Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 9)
ghostgeek: Or it could be a case of trigger happy police firing first, and making up excuses second.
ghostgeek: You've got to admire Texas A&M University for looking beyond the crap spoken about guns in America. Here's the abstract of another study of theirs:
"Firearm policy in the United States has long been a serious policy issue. Much of the previous research on crime and firearms focused on the effects of states’ passage of concealed handgun licensing (CHL) legislation. Today, given the proliferation of CHL legislation and growing strength of the “pro-gun” movement, the primary policy focus has changed. State legislators now face issues concerning whether and how to increase access to CHLs. Because of this transformation, this research moves away from the research tradition focused on the effect of a legislative change allowing CHLs. Instead, we consider two issues more policy relevant in the current era: What are the dynamics behind CHL licensing? Do increases in concealed handgun licensing affect crime rates? Using county-level data, we found that the density of gun dealers and other contextual variables, rather than changing crime rates, had a significant effect on increases of the rates at which CHLs were issued. We also found no significant effect of CHL increases on changes in crime rates. This research suggests that the rate at which CHLs are issued and crime rates are independent of one another—crime does not drive CHLs; CHLs do not drive crime."
[ http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcrim/2015/803742/ ]
lori100: suicide by cop---wiki----- According to authors Mark Lindsay and David Lester, Houston McCoy, one of the two Austin Police Department officers who shot and killed Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper, believed that Whitman could have shot him and fellow officer Ramiro Martinez, but "he was waiting for them, and wanted to be shot." The 1976 death of Mal Evans, road manager, assistant, and a friend of The Beatles, who aimed an air gun at police and refused to put it down, was theorized as a possible example of this phenomenon.
(Edited by lori100)
LiptonCambell: >>>f police officers can react so badly to a perceived threat, how much more lethal ordinary untrained citizens will be if allowed to walk around armed.
First off, to get that perceived nonsense out of the way- who argued that gun owners should be untrained?
That kind of crap is just a strawman argument, to make your side seem more credible solely by presenting misinformation. It's bullshit. Of course people who possess firearms should be trained in their use and prove their proficiency and safety before walking around with a gun . Just like how people who possess vehicles should be trained in their use, and prove their proficiency and safety before driving around...
I'm getting so sick of that kind of garbage being spouted about, like it's a legitimate concern. You know what would ensure the average citizen is not trained in firearm usage? The outright ban you keep suggesting. In that instance, people purchase the gun illegally and, thus, don't give two shits out any requirements to prove their abilities for it.
That been said....are you honestly, legitimately, 100% actually arguing that, since police officers have proven to be racist, dangerous, and reacting poorly.....and then suggested they be the ONLY ones permitted to have guns?
What kind of nonsense is that?
If you don't think police can be trusted, why are you giving them more power??!
ghostgeek: OK Lipton, so tell us, what kind of training does someone who walks into a gunstore and buys a handgun, actually get? Is it more thorough than those trigger happy police get?
ghostgeek: What is the agency that certifies someone competent to handle a gun? Do they specify what training a person should receive?
ghostgeek: Or is it the case that if you don't blow your balls off you're out on the street with your six shooter?
LiptonCambell: >>>Real gun control would involve reducing the number of guns in circulation, not just making it a little harder to get hold of them. A reduction to, say, ten million would be a meaningful start. Plenty enough for an urban society like America.
So you're suggesting more guns means more gun violence?
(Why so many charts? Because people read them)
more guns means less crime. I cannot express this enough- it's been proven again and again- you reduce guns, and you'll see an increase in crime, increase in assault, increase in homicide.
How much longer can you ignore the facts and insert your own beliefs into the subject?
>>>One further point about California is this, private citizens killed 33 people in cases ruled to be “justified” in 2013. That means a private citizen had next to no need for a gun.
I fail to see how the use of guns being justified means it was unnecessary. If it was justified, it absolutely was necessary.
LiptonCambell: >>>OK Lipton, so tell us, what kind of training does someone who walks into a gunstore and buys a handgun, actually get?
Not to suggest that it's a be-all end-all solution, but in Canada we require you join a gun club and prove proficiency before you can own a gun.
>>>What is the agency that certifies someone competent to handle a gun? Do they specify what training a person should receive?
Dunno the specifics. Honestly, the specifics are bound to change country to country anyways.....are you asking me to make up my ideal situation?
ghostgeek: Now, in that study I alluded to above, the one about concealed handgun licensing, this is what they found:
“What we found when we drilled down to the county level was that the changes in the number of concealed handgun permits in a county had no relationship to either an increase or decrease in the county crime rate.”
In other words carrying guns around with you does not alter the crime rate. More guns does not mean less crime.
ghostgeek: Logically, if people are armed, there is more danger of them making a mistake, just as so many police seem to do. That means, in many cases, somebody dies for no reason.
LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, there is a difference between being able to handle a gun when at a gun range and how you react when out on the street.
Thats not what i was suggesting though. You were going on about how people are going to be untrained.
Well, lets train them as a requirement for gun ownership.
Will all people who have a gun react correctly? No. Some will be armed but not have the confidence to use their weapon. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't permit them the chance to protect their lives, on the baseless assumption that they don't deserve the chance, and thus, would be better off being a victim than be involved in stopping an assailant
>>>More guns does not mean less crime.
Lol well you seem to be suggesting the opposite- that less guns means less crime.
Does your study suggest this as well? Or are you just assuming there's a correlation, without anything backing it up?
ghostgeek: What I am saying Lipton is that your graphs are specious. What the boffins say is that having people arm themselves for self-protection does not affect the crime rate. The argument that more guns means people are safer is false. Therefore there is no need for all those guns.
LiptonCambell: Also, here's a study supporting my viewpoint;
So just to make things clear, I posted charts supporting my view. You posted a study 'disproving' my view, and I countered with a study supporting it.
No where in there did you support your own viewpoint. You just assumed if my viewpoint was wrong, yours must be right.
ghostgeek: Lipton, the Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley study is dated 2003 and uses data from 1977 to 2000. The second reference you cite, the article by by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, is dated 2008. In contrast, the study I alluded to, on the effects of states’ passage of concealed handgun licensing legislation, is bang up to date, being published in 2015. No reason to think your studies trump mine.
ghostgeek: Let's now address my viewpoint. What I am saying is that having a gun doesn't make you safer in your home, on the street or anywhere else. That's what the most recent study suggests. Now, when I add to that the results from the "Stand Your Ground" laws study, the one that suggests such laws lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters, I reach the conclusion that allowing citizens to arm themselves does more harm than good.
LiptonCambell: lmao so you reject my studies cause they're further reaching, using data collected over the last 36 years? Honestly, who cares if yours is newer. We're not comparing iphones here- and their conclusions aren't wrong because they were released 7 years ago....such a weird criticism....
ghostgeek: I find it strange that you think that having a gun concealed about your person would somehow protect you. Just think, who is more likely to get the first shot off, you or your assailant? Consider the situation. A kid walks up to you on the street, one among many. Suddenly he pulls out a gun and points it at you. What are you going to do, grab your weapon from wherever you've hidden it? Right, so the kid's just going to stand there without reacting? Really? The nervous punk isn't going to fill you full of holes before running off? Are you kidding? That gun, if you had it on you, would be more likely to get you killed than save you.
ghostgeek: And as for the various studies, it seems a reasonable conclusion to draw that the findings of the more recent ones should be given greater weight. Oft times the more up-to-date research spots and corrects the failings of previous efforts. Just because you don't like its findings doesn't mean it's wrong. If you're going to start claiming that a piece of research is wrong, you'd better come up with a better justification for saying so than that it doesn't fit your argument.
LiptonCambell: >>>Just because you don't like its findings doesn't mean it's wrong.
Funny, I was going to say the same to you.
I'm not going around saying yours is wrong. I'm saying your study disproves my viewpoint, but my study disproves yours. My point is(along with the fact that you aren't providing evidence of your viewpoint, but rather, can only find evidence against mine, and assumed that thats the same as proving yours), we can find studies supporting both points of view. I sincerely doubt there's anything to be gained by going around saying
"omg your proved wrong because I have a study"
"omg your proved wrong because I have a study that says differently"
"omg your proved wrong because your study is older"
"omg my study covers a broader period of time"
It's dick measuring. If you cannot find anything wrong with my study, aside from the fact that it was done during the early years of Obama's presidentcy, as opposed to the late years, then why are you wasting my time?
A date does not make a study wrong, and they are not the same people doing the study, so they aren't reviewing the same data and correcting their results.
>>> If you're going to start claiming that a piece of research is wrong, you'd better come up with a better justification for saying so than that it doesn't fit your argument.
I agree. So please, inform me- what is wrong with my multiple studies, and several graphs and charts? You know, besides the date it was released?
Is there any physical reason why we should reject my data beyond "omg if that was a person they'd be in grade 2 by now..."
Otherwise, I can only see them canceling each other out at the worst- and at the best? Well, i've clearly provided more data....
>>>I find it strange that you think that having a gun concealed about your person would somehow protect you.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK
This isn't about you having your opinions thrust onto all of society because you don't trust your fellow man. This is about personal choice on the issue of self-defense. Government doesn't exist to force your- and only your- opinion onto society. Other people have other opinions, and if you want to call it a free society, you got to accept that some people should be free to see things differently.
For Christ sakes man, you want to deny people the right to defend their own lives, because in an imaginary situation you created, you think their lives were forfeit to begin with? You're that callous with other peoples lives- that you would restrict them to the role of victim because you refuse to acknowledge that a person --might-- have a chance to defend themselves, and think it would be better for everyone if they were put down like a dog than to go out swinging?
ghostgeek: It's well enough known that the homicide rate in America is four times as high as that in England and Wales. There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011, while in America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022.
Let's look at the statistics in a little more detail. In 2011, in England and Wales, where guns are hard to come by, there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when a criminal used a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.