to what we see happening in this country. You have three groups of people: pro-gunners, non-gunners, and anti-gunners. I consider myself a non-gunner; I do not want a gun in my house, yet I do not want to take away anyone's right to have firearms, as long as they are used safely. For this, many in the anti-gun lobby consider me a hypocrite and someone with no convictions on the issue. Many in the pro-gun lobby see me as trying to stiffle their rights to unrestricted gun ownership, and covertly supporting anti-gunners. Very similar to liberals, conservatives, and moderates. Personally, I have no use for either lobby. When they all stop attacking and/or pandering to me, and eliminate the extremism in their positions, perhaps then I'll listen.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well I can put some Swedish perspective on this. First of all guns in themself are not that big problem. Like for example Sweden have more guns per person then most other European countries but we don't have higher murderrates. But the guns are mostly huntingrifles. Their people have first get a hunting license that has both practical and theoritical test and also after that they have to get a license for each rifle and the number of rifles is limited. That at the same then people are no using the rifles for hunting they keep them safe.

The problem is then you want to use you gun for protection. Just one problem is that violence between spouses is much more common then violent break ins to people houses. Also having a gun for protection home means that you need to have it in easy reach and that means more risk of accidents ecpecially if you got children.

Also another strange thing is that some people in USA want guns to protect and also to overthrow the goverment. First of all handguns is not exactly the best weapon in a civilwar. Secondly a peoples militia (with hopefully rifles instead of handguns) will in the case of USA not only face the worlds most poverfull army but probably also a countermilitia equiped with automated rifles and machingunes and other heavy equipment. Because it would be easy for that govement to create there own militia and give it weapons from USA vast army supplies.

Sweden have another solution that we instead try to have a army that represent the people. There every male have to sign in and do test for the military but there today only around 30 % has to join the military for around a year but still with this method you get an army that in a decent way represnt the people. Well of course there are big problem with this method, but I think it's still are much more effective to stop the goverment to use they army as method to opresse the people then having a population armed with handguns and rifles.