Why do Americans love guns so much?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, whatev...
Where are all the dead bodies from all those guns y'all helped the gun industry sell in the past 8 years? Why didn't the streets run red with blood after the Assault Weapon Ban sunsetted in '06?

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf good point, there were 0 gun deaths post 2006 after all.
3 year average of 2005-7 is ~ 570000 killed. does that qualify as egregious or will you spin it as li(e)beral bias once more.

How do you know what is "sensible"? I have a gunsmithing degree and have carried a gun every day since I was 21, and have studied the issues surrounding gun ownership extensively; what are your qualifications?



Again, do you have any actual statistics on how often legal carry of firearms goes awry? I'll give you a hint, it's not very often at all. Not only that, legal carriers are more law abiding than the police, shoot more criminals, and hit bystanders so seldom that I can't find any reliable numbers on the rate, because there aren't enough incidents to draw any trends from. Unlike the police, we don't have a union and a blue wall of silence to protect us when we have to use deadly force, so we're a lot more responsible when we do. That goes for "trained" and "untrained" carriers alike, there is no statistical difference between states that require training to acquire a carry license and those that don't.



If it happens all the time, then you should have no problem supporting that assertion, right?



Actually, they don't want tax dollars supporting what amounts to anti-gun advocacy from the CDC, which is exactly what happened to spur the current ban on funding such studies. They weren't even subtle about it, their "studies" read more like opinion pieces studded with emotional appeals and farcically bad methodology, among other issues.



That's called a tragic accident, and they manage to happen to people all the time with all sorts of completely unrelated to firearms items, yet I don't see anyone calling for parents to forced into "training" for various household items that could possibly be dangerous in the hands of children. Sure, it's irresponsible to leave a loaded gun around a child, but it's also irresponsible to leave car keys where a youth could get them, yet fatal joyrides don't seem to inspire the same outrage and calls for legislation. It almost seems like a form of special pleading where guns are involved, especially among people with neither knowledge of or experience with them.

Regarding this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -bad-idea/

Aside from being an obvious opinion piece cherry picking studies that support the author's views, it uses the common and dishonest anti-gun trick of only counting defensive shootings, when the vast majority of defensive gun use never involves the firing of a shot, merely production of the firearm, and is often not reported. According the Kleck study, there may be as many as 2,500,000 such defensive guns uses per year, far eclipsing criminal usage. Further, it contains nothing at all about misbehavior by legal carriers, and so completely fails to justify it's title regarding the dangers of arming untrained citizens, which is pretty par for the course with these things. I'm sure I could find even more issues if I dug into the underlying study, but when it's so dishonest and misleading right from the start, I don't see why anything else it says should be regarded as even the least bit credible.

Which Kleck study?
also it's really convenient that you dismiss the article as being biased but don't bother to counter with anything youself.

the studies cited by the SciAmerican article: http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstrac ... me.10.aspx
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content ... ce-america (non-paywalled link: https://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 3_updf.pdf)

some relevant quotes:

Sensible would be having dangerous weapons stored in a manner that children cannot easily access them. Sensible would be ensuring people carrying weapons around are trained in their use and proper storage to prevent accidents.


How do you know this if no one is allowed to study the issue? You also didn't answer my question. Do you think anyone should be allowed to carry loaded guns around, even those with no knowledge in how to handle and use them?





http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho- ... r-toddler/
http://kboi2.com/news/local/parents-of- ... 11-16-2015
http://www.9news.com/news/crime/child-s ... /249835500
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/0 ... 92170.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2087795

There are certainly more, I could spend the whole day linking articles. Now if we would allow someone to study the issue we might have better data.



Then I'm sure you'd have no problem with finding an un-bias, non-partisan thrid party to conduct the study right? I'm truly interested in the unbiased facts so we can move forward with policy based on facts. You're in the privileged position of denying anyone the ability and funds to study an issue and then citing the fact there is no study to support their arguments.



So, someone storing kitchen knives under the couch cushions and under car seats would be a tragic accident too? No, it is not an accident when you can reasonably expect it to happen. Leaving loaded weapons all around the house and car is not responsible yet is far more common than it should be. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... H.90.4.588 If you think leaving loaded guns within the reach of children is a "tragic accident" then I don't really know what to say. Any gun owner I know would never do this and agrees it is horribly irresponsible to store weapons in such a way.

Dox and Raptor both have emotional attachments to their popgun collections and will try strenuously to twist anything you post as 'biased' or something, all the while gleefully being hypocritical and not countering with anything but "lol ur wrong"

I feel this ties-in with what I was discussing with someone else, on this thread. There seems to be 3 basic "gun-toting" groups of people: "Gun Culture" people, people who one day decide they want a gun, for protection, and criminals.

"Gun Culture" people, like my family, teach their kids from day-one, practically, everything there is to know about guns, gun safety, gun care, shooting, etc., and these are the families, generally speaking, that can leave loaded guns in the house, without fear of a kid doing something stupid, with it. There's not a household in my family that hasn't had a gun, at some time or another, and NO ONE has EVER done something stupid with a gun; like, shoot their foot, or a little kid shooting their younger sibling.

The people who just all-of-a-sudden decide they want a gun for protection, don't usually have a lifetime culture, and these are the people who should NOT leave a loaded gun lying-around, cuz they're only thinking about what the gun means, for THEM (the adult), and never think about what a gun means for a CHILD (again, generally speaking----I'm sure there are some, where this doesn't apply).

Criminals are ALSO, IMO, people who are only thinking about what the gun is, to THEM----and, that seems to be: "I want something and this gun can get it for me".

It's not "science", it's statistics----and, statistics change every year. If Joe Schmoe researched on the Internet, to get numbers regarding gun usage from every state, and then took a poll asking people why they have a gun (self defense, to hold-up a liquor store, or homicide, etc.), would you call that "science"----or, does Joe Schmoe need a lab coat, specifically----because I see no difference in their "studies"! !

Also, those numbers are conflated----IMO, unless those four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides, were committed in the home, they have nothing to do with each other.

Oftentimes, ASDers want consideration of their differences from NTs----why can't people consider the difference between responsible, law-abiding gun owners, and criminals?


Again, you've conflated things, here. That book is about "Gun Violence"----by citing this, you're comparing law-abiding, responsible gun owners, to criminals, and never the twain shall meet (generally speaking, of course).

1) statistics are used throughout science, and is a field of science
2) i didn't post some random blog, I posted a major published(and cited) article.you must have not read this part(literally the first sentence I posted, to boot):
>>
Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
<<
I've not conflated anything, i'm posting statistics on gun fatalities. your comment about Responsible Gun Owners is meaningless, as there are no such persons represented in these studies.

I know----that was my point!! LOL

uh ok. please tell me how someone can commit gun violence and remain a Responsible Gun Owner, preferably reading my entire post this time around.

LOL Now you're proving MY point----COOL!! LOL

if your point is that you can't read english very well, sure why not. it proves your point.

WOW, what a GIFT!!

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=284904&p=6613657#p6613657

LOLOLOL TOO funny!!

yes, you're amusing. being a clown has that effect. please point out where I'm cherrypicking, now that you've established you can't prove your point owing to how you're digging up posts from over a year ago.