• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why These Women Don't Strap Up I'll Never Know

I could do this all night, there's pages and pages of this stuff available on the net to a simple search, but I consider the point made.
 
Goshin said:
Now we're talking rare exceptions...
Click to expand...

its funny watching them try to argue public safety when its not what motivates those who think we would be better off in a society where only the criminals and cops have firearms
 
Goshin said:
Actually, possibly as much as 8 to 1 IIRC.
Click to expand...

I guess I misremembered. I knew it was significant.

So much for the "it's a kazillion times more dangerous to have a gun" theory, eh? :mrgreen:
 
Gina said:
What study?
Click to expand...


CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ?Important Crime Deterrent?

http://http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/


The CDC report found that victims who resist with a gun are less likely to suffer serious harm that victims who didn't resist or resisted via other methods...
...that Defensive Gun Use (DGUs) are probably at least as common as gun crime and possibly several times more common, as most incidents involve no shots fired and are not reported to police...
... that guns in private hands form an important deterrent to crime.
 
Goshin said:
and still more... just a brief search away...

Frederick County, Va. homeowner shoots intruder - StoryPolice: Gwinnett homeowner shoots and kills intruder | www.ajc.com
Homeowner on Detroit's west side shoots intruder, shares his story with 7 Action News - WXYZ.com
Portland Crime: For Third Time in a Month Homeowner Shoots Intruder - Portland, OR Patch


There's far more still, I could fill pages with these...
Click to expand...

just about EVERYONE who deals with criminals packs if they can

I remember serving as a moot court judge about 24 years ago at the local municipal court. The Judge whose courtroom we were using told me he wanted Me to be on his bench (there were three judges-one sat where the real judge would sit, the other two next to the judge's chair) since he knew I was a prominent shooter-he noted that sometimes there was a gun under his desk!! (the courtroom was normally locked when the judge was not there!)

Cops, DAs, secretaries who work at the DAs' office, probation officers, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, bail bondsmen, etc all carry when not on the job at very high rates when they can. Because they understand criminals.
 
Having won the Interwebz, I think I will now watch some cable TV. :D
 
Rico Suave said:
NRA nonsense.
Click to expand...

I shot a mugger. Yes I was a member of the NRA. Yes, my shooting was the lead story one month in "the armed Citizen" yes I was a guest-twice-on the NRA satellite radio show-once about shooting, once on the McDonald Decision.
 
TurtleDude said:
I shot a mugger. Yes I was a member of the NRA. Yes, my shooting was the lead story one month in "the armed Citizen" yes I was a guest-twice-on the NRA satellite radio show-once about shooting, once on the McDonald Decision.
Click to expand...

Did he survive his disembowelment?
 
Rico Suave said:
Did he survive his disembowelment?
Click to expand...

yes, I called the EMT right away. He was lucky. It was at midnight on St Paddy's day and I lived near the bar district. There were 2-4 paramedic units camped out waiting for alcohol involved issues. Best line from the DA's office

Reporter-what is the most serious issue facing the mugger

DA-his first prison date (his rectum had been sewn back in place after a contact hit from my 9mm) a contact hit calls for more damage since the gas that drives the bullet blows right into the body

he got out about 18 months later (state prisons people rarely serve their whole sentence) the feds popped him with 40K worth of blow within a few weeks of his release. according to a detective friend of mine, he had cultivated some sources in the state pen
 
countryboy said:
No, actually it was a study done by the CDC, commissioned by Obama. :) Didn't quite get the results he hoped for, lol.
Click to expand...

Due to lack of funding from congress...it wasn't really a study...but rather an outline of priorities to study if and when they get the funding.
 
Goshin said:
I've already posted around 20 to your 3, and could keep it up all night easily with just Google. Successful self defense with a firearm is not unusual, point proven, /thread.
Click to expand...

So could I but I'm not obsessed with guns and there is no equivalent site like NRA that archives gun owner killing ( themselves or loved ones or innocent strangers)for the silent majority who want to ban gun ownership.
 
Goshin said:
CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ?Important Crime Deterrent?

http://http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/


The CDC report found that victims who resist with a gun are less likely to suffer serious harm that victims who didn't resist or resisted via other methods...
...that Defensive Gun Use (DGUs) are probably at least as common as gun crime and possibly several times more common, as most incidents involve no shots fired and are not reported to police...
... that guns in private hands form an important deterrent to crime.
Click to expand...

The study doesn't completely support either side of the gun control debate. But given what you've just said, it sounds like the CDC should be permitted to do more studies on gun violence.

EDIT: That wasn't a study but an assessment of existing research on gun violence.

Maybe it would be helpful if the CDC actually did study gun violence?
 
Moot said:
Due to lack of funding from congress...it wasn't really a study...but rather an outline of priorities to study if and when they get the funding.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It was a study of multiple other studies. I guess libs only favor scientific concensus where global warming is concerned. :roll:
 
Moot said:
Due to lack of funding from congress...it wasn't really a study...but rather an outline of priorities to study if and when they get the funding.
Click to expand...

there are dozens of studies that conclude that private citizens-legally brandishing or using firearms they legally possess, stop thousands upon thousands of crimes each year. Far more cases of that than those who LEGALLY own firearms causing firearm related crimes of accidental injuries with firearms. That is really not disputed. The only dispute is HOW many more crimes are stopped with legally used firearms than those that are caused by those in legal possession of firearms. and the ratio is rather large-especially if you don't count (as most anti gun groups do) suicides.

another fact not subject to serious dispute is that most murders are caused by people who were in violation of federal (and usually state) law at the time they shot someone merely by possessing a firearm. People with clean records murdering other people is a rather rare occurrence
 
countryboy said:
Wrong. It was a study of multiple other studies. I guess libs only favor scientific concensus where global warming is concerned. :roll:
Click to expand...

what is both amusing and disturbing is that we can cite these studies until pigs fly and it won't matter because the vast majority of people who advocate gun bans don't care about public safety or about criminals-their goals are to disarm honest people for reasons that HAVE NOTHING to do with public safety. and that is pretty obvious when you see gun banners championing silly laws like the Hughes amendment or laws that only change and limit what honest people can do.
 
TurtleDude said:
what is both amusing and disturbing is that we can cite these studies until pigs fly and it won't matter because the vast majority of people who advocate gun bans don't care about public safety or about criminals-their goals are to disarm honest people for reasons that HAVE NOTHING to do with public safety. and that is pretty obvious when you see gun banners championing silly laws like the Hughes amendment or laws that only change and limit what honest people can do.
Click to expand...

Oh really? What are their honest reasons.

I'll take the counter argument. Gun owners own gun because they're scared or like to murder Bambi.
 
countryboy said:
No, actually it was a study done by the CDC, commissioned by Obama. :) Didn't quite get the results he hoped for, lol.
Click to expand...

It was an assessment of the studies available for review. The CDC did not conduct an actual study on statistics.


This is one area in which the data reviewed had problems. And though their conclusions were not "what was hoped for" by gun control advocates, it also did not please the NRA.

The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Potential areas for further investigation will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Click to expand...

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
 
Rico Suave said:
Oh really? What are their honest reasons.

I'll take the counter argument. Gun owners own gun because they're scared or like to murder Bambi.
Click to expand...

tell that to Kim Rhode or Vince Hancock, or Ginny Thrasher or Matt Dryke or Lones Wigger Jr etc

(I will save you a google-those are all olympic gold medalists in shooting sports)

we can prove what I am saying is true. Gun banners supported a law banning people from buying and legally owning machine guns made after May 19, 1986 even though there was not a single case of a murder or felonious attack with a legally owned MG by a private citizen for 50 years prior to that ban. It was allegedly passed in order to derail a pro gun bill by anti gun assholes and Charles Rangel-despite a voice vote to the contrary-claimed it passed (he was acting SOTH at the time)

so we have proof of gun bans being passed when there was absolutely no crime control reason for the law
 
Moot said:
Due to lack of funding from congress...it wasn't really a study...but rather an outline of priorities to study if and when they get the funding.
Click to expand...

True and an assessment of studies not performed by the CDC itself.
 
Gina said:
It was an assessment of the studies available for review. The CDC did not conduct an actual study on statistics.


This is one area in which the data reviewed had problems. And though their conclusions were not "what was hoped for" by gun control advocates, it also did not please the NRA.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Click to expand...

lets concede that there is inconclusive proof that gun laws that target law abiding citizens increase or decrease public safety. lets all agree that we cannot decide one way or the other

that being said, that means the gun banning side loses because there is absolutely NO OTHER argument in favor of gun restrictions BUT those that claim they substantively increase public safety. IN a free society based upon constitutional rights, the burden is and should be rather high for those who want to restrict our rights. and the gun banners have NEVER met that burden
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom