Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum10 things the gun industry will not tell you.
"Owning our product may be hazardous to your health."
In the U.S., there are now somewhere between 270 million and 310 million guns, according to the Pew Research Center that's almost one gun for every person in the nation. Judges and legislators across the political spectrum recognize the constitutional right to bear arms. And gun and ammunition sales to private citizens are a significant part of a nearly $15 billion industry that's seeing plenty of growth: Last week, for example, Smith & Wesson (SWHC) reported that its fiscal third-quarter profit rose to $20.8 million, up from $14.6 million a year ago .
What makes the gun industry so controversial, of course, is the ever-shifting debate about how to reconcile gun rights and public safety. Each year in this country, more than 31,000 people are killed by firearms, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate roughly 85 people per day. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership and one of the highest rates of firearm-related deaths per capita across developed countries around the world.
What's more, a growing body of research suggests that simply owning a gun is correlated with an increased likelihood that you'll be a victim of violence. A study published this January in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who live in homes with firearms are over three times as likely to die from suicide and two times as likely to be a victim of homicide as those who don't have access to firearms. The study analyzed the results of 16 other studies and found that in all but one, access to guns was linked to a higher probability of murder or suicide. In another study published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, two Harvard researchers conducted a review of 26 studies on gun availability and homicide in multiple countries and found that most of them "are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate."
To be sure, the kinds of correlations shown in big social studies aren't the same thing as a proven cause-and-effect relationship. Many in the gun industry including some gun and ammunition manufacturers and organizations of gun owners like the National Rifle Association, "the premier firearms education organization in the world" disagree sharply with conclusions like these. And Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, points to a different correlation: While gun ownership is now at an all-time high, the murder rate (in total, not just from firearms) is near an all-time low.
http://money.msn.com/investing/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Off to the Greatest Page.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the none of the studies mentioned were verified, and the "two times more likely" study was savaged by criminologists as being invalid shill studies.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)was that none of them were peer reviewed or valid studies. The Harvard studies were funded by the Joyce Foundation, which also astro turfs the Brady Campaign, and published by their inhouse organ. The department is also funded entirely by the Joyce Foundation. None of them are peer reviewed, nor have they ever been replicated by independent researchers.
Simply because a study shows or doesn't show something doesn't prove anything. In this case, if the study was done by MDs in medical journals are almost always examples of advocacy research, which is a nice way of saying shill study.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)"... simply owning a gun is correlated with an increased likelihood that you'll be a victim of violence."
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)shill study. Criminologist James Wright called it as bogus as NRA propaganda. Reading the letters to the editor in the medical journal Kellerman published it are very interesting:
As we discussed the article by Kellermann et al. during our graduate statistics class, several questions arose, which we hope you will address. First, the authors state, "In the light of [other] observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes," implying that a gun in the home is a causal factor in homicide, suicide, and unintentional death. The study sample comprised people who had been killed in their homes and controls matched according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age. On what basis can one generalize from a sample of people who have been murdered to a population of people who keep guns in their homes?
Second, the authors list alcohol use, domestic violence, and illicit drug use as contributing factors to homicide. Although they state that the use of alcohol was "strongly associated with homicide," did they take into account the possible multicollinearity among the independent variables of living in a rented home, living alone, having a history of domestic violence, having an arrest record, using illicit drugs, and keeping guns in the house?
Finally, the authors also state, "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects." This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6 percent of the homes of the case subjects. In how many of the homicides was the victim killed with a gun that was kept in the house rather than a gun that was brought to the house by the perpetrator?
The students of Dr. Mark Ferris's Mathematical Statistics 460
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63108
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Anyone who gives a mistaken impression and knows he does, understands that he will be confused for the very thing. Behave like a member of the NRA, and you are, for all practical purposes, NRA.
"Any company wants to protect its profits from bad press, restrictive laws and opinions that hurt the bottom line. The gun industry is no exception."
The above (taken from the OP article), is what real base issue behind the whole gun-loving propaganda is about, and the reason for the NRA's existence.
What's amazing to me, is that your rebuttal to the OP is a letter written at some point by some students. ?????????? I looked it up, and the Internet is rife with copies and pastes of the letter from the students. Every gun-loving site seems to have the student letter.
People aren't stupid. You might love your guns, but no amount of copying and pasting the letters from some students is going to make us somehow go blind and deaf and dumb so as to think that guns are not the source of this advanced country having one of the (if not the #1) highest rate of murder per capita).
Are you trying to fool me? That doesn't work very well you know.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)based on shill studies paid for by the likes of Bloomberg.
Using the term "advanced" is used to cherry pick. In terms of development, it can be defined one of two ways: by GDP, which puts the US with Western Europe, or by wealth inequality, which puts the US closer to Mexico.
I don't try to fool anyone, only educate people who have been fooled by ideologues and propagandists like Bloomberg and Watts.
Whenever you see writings about "gun violence" or "gun suicide" ask yourself this: what about the other 80 percent of violent crime that does not involve guns and the other 48 percent of suicides in the US. My answer is simply: people like Bloomberg others in the gun prohibition lobby don't care about them. They care about the gun related victims only if they can use them for political purposes. Otherwise, they are statistics. How? Simple. The gun control movement is astro turf pushed by some in the political and economic elite and most of the victims are part of the 99 percent, as are the many people who defend themselves with guns, mostly without firing a shot. The FBI estimates those numbers to be 100K, some criminologists like Phil Cook, who was funded by gun control groups, and Gary Kleck, funded by DoJ, put the actual number in the low millions.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)take a discredited study by an ER MD who bent the the results to match a predetermined conclusion at face value. Please read my update. I picked that letter, which is one of many, because it pointed out the flaws in the math.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
You are in the wrong place if you don't want to discuss gun laws and the right to keep and bear arms.
Also being called a murderer really makes me want to work with you to restrict my rights. Heck just a few weeks ago someone compared me to a child molester and a heroin addict because I own guns, you would think that a group that is sorely lacking the support of the voters would be more interested in winning people over than driving them away.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)about it. Right now I've met only gun lover after gun lover that lies and lies, nothing but lies.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Care to back up that claim? Heck I will be nice all you have to do is point out the lies from each of the rkba supporters in this thread.
It really seems like all you have is name calling.
P.S. anyone want to place bets on how long until the first penis reference?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)How about you prove your claim of all of us being liars then I promise to answer any question you ask with complete honesty.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I have nothing more to say. Goodbye.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)assuming such powers to inanimate objects always struck me as kind of superstitious. Ever look at what the world was like before guns were invented? Most people were either feudal serfs or slaves.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)That's fine until you prove your claim or retract it I really don't care about what you might have to say.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)But meant as polite, short and all encompassing way to refer to those who wish for more restrictions on gun ownership.
Removed the "such as yours" to make it more clear.
doc03
(35,365 posts)jump on a gun thread? You have 95% of your posts in Gun Control & RKBA. Do you have any progressive positions on anything or is defending gun manufacturers the only reason you are here? Seriously?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I just don't comment much. I support all individual rights and what Enlightenment writers called "natural" rights. Since we agree on those other subjects (choice, health care, marriage equality etc) there isn't anything to really debate. Also, not all progressives ae liberals, although I'm not sure all liberals are progressives. Mostly, I believe in being logically consistent.
doc03
(35,365 posts)would never ever vote for any Democrat I know. I mean you have as radical an agenda on guns as Wayne LaPierre. With your views on guns I can't picture you voting for Nancy Polosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or even Joe Manchin. They are all gun grabbers to the NRA.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:25 PM - Edit history (5)
and I'm not a single issue voter. Everything goes on the scale.
Also, if I don't have anything of value to add in GD or any of my subscriptions I read, I don't say it. If I do, I do. I'm not a one liner kind of guy. If a post in GD mentions something about something stupid Bachman said, I don't type "what an idiot" although I would be thinking it simply because I don't think it would add anything to the conversation.
Does the fact that I prefer Ethics Alarms over either Think Progress or its conservative equivalent make me a reactionary or a progressive? It makes me a liberal in the truest sense of the word, open minded and free from dogma.
I support current federal laws, although there are a few provisions in the GCA and NFA I would tweak. For example, it doesn't make sense have a single shot .22 rifle be regulated the same as a machine gun if it has a 15 inch barrel, yet have an AR as a Title I weapon with the longer barrel. Can we agree that's not really "common sense" or "sensible"?
I support UBC, although not some specific mechanisms. Some means are better than others. In the past, I have said that I would also support each state having a FOID. I don't think Wayne does. I oppose registration for the same reason New Zealand dumped it in the 1980s, a lot of cost with no benefit. Unlike Wayne, I oppose forced national reciprocity because I think it would violate the 10th Amendment. If you do a search, you will find where I said it.
If it does as advertised, I would support it. If it is some irrational bullshit pushed by Popvox Public Relations LLC (you know them as MDA) and their client Bloomberg, or something written by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, then no. That isn't being conservative or progressive, it is critical thinking. That is what a voter and citizen is supposed to do to make any democracy work.
CCW, either shall issue or not at all. How stringent or liberal the requirements are isn't that important, just that they spelled out in the statute and not give some cop arbitrary power. My take on guns is the same as it is on pot or anything else. It is up to those who wish to restrict it to prove that it will do as advertised. They failed to do that. My views on guns, and anything else, on my basic values, that are quite rigid, and what empirical evidence says. If it conflicts with my first impressions were or belief I had, I change the belief to match the facts. The empirical facts from most criminologists and the National Academy of Science, and even the most recent CDC study under Obama, says gun laws don't save lives. Liberalized CCW has not caused blood to run in the streets. Those are the facts. That's not Republican or Democratic, that's simply reality based on the data. In fact, I see a lot of parallels between breed specific legislation and and gun control
http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/08/beyond-the-myth-disturbing-and-revealing-lessons-about-more-than-pit-bulls/
Basic values: consistency in all things. I detest hypocrisy. I detest assholes and bigots regardless of their party ID or what network they happen to work for. We all called out Glen Beck for his Islamaphobia, and rightfully so. But where were you when Larry O'Donnell went on his equally disgusting and bigoted anti Mormon screed? I don't care if he is MSNBC instead of Fox, he is still a bigoted POS just like Beck. The fact that I agree with him on more things than not doesn't change that. He is still an asshole and a bigot. I detest them both equally. If I applauded O'Donnell because "he was my guy" then I wouldn't actually have set of values. Why point that out? Partly it stood out, and partly because Harry Reid is a Mormon. So was my dad. Clear?
Intellectual honesty: it either is or it isn't, and it trumps all other things. Simple as that. See above. That is the biggest problem the gun control movement has. I am not convinced by strings of appeals to emotion, name calling, false statistics, and various other logical fallacies. If I came here agnostic on the issue, I would land up being pro gun simply because of who has the most rational arguments. That's how the chips fall.
The Democratic Party reflects my views and values more than the Republican Party, that is why I vote for the Democrats. That does not mean that I agree with the party , or any individual in it, on every issue. Just most of them. That also does not mean I will applaud O'Donnell's bigotry, Martin Bashier's disgusting personal attacks or Bill Mahar's Misogyny. It is as disgusting when it comes out of their mouths as it would be out of Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush. Sometimes I support the ends, but might have doubts about the means. You are going to think whatever you are going to think. One thing I don't like about either party is the cafeteria approach to rights and civil liberties. You can't be for someones right to self defense and be against abortion when the mother's life and health is in danger, as some extreme anti choice people do. Conservatives don't view health care as a right. I say bullshit. I say it, like food and clean water, is a natural right that should be protected under the ninth Amendment.
How much of what I have shared like the other "radical" pro gun people you know?
Your interest in this is what exactly?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I presume that is sufficiently a neutral source for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
And I'm sure that that Jamaica, the Bahamas, South Africa, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Greenland, Bermuda, among others will appreciate your condescending view of them as less advanced.
On edit: You might also want to look up the gun control laws in some of those countries, but you might not like what you find. Private ownership of guns is banned altogether in Bermuda and heavily restricted in Jamaica and the Bahamas.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Did you click the arrow to place them in order of rate?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)The fact that the death rate drops in July up again in August, then drops in September, and gun lovers use a drop of a few points to make it appear that the death rate is dropping, is an awesome manipulation of stats by gun lovers. It allows them to say, "OH, but the death rate dropped! Look!" Of course it dropped. But it goes up and down every month. It remains one of the highest per capita death rates on the planet.
The fact stands that the U.S. is one of the countries with the highest per capital death gun rate on the planet, versus all kinds of countries, advanced, not advanced, etc.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)who knew. 2/3 of our gun deaths are suicides. If they didn't have guns, there still would be the same number of suicides.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Now let's drop it. I'm through with this. When I hear a gun lover admit the truth and tell me that he knows guns are the problem but likes them anyway, maybe, just MAYBE then I'll feel a little respect of some sort. Until then, nothing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and innocence caught in the crossfire are the problem. Bong owners contribute more to gun violence than any target shooter or hunter.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Really guys stop proving her wrong she can't take it. Why can't you just admit you are all liars and turn in your guns!!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)When faced with certain defeat, declare victory and leave.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Unless you wish to question the drop in homicide over the last 20+ yrs, I'll assume you wish to ignore that data. But it's still there.
The only question is "Why?" If anyone has credible research which would shine a light on the answer, we might be able to lower the homicide rate even more by fashioning policies around that research.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Oh I forgot, they don't count because they aren't advanced enough for you. I also noticed that you chose not to address the high murder rates in countries with strict gun control.
Crime is a function of social and economic pressures. Maybe the country should focus on fixing that before enacting even more laws that won't be enforced.
You are aware that the vast majority of NICS background check denials are not prosecuted?
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)You're comparing us with dangerous, war-torn and lowest of the totem pole countries.
Do everyone a favor. Please cease posting to me. I have absolutely no respect for gun-lovers. I suspect almost all of them are right wingers in disguise. Goodbye.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)It's really too bad for you that reality does not match up with what you believe.
You are aware that Switzerland and Finland have some of the highest per capita private gun ownership in the world and yet still have some of the lowest murder rates?
I can see you one of those people who feels that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you is a right winger.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)With those that disagree with you. There is another board you can go to if you only want to talk with those that agree with you. Over there you can pat each other on the back for all your new and inventive insults without any worry of the other side responding.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Funny, someone posted the expression in Guns Discussion (GD), to see if folks thought it was acceptable. Hell, it was test-run in anti RKBA contexts where anything goes already. Why did the poster think that racially-polarizing remark needed Holy Water?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)There is no such thing as a safe gun. I am well aware of that. I am a single man with no children or pets, so the only person at risk is myself, and I chose to take that risk. You will not make it for me. As long as guns are legal, I am legally capable of owning them, I am mentally and physically capable of using them safely, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed or guilt tripped into not owning guns. No amount of appeals to emotion, empathy or sensitivity will sway me. The day I decide that I will no longer own guns will be a decision solely up to me.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I don't want to hear anyone say that guns don't shoot themselves or lie about stats. Guns serve only one purpose, and the quicker gun lovers admit that openly and truthfully, the more I will see them as honest. Pretending that guns are not one of the biggest problems we have in this country, is a complete untruth, and (in my eyes) only serves gun lovers in that it makes them appear as liars.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)have you researched using neutral sources or engage in confirmation bias? Why would you take the word of a conservative and authoritarian billionaire like Bloomberg and a former Monsanto PR executive like Watts over us?
Token Republican
(242 posts)Guns are essentially advanced rock throwers. The purpose of the gun is to fling a projectile very fast. The intention of the shooter determines what that projectile will do.
Believe it or not, I don't doubt your, or most pro gun control advocates, intentions, as I truly believe that for the most part, there is a sincere belief that gun control will reduce deaths. The problem is not so much a difference in end results, but a difference in conclusions looking at the same information.
I could be swayed to support more gun control, or even a total ban, if certain things were proven. Since I don't see that happening, my conclusions are that guns do more good than harm. Here's how I based my decisions; I offer this only to give you and others a bit more insight that not all gun owners are knuckle dragging neanderthals.
The first question is if there was a ban on guns, would that ban save lives, or would the mode of death be shifted to something else. Take suicides for example. If there was some way to conduct a true experiment and it was shown that removing guns resulted in no drop in suicides, then there is little to be gained in this area. I've actually encountered people who have said it doesn't matter, that any drop in suicide by gun is a positive step even if the suicide rate remains the same. Talk about untruths and twisted logic.
The second question is whether a ban on guns would work. The problem I see here is guns are 14th century technology that was more or less perfected about 100 years ago. That means it would be extremely easy to produce guns illegally if conditions were met. Granted, legally produced guns are the largest source of guns used for illegal purposes, but only by default. If guns were banned, there would easily be black market factories set up. In fact, many such factories exist already. A good analogy here is the drug market.
The next question is to determine what good guns can do. I'll ignore the hobby aspect or larger social significance of gun ownership for now, those are worthy of their own threads and I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you if you're interested. For here, I'll limit the discussion to guns saving lives.
Here a lot will depend on where you get facts and how you analyze it. Left leaning sources tend to downplay any positive role guns may play, while right leaning sources tend to play it up. I can say that main stream media almost never reports the use of guns defensively and you really have to dig to find that information. But it is out there.
But that's only half the story. The other part about the positive use of guns is much harder to measure, and probably impossible to get an accurate picture. That is the portion where the existence of a gun prevented an ugly situation from escalating. There's a lot of anecdotal stories but I'm not aware of any comprehensive study. But I can give one good example to illustrate the point.
Take the Gabby Giffords shooting. Other issues aside, the people who tackled the shooter were carrying. Based on the interviews, they ran towards the shooter because they were armed. One side claims that proves CCW did nothing, as the shooter was tackled, but the other side says the CCW was the reason they felt they could rush the shooter in the first place. Again, this is an example of how different people can reach opposite conclusions from the same set of facts.
I hope this sheds a little light on how the other side thinks, and while I don't expect to change your mind, I do hope you can at least understand the thought process even if you don't agree with it.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Before guns were invented.
If you believe guns are the sole problem in the world, that guns are an evil corrupting force in the world, that if all the guns in the world were destroyed, we would suddenly have World Peace and we could all hold hands and sit in the shade and sing Kumbaya, then you are exceedingly naive, and that is being polite.
You ignore thousands of years of human history where people slaughtered each other with rocks, sticks, bone tools, then eventually progressed to edged metal weapons, then to gunpowder and firearms. Because ignoring all that would mean the real problem isn't weapons, it is that humans like to kill one another and will find any means to do so.
Token Republican
(242 posts)If a gun is used to harm someone, then the manufacturer is liable. Just like cars manufacturers are liable for every traffic death.
You can't have guns under certain age unless you have parental permission in accordance with the law. But complying with the law is skirting the law. Just like its illegal to have kids go on field trips without parental permission, but giving parental permission is skirting the law.
Gun control works because states with restrictive gun control laws still have gun problems due to states which respect the second amendment. Just like speeders in one state can be stopped by changing the speed limit in another state.
The gun lobby is unbeatable. LOL.
There's no law banning sales to people on the terrorism watch list. Just like we should deny all rights to anyone on a secret list. Star Chamber much?
Guns use ammo. Just like cars use gas. And ammo is used in guns. just like gas is used in cars.
ileus
(15,396 posts)safety first, disarm and be a willing victim later...