Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tis only to us that facts matter.Are you assuming that facts matter to the chest-thumping "I be adult, I should haz guns!!!" types?
How many people have fire extinguishers killed?
Hammers are designed to maim and injure.
Those with mental illness are less likely to commit a violent crime than someone without a mental illness, and those with are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes. And when we look at other Western countries, clearly the problem lies with guns and our crap gun laws.
No, as just having a gun puts on at a higher risk of gun violence.
They are published. However, it doesn't happen that often.
I very much doubt that. That also ignores the fact you need the opportunity to actually use your gun, or it is utterly useless. They aren't magic shields that will keep you from harm.
If you don't plan on firing it, you definitely shouldn't be getting it out during attack, as that will only serve to put you at a higher risk of having your gun turned against you.
You clearly didn't read the links. These are research, not opinion articles
Perusing just the first one, in Sci Am, it would be more accurate
I'm experimenting with mixing Amaretto, Kahlua & such.Perusing just the first one, in Sci Am, it would be more accurate
to call it research based opinion...or perhaps opinion based research.
As is oft wisely said, "all research is theory laden", ie, there is a tendency
for research to be constructed to support a particular theory. This can
take the form of assumptions which steer the results.
From that article.....
The NCVS considers only actual attack victims. This would exclude a large number of people who were threatened with attack, but thwarted it by presenting a handgun (included in Kleck's studies). This choice isn't right or wrong....just different. But it's presented as though it debunk's Kleck's results. Moreover, the NCVS results claim to show self defense use of a gun is rare, but this is a value judgement which I find incredible. To call 65,000 "rare" is to paint a picture of the utility of armed self defense as insignificant. But 65K is a relatively large number relative to yearly wrongful gun deaths.
Too often, statistics are boiled down to a simple number or conclusion, & this is taken on faith because it's called "scientific". But even statisticians have their agendas. (It's just like the "18 school shootings in 2018", which include over 10% accidents by cops behaving unsafely in schools, but without injury.) So we should look deeper than the simple distilled result. We find that by any measure in the context of gun use, armed self defense is not "rare".
Why does it being common rather than rare matter? It should give a new perspective to those clamoring for banishment. Perhaps they'll consider proposals which allow for the existence of guns, but with better regulation, eg, more training for owners, strict secure storage requirements, better government management of information about people prohibited from owning guns, pro-active mental health services, prevention of bullying, better facility security. Many of these measures are immediately achievable.
Perusing just the first one, in Sci Am, it would be more accurate
to call it research based opinion...or perhaps opinion based research.
As is oft wisely said, "all research is theory laden", ie, there is a tendency
for research to be constructed to support a particular theory. This can
take the form of assumptions which steer the results.
From that article.....
The NCVS considers only actual attack victims. This would exclude a large number of people who were threatened with attack, but thwarted it by presenting a handgun (included in Kleck's studies). This choice isn't right or wrong....just different. But it's presented as though it debunk's Kleck's results. Moreover, the NCVS results claim to show self defense use of a gun is rare, but this is a value judgement which I find incredible. To call 65,000 "rare" is to paint a picture of the utility of armed self defense as insignificant. But 65K is a relatively large number relative to yearly wrongful gun deaths.
Too often, statistics are boiled down to a simple number or conclusion, & this is taken on faith because it's called "scientific". But even statisticians have their agendas. (It's just like the "18 school shootings in 2018", which include over 10% accidents by cops behaving unsafely in schools, but without injury.) So we should look deeper than the simple distilled result. We find that by any measure in the context of gun use, armed self defense is not "rare".
Why does it being common rather than rare matter? It should give a new perspective to those clamoring for banishment. Perhaps they'll consider proposals which allow for the existence of guns, but with better regulation, eg, more training for owners, strict secure storage requirements, better government management of information about people prohibited from owning guns, pro-active mental health services, prevention of bullying, better facility security. Many of these measures are immediately achievable.
There are so many, so I picked just a portion of one...my limit tonite.
Same open borders as drugs huh? If people can smuggle in drugs, they can smuggle in guns.
The 2nd amendment was about well regulated militias, not individual rights to own firearms.
Interesting that the decision was so close.