Add at least 57 to the number of gun-related deaths tied to the Sandy Hook mass shooting

December 7, 2017 by Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times
An infographic depicting results from Phillip B. Levine and Robin McKnight, who found that searches related to guns, gun sales, and accidental deaths related to firearms all spiked significantly following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Credit: Carla Schaffer / AAAS

One little-known fact about mass shootings is that they have been very good for the gun business. Americans' anxieties are stoked both by the random violence itself and the ensuing debates over gun control. Customers, including some who've never owned a gun, race to buy weapons they fear may be denied them down the road. And gun sales soar.

But the aftermath of a mass shooting does not appear to be very good for Americans' safety. New research suggests that the increased availability of firearms after a mass shooting exacts a deadly toll of its own.

That toll falls heavily on children, according to the study, which links the spike in gun sales following a mass shooting with an increase in fatal accidents involving firearms.

To reach that conclusion, researchers zeroed in on the five-month period following the Dec. 14, 2012, shootings in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 schoolchildren and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

In addition to the expected number of guns sold in a typical five-month period, the study's authors found that about 3 million additional guns were sold following the Sandy Hook shootings. And beyond the expected number of accidental gun deaths in the United States, they estimated that at least an additional 57 fatal gun accidents - and as many as 66 - occurred. Somewhere between 17 and 22 of those accidental deaths took the life of a child.

The analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, is the latest in a crop of studies that look at the public health impact of firearms.

"This is part of this blossoming in gun research," said Duke University emeritus professor Philip J. Cook, a pioneer in the field of firearms injury research who wasn't involved in the new study.

The line between increased gun sales and accidental shootings is by no means a direct one. But the research strongly suggests that the behavior of gun owners and gun buyers in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting contributed to a rise in accidental gun deaths.

The study's authors - health economists from Wellesley College and from the National Bureau of Economic Research in Massachusetts - used several measures to gauge Americans' increased "gun exposure" in the wake of Sandy Hook.

They saw a spike in presumptive gun sales, gleaned from a spike in the background checks required for most sales. They also tallied increases in Google searches about gun-buying and gun-cleaning. That's evidence, they suggest, that gun owners were bringing existing guns out of storage and that both established and prospective gun owners were preparing to bring a new firearm into the home.

Scouring a federal database of recorded deaths in the United States, researchers found "evidence of a spike in accidental firearm deaths to children exactly at the time of the increase in gun sales after Sandy Hook."

The bump in accidental deaths didn't look like a random blip: Researchers could find no jump of similar magnitude in any of the other time periods they searched. Further confirmation came from their statistical projections of the relationship between the number of guns in the U.S. and fatal gun accidents, which were a near-perfect match for the actual number of deaths.

Another piece of data further strengthened the argument that increased gun exposure boosted fatal gun accidents: When the researchers mapped the increases in accidental gun deaths recorded, they found them concentrated in states where the post-Sandy Hook spike in gun sales was very high.

"This is the pattern we would expect to see if those who purchase guns (and perhaps those who remove guns from storage) are more likely to succumb to accidents until those guns are stored in a safer environment," wrote the authors, Phillip B. Levine and Robin McKnight.

Levine and McKnight added that the findings support the passage and enforcement of safe gun-storage laws and underscore the value of having physicians counsel their patients about ways to reduce firearms injuries.

Stephen Teret, who directs Johns Hopkins University's Center for Law and the Public's Health, called the new study "a methodological tour de force."

But Teret, a pioneer in firearms injury research, said the researchers' suggestion that better gun-storage practices would drive down such injuries "represents a departure from their data."

"There still aren't good data that efforts to educate people to store guns more safely end up reducing gun deaths," Teret said. "And there are better ways to reduce gun deaths than to tell people to be more careful. Those include changing the design of these guns so kids can't operate them."

The study's results extend research that has found consistently higher rates of firearms deaths - including suicide, homicide and accidents - among those living in households with a gun or who have ready access to a gun. Higher rates of gun ownership across different states and countries also have been strongly linked to a higher incidence of firearms-related injury and .

The new findings fit neatly with research published in October showing that, in the weeks following gun shows in Las Vegas, gun deaths and injuries in nearby California towns rose by 70 percent.

And they dovetail with a study published in May, which was the first to rigorously measure the spike in gun sales after mass shootings. Published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, that study found a 53 percent boost in gun sales in California in the six weeks following the Sandy Hook shootings and a 41 percent increase over normal sales levels in the state in the six weeks after the December 2015 San Bernardino shootings in which 14 were gunned down.

The California data culled from that study suggested that 59 percent of Californians' additional gun purchases after Sandy Hook were made by first-time firearm buyers.

By linking increased gun exposure to heightened rates of accidental , the authors of the new study in Science are making an early effort to weave together the disparate threads of recent research. Their findings offer evidence - indirect, though it may be - that fatal accidents are more common when first-time owners bring home a gun, as well as when gun owners haul out their guns to clean them, check them or make room for a new purchase. They also suggest that this kind of firearms "churn" takes place more often in the wake of mass shootings.

"The idea this shock to the system added to is certainly plausible and seems like the beginning of a causal story," said Cook, who has studied the economics of guns and crime for decades.

It's hard to link two streams of data - on the availability of guns and the behavior of gun owners - and draw firm conclusions about how and why firearms injuries occur, Cook said.

"I love the spirit of this article, which was to try to cut through that problem," Cook said.

And there may be more to come, he added.

After 1996, when a law barred the use of some federal funds for firearms research, a once-vibrant field of study went virtually dormant, he said. Now, prompted by a surge in private funds, public concerns and academic interest, Cook predicted that "more top researchers are going to gravitate to this area of research."

Explore further: Gun deaths, injuries in California spike following Nevada gun shows

More information: P.B. Levine el al., "Firearms and accidental deaths: Evidence from the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting," Science (2017). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aan8179

P.J. Cook at Duke University in Durham, NC el al., "Saving lives by regulating guns: Evidence for policy," Science (2017). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aar3067

Related Stories

Higher rural suicide rates driven by use of guns

August 17, 2017

Suicide rates in rural areas of Maryland are 35-percent higher than in the state's urban settings, a disparity that can be attributed to the significantly greater use of firearms in rural settings, according to new research ...

Recommended for you

Averaging the wisdom of crowds

December 12, 2017

The best decisions are made on the basis of the average of various estimates, as confirmed by the research of Dennie van Dolder and Martijn van den Assem, scientists at VU Amsterdam. Using data from Holland Casino promotional ...

134 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2017
Removing suicides (which the progressive left supports in any case) there are ~8000 deaths a year from firearms in the United States. 8000 deaths out of 330,000,000 million people.

1/2 the number of deaths from opioid abuse
1/4 the number of deaths from DUI auto accidents.

On the other hand, some 1.5 million crimes are stopped yearly by citizens bearing arms in defense of themselves and others.

All these numbers can be found in the 2012 Centers for Disease Control omnibus firearms' study. Google is corrupt as the day is long but it can still be your friend.
JamesG
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 07, 2017
I don't see any mention in this article about the number of lives SAVED because people were able to protect themselves. It would probably negate these numbers many times over.
RobertKarlStonjek
3.6 / 5 (18) Dec 07, 2017
You are four times more likely to die of a gunshot wound if you own a gun. Owning a gun decreases your safety substantially.

The figure of 8,000 is incorrect. That is approximately the number for hand gun murders and does not include those who die accidentally or those who commit suicide by firearm.

In 2014 the overall death rate was 10.3 per 100,000 people or a total of around 31,000 which makes it twice the rate from Opioid use and about the same as the total Road Toll for 2013 (32,000).

The figure for the number of crimes stopped by civilians include those stopped by police and security personnel (guards, night watchmen). A Scientific American study that checked all the studies and statistics found that "The conclusions indicate gun use for self-defence is quite rare."

https://www.scien...e-shows/

"The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun". They're called police...
Vidyaguy
1.8 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2017
Surely such a seminal article should appear in Physics Review, at least. What an important contribution to ...ahem..."science."
PoppaJ
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 07, 2017
What has happened to Physorg. This is obviously an anti gun funded article that is using a very narrow scope dataset to express a politically driven result. With the types of articles I am seeing come across this site in that last few months I am starting to wonder why I come here. this site is obviously owned by corporate interests catering to the lowest common denominator and willing to push politically driven dribble to maximize its funding.
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 07, 2017
What has happened to Physorg. This is obviously an anti gun funded article that is using a very narrow scope dataset to express a politically driven result. With the types of articles I am seeing come across this site in that last few months I am starting to wonder why I come here. this site is obviously owned by corporate interests catering to the lowest common denominator and willing to push politically driven dribble to maximize its funding.


I recommend the hotbed of cutting-edge science, Fox News. You'll feel right at home.
ab3a
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2017
The issue of private ownership of arms is strictly a political debate. The only reason an article like this would be written is to disguise politics as science.

And then you sit and mutter as to why more people don't listen to "scientists." Could it be that they're not writing about science? Perish the thought!
KBK
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2017
The lowest homicide rate in the USA via weapons, ie, firearms and whatnot, is in the US city of 'gun nut central'.

I don't want any guns at all myself. But the statistics support that legally owned guns carried openly and owned by many citizens, have pretty well the lowest homicide rates in the developed world. (ie, highest per capita gun ownership)

The stats show pretty well the opposite of what the so called anti gun lobbies and groups are saying is the reality. dig deep. Who is backing them?

the history of removal of guns from the population also shows an ending in rampant totalitarianism and bloodbaths. That... is nearly unanimous (if not perfectly unanimous) in the past record of the past 1000+ years.

Fascist games, Communist games (no difference between the two-are both forms of oligarchy), are all about a disarmed population that can be over run by a creeping police state that in it's end game, goes totalitarian and into bloodbaths.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2017
The lowest homicide rate in the USA via weapons, ie, firearms and whatnot, is in the US city of 'gun nut central'.

I don't want any guns at all myself. But the statistics support that legally owned guns carried openly and owned by many citizens, have pretty well the lowest homicide rates in the developed world. (ie, highest per capita gun ownership)

The stats show pretty well the opposite of what the so called anti gun lobbies and groups are saying is the reality. dig deep. Who is backing them?

the history of removal of guns from the population also shows an ending in rampant totalitarianism and bloodbaths. That... is nearly unanimous (if not perfectly unanimous) in the past record of the past 1000+ years.


This Australian wants to know where you got your "statistics" because they are crap. I think you made them up.
PTTG
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2017
Good point, let's rank all threats by the total number of deaths involved. So that means that terrorism is now irrelevant, and police killings of citizens is now way more important. But the biggest change is that we're going to eliminate poverty and give everyone the medical, psychological, and economic support they need. Oh, and ban cars.

Good work guys.
PTTG
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
More seriously, I'm not sure what these gun nuts think is debatable about this. Gun sales went up, yes? This means there's a greater proportion of new gun owners, yes? New gun owners are less safe than old hands, right?

What specifically along this chain of thought do you take issue with?
yep
2 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2017
Included fire arms safety into the grade school curriculum and it will reduce the death rate like sex education reduces pregnancy. Might be good to start it up in pre school depending on the statistics.
Enough with the Nanny State.
An armed society is a polite society.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2017
What has happened to Physorg. This is obviously an anti gun funded article that is using a very narrow scope dataset to express a politically driven result. With the types of articles I am seeing come across this site in that last few months I am starting to wonder why I come here. this site is obviously owned by corporate interests catering to the lowest common denominator and willing to push politically driven dribble to maximize its funding.

As someone who has been coming here for at least 10 years, I can reassure you that Physorg has changed very little. Additionally, as a scientist I can objectively say that Physorg is almost entirely apolitical. If you feel a difference, it is likely because your views have shifted.
Thorium Boy
3 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2017
Removing suicides (which the progressive left supports in any case) there are ~8000 deaths a year from firearms in the United States. 8000 deaths out of 330,000,000 million people.

1/2 the number of deaths from opioid abuse
1/4 the number of deaths from DUI auto accidents.

On the other hand, some 1.5 million crimes are stopped yearly by citizens bearing arms in defense of themselves and others.

All these numbers can be found in the 2012 Centers for Disease Control omnibus firearms' study. Google is corrupt as the day is long but it can still be your friend.


Americans care more about mass shootings even though they are dwarfed by the total number of killings because most of the latter are ghetto thugs killing other ghetto thugs instead of one middle-class nut shooting other middle-classers in a mass shooting. The only downside to the majority of shootings which involve criminals are the medical and court costs for trials and subsequent incarcerations.
Ojorf
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 08, 2017
Removing suicides (which the progressive left supports in any case) there are ~8000 deaths a year from firearms in the United States. 8000 deaths out of 330,000,000 million people.

1/2 the number of deaths from opioid abuse
1/4 the number of deaths from DUI auto accidents.

On the other hand, some 1.5 million crimes are stopped yearly by citizens bearing arms in defense of themselves and others.


Your figures are meaningless. You should be comparing the USA rates to those in other comparable countries, not to car crashes and drug use, that's ridiculous.

https://cdn.vox-c...a1.0.jpg

There is a real problem.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2017
The issue of private ownership of arms is strictly a political debate.

It's a social debate. This has nothing to do with politics. It's about the attitude of the populace towards firearms.

Good point, let's rank all threats by the total number of deaths involved.

Totally agree. That way we'd finally come to grips with how much some are trying to manipulate people for personal gain.

Gun sales went up, yes? This means there's a greater proportion of new gun owners, yes? New gun owners are less safe than old hands, right?

Not sure I agree here 100%. 'Old hands' are...getting older. I notice that old people tend to get mentally unstable (some forms of alzheimers and dementia increase aggression). Having guns in the hands of 'old hands' is as bad as putting them in the hands of 'new hands'.

Owning a gun is just crazy. Plain and simple.
jasjax360
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2017
I used to look at it from the less guns better society point of view but have since realized that this is incorrect and naive. Liberal media is complicit in encouraging people to be naive. Why do you think that the US has such a better quality of life to other places? Why are there so many immigrants from more liberal countries? One of the most important reasons is because the right to protect self and ownership is protected. Gangs and corrupt police rule third world countries. Is that really the type of society you'd like to live in? Police cannot be everywhere at once and some people don't want to live helpless lives. Guns are necessary because life is not some liberal fantasy BS. Life is brutal and dangerous and you need to be self reliant more instead of accepting a nanny state. We don't stop cooking because of potential danger and just depend on designated cooks. Don't let yourself be fooled by politicians who are very well protected themselves.
jasjax360
2 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2017
Also regarding dying from gun violence, there are things that are worse than death. I think that some women would prefer to die than let someone rape them. Also some men may prefer to die than to let someone harm their families. Guns are like nuclear weapons, every liberal wants to ban them but no one wants to be the Ukraine and get taken advantaged of. That's were naivety leads you. If you think that the world is some rosy place that's just misunderstood then you have not examined life outside your protected bubble closely enough. Don't underestimate the value of deterrence or your constitutional freedoms.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2017
Why do you think that the US has such a better quality of life to other places?

It does? Really? Wow...you're quite the product of media manipulation yourself.

Try traveling a bit. You'll be surprised.

Why are there so many immigrants from more liberal countries?

Because they're just as duped by the media as you. Some people just have to find out the hard way.

If you think that the world is some rosy place that's just misunderstood

The "I have a stick and you have a stick" approach hasn't really worked throughout history...ever.
You know when the first guy said that "this invention will spell the end of war because no one will dare use it for fear of having it used against themselves"?
That was when the crossbow invented.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
jasjax
Liberal media is complicit in encouraging people to be naive
THE media is complicit in encouraging people to be naive. A weak/underfunded education system that is light on critical thinking skills is also part of that. Look at your own statement
Why do you think that the US has such a better quality of life to other places?
You of course did not even do 10 seconds worth of research to check out if that statement might actually have any truth to it.

http://www.busine...t-2016-6

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
You are four times more likely to die of a gunshot wound if you own a gun. Owning a gun decreases your safety substantially
This idiot statistic does not mention suicides or accidents, nor does it differentiate between gang banger and drug dealer owners. Guns don't attract criminals, they are the only way to repel them.

Gunphobe arguments are so disgustingly biased that they can all be categorically dismissed. As they have in the US.

Gunphobes have shot their wad. They lost their chance to be part of a meaningful discussion when they chose to make up lies and rely on empty slogans rather than do the work to present reliable data.

Gun control - another irresistible political tool because it is so easy to LIE about, and so easy to play on people's emotions.

They lie and they lose and lose again. And so they resort even more foul lies about 'common sense' laws.

Same bullshit different words.

Nobody trusts you. Nobody believes you. You've soiled your nest.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
Owning a gun is just crazy. Plain and simple
Not being able to defend yourself and your family when you need to is just crazy. Not preparing for your defense is a symptom of disease.

I like real-world examples. Peoole can put themselves into actual situations and picture what they would do with and without a gun.
https://youtu.be/RsreAFzubXM

Dozens and dozens on YouTube. Spend a few hours and get reacquainted with reality.

Or search the news
http://www.foxnew...ion.html

-Again, dozens and dozens. Most from local news outlets because of course the major outlets have their narrative to sell.
jasjax360
2 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2017
In reply to greeonions1 and antialias_physorg, I was specifically referring to countries from which the majority of immigrants come from. Do most immigrants come from places where legal gun ownership is more prevalent than the US? I have traveled and any liberal who thinks the US is worse just doesn't understand the difference between an American visiting a country and seeing the nice side of things and actual life for its citizens. Those rosy colored lenses are at best naive but too often delusional and you need to discard them. Again Ukraine is an example of the failure of the liberal disarmament fantasy in practice. Its your choice to be naive but don't encourage others to do so. Everyone should learn how to fire a gun and handle it safely and at least one member of each household should own one.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2017
. Do most immigrants come from places where legal gun ownership is more prevalent than the US?

Geez...could it be because there isn't a single country where there are more guns per capita? (the US beats out the runner-up (Serbia) by a factor of almost 2:1 in that statistic)

Again: Travel a bit. It would do you no end of good.
ab3a
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
It's a social debate. This has nothing to do with politics. It's about the attitude of the populace towards firearms.


Uh, no. This is not a social issue. It's a Constitutional debate. If that isn't political, what is?

The point I'm making, whether the argument is for or against the right to keep and bear arms, is that there is very little science to be discussed. At best there are statistics that may indicate a correlation. However, the reasons cited in the Constitution are politically oriented toward a specific goal. Any notion of Individual safety is nowhere to be found in that document.

This is ultimately a political issue. It is not science. It was never science. If it was science The Colonies would still be part of the British Empire. It would have been "safer." And be warned: Every despot in history got his start by disarming the populace "for their own safety." If you're going to make statistics, consider the death toll from tyrants.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2017
Here's one about a CCL citizen.
https://www.youtu...=desktop

- Like I say, dozens. Hundreds. Why so many on YouTube and in local news? Why aren't people aware of the number of times guns are used to stop crime?

Part of the problem I think is that people don't realize how dangerous some people can be. Lots of these accounts are of habitual violent offenders, recently released, who can and will do nothing else BUT victimize.

Psychopaths.

There is no way to fix them, no way of reforming them. And if you are in their sights the only way to stop them, is with a gun.

Look at their faces. Imagine them in your living room, at your bedroom door. Like the lady in the first vid, she was on the phone to 911 when they kicked her bedroom door in. And even though all 3 had guns she had the advantage because she knew her own house and she was ready to shoot first.

One dead, 2 back in jail, and most importantly, she survived.
jasjax360
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
antialias_physorg

As I've stated before I have traveled extensively and can tell you that without a doubt a very large percentage of many of the populous of Latin American countries dream of moving to the US. If you won't take my word for it ask any member of the military who has spent a significant time abroad. You can also see this in movies from said countries. Liberal ideals seem nice but they are impractical because people are not ideal. Gun ownership is the pragmatic choice. It is impractical and unconscionable to ask others to give up their self reliance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
Here's a bill currently making its way through Congress, mandating that CCL permits be valid in other states.

"(CNN)The House of Representatives approved legislation Wednesday loosening gun regulations and allowing those with permits to carry concealed weapons to legally travel with those firearms to other states..."

"The bill passed mostly along party lines, 231-198, with six Democrats supporting it."

-One congresswoman objected that 'we would have no idea who these people are.' But of course we would. They are people who passed rigorous FBI background checks and paid the necessary fees, just like the ones in her state.

From Connecticut Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Esty, who represents Newtown "called the bill "an outrage and an insult to the families" of those killed by gun violence."

-Again, the kind of outrageous rhetoric that is facilitating the passage of these corrective laws. This has NOTHING TO DO with Newtown.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
You said 'more liberal' countries...since when do Latin American countries qualify in this regard? by no ranking I can find are any of them 'more liberal' than the US.

Again: travel a bit. By what you have said so far I doubt you have ever gotten outside your own state- much less the US.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2017
Again: travel a bit. By what you have said so far I doubt you have ever gotten outside your own state- much less the US
- The old 'I've actually been there and so I know' argument. Just give this idea a little thought to see how brainless it is.

This is as idiotic as claiming to know how a nuclear reactor is designed just because you once stood in a control room.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
added that the findings support the passage and enforcement of safe gun-storage laws and underscore the value of having physicians counsel their patients about ways to reduce firearms injuries.


Asking your plumber how to wire your home is also a good idea... Or maybe discussing your tax issues with your florist. Some "scientists" are just morons!
rrwillsj
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2017
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

How many of the commentators favoring personal ownership of weapons, belong to their State Militia?

Do you meet your civic obligations by drilling with your State Militia unit on a regular basis?

Do you practice firing your weapons on a regular basis to qualify for the State Militia?

How many of you would obey orders from officers appointed by your State Government? Especially after you voted against them. (damn inconvenient that Sacred Oath of Loyalty to the Constitutional Republic. And obedience to the officers appointed over you. Say, by elected President Barak Obama)

How many of you fail to realize that "well regulated' means public records kept of your arsenal and observed skills?

How many of you delude yourselves, that you could pass modern mental health tests to be permitted to join a "well regulated militia"?
greenonions1
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2017
jasjax
Its your choice to be naive but don't encourage others to do so
Why? Only you are allowed to express your opinions - and make arguments? Dismissing others opinions as naive - is a typical tactic of the bully. There is much very solid argument that says that gun ownership is not the right way to create a safe society. We can disagree on the issue. I already showed you research that shows that the U.S. does not have a better quality of life than many other places. Many of those places have strict gun control laws, and low rates of gun ownership. So your logic is flawed. Yes - the world is a dangerous place. I believe that gun ownership increases the chance of violence. The U.S. deals with a level of violence and mayhem that many other developed countries do not. The statistics are stark. I believe that having a society awash in guns is a big part of that disparity.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2017
Again, I'm an Australian. I don't own a gun. I don't know anyone who owns a gun. I can go a full year without even seeing a gun. Police have them. Farmers have them. A few recreational shooters have them. That's it. Gun violence is significantly lower here. Have a look at the actual stats and you'll see that deaths due to gun ownership in the US is out of control.
I can walk down the street at night safe in the knowledge that the people around me don't have guns. It's a comforting thought.

I get that the US has this weird relationship with guns. But if you can't handle the reality of what that fixation has meant for the safety of your own people, then don't hang around science sites accusing researchers of bias just because the truth hurts.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2017
Let's take a good look at some of the stats

Homicides by firearm per 1m people
USA 29.7
Australia 1.4, Canada 5.1

America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world

On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America. Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting since we strengthened our gun laws

In the US, states with more guns have more deaths and states with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.
https://www.hsph....d-death/

In a 2015 study, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2017
So it's clear that not only do more guns equal more gun violence but gun ownership does not protect you from crime. In fact, gun ownership is positively correlated with an increased likelihood of being a victim of crime - especially gun-related crime.

Not only are gun deaths lower in countries with stricter gun laws, but homicide and suicide rates generally are lower as well. Successful suicide is more difficult without access to a gun so gun ownership increases suicide rates too.

It's clear from the 2017 statistics coming from the US that the country is in a positive gun violence spiral. Gun violence = more guns = more gun violence = more guns = the world's worst gun violence statistics.

You are now just as likely to die from a gun than a car accident in the US - 10.5 deaths per 100,000 vs 10.6.
https://www.cdc.g...jury.htm
jasjax360
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
I still say that all of the anti-gun comments here don't mean anything to someone who is about to be raped or assaulted and that's what matters. All those kidnappings and mass murder in broad daylight south of the border are glaring contradiction to your assessment of the situation. Also those assaults you speak of would not disappear if you removed guns because those criminal elements would still exist and they would just threaten their victims by different means. Also those studies have a clear liberal bias so I don't believe it is right using them. They will knowingly overlook other factors beside gun ownership. A gun does not predispose you to a higher murder rate rather the density of criminal elements does. Also regarding accidental deaths, if some people crash their cars you cannot ban cars but rather imprison those who are irresponsible. I just find the failure to take responsibility for one's own security flawed. People have lost so much self reliance.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
I still say that all of the anti-gun comments here don't mean anything to someone who is about to be raped or assaulted and that's what matters. All those kidnappings and mass murder in broad daylight south of the border are glaring contradiction to your assessment of the situation. Also those assaults you speak of would not disappear if you removed guns because those criminal elements would still exist and they would just threaten their victims by different means... etc. etc


You seem to be in denial.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2017
I still say that all of the anti-gun comments here don't mean anything to someone who is about to be raped or assaulted and that's what matters. All those kidnappings and mass murder in broad daylight south of the border are glaring contradiction to your assessment of the situation. Also those assaults you speak of would not disappear if you removed guns because those criminal elements would still exist and they would just threaten their victims by different means. Also those studies have a clear liberal bias so I don't believe it is right using them. They will knowingly overlook other factors beside gun ownership. A gun does not predispose you to a higher murder rate rather the density of criminal elements does. .


Hello *taps mike*. Is this thing on?
Ensign_nemo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
More seriously, I'm not sure what these gun nuts think is debatable about this. Gun sales went up, yes? This means there's a greater proportion of new gun owners, yes? New gun owners are less safe than old hands, right?

What specifically along this chain of thought do you take issue with?

The assumption is that gun sales went up as a direct result of the shooting rather than, for example, as a direct result of political moves to ban guns.

If the threats to ban guns caused the spike in sales, then one method to prevent this from recurring would be to vote for politicians who oppose restrictions on gun sales.

The key here is whether or not the perception by buyers that a ban was possible was the cause of the spike. That is quite plausible.

That's really in the realm of politics rather than science, and that is why "political science" is a "soft science" and is not considered to be anywhere near as precise in its ability to predict as "hard sciences" such as physics.
Ensign_nemo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
Gun-related homicides in the US tend to be mostly in high-crime areas.

Many of these areas already have bans on handguns, but those are the primary weapon used in these crimes.

The key flaw in the logic of anti-gun advocates is that "gun ban" does not equal "no more guns" or "no more handguns" because there are already 200 million guns in the US and more can be made. In fact, with improved 3D printing, it may soon become next to impossible to stop individuals from making their own guns whenever they choose to do so.

Technology is moving faster than the resolution of the political debate.

If Prohibition didn't stop people from making booze, and the "war on drugs" didn't stop people from growing weed, then why do people think that a gun ban will stop people from making guns?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
jasjax
I still say that all of the anti-gun comments here don't mean anything to someone who is about to be raped or assaulted and that's what matters
Again jasjax - you use bully tactics. That is not all that matters - and you don't get to shut down the conversation - by declearing that it is you who knows that what other people think does not matter. What about the children who are about to get a bullet in the head - like the sandy hook kids. What about the concert goers in Las Vegas. The facts are that more guns does not equate to more safety - it equates to more violence. You have been shown the stats. Then you bully others by calling them naive - and saying that their opinion does not matter.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
Ensign
If Prohibition didn't stop people from making booze, and the "war on drugs" didn't stop people from growing weed, then why do people think that a gun ban will stop people from making guns?
I don't think that Ensign. Maybe we cannot get guns out of our society. Maybe we are trapped in a violent world of animals - all killing each other with guns. Maybe there is no solution - except arm yourself - and know that your life will be short - and you will soon die with a bullet in your head. BUT - maybe the Australians had a point - when they banned hand guns in 1995 - because of a mass shooting - and they have not had a mass shooting since. Maybe the u.s. is correct - and there is no hope for humanity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
Let's take a good look at some of the stats

Homicides by firearm per 1m people
USA 29.7
Australia 1.4, Canada 5.1
More brainless gunphobe statistics. Don't explain gang and drug-related violence, must hide truth at all costs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
Have a look at the actual stats and you'll see that deaths due to gun ownership in the US is out of control
Aussi Dweeb could care less about gang and drug-related stats, or how assaults and rapes skyrocketed after his govt stole all the guns from similarly fixated subject/citizens.
In a 2015 study, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least
-Nor does he understand how his studies and in depth news coverings are packed with lies.

Because he doesn't care to find out.
https://youtu.be/bAk0FNH7RS4

-Dozens. Hundreds. Who cares? Auslander only believes what he wants, what he likes, what makes him feel all warm and cozy inside.

Hey - nobody here cares what you think.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
Some of the reasons aussi opinions dont count

"In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities."

"Police admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals," the Adelaide Advertiser conceded a few years ago. "Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms - including fully automatic weapons."

"More recently, the country's The New Daily gained access to "previously unpublished data for firearms offences" and reported a surge in crime "including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period."

"Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before..."

-Ignorant and proud of the fact.
Zzzzzzzz
not rated yet Dec 09, 2017
Its always easier to talk about banning guns than it is to take the kind of actions that produce better and more productive lives. Just look at the "tax reform" legislation currently in the US congress. Designed to produce more poverty, by the same who might also rather those without the better lives just shoot one another.

At the same time, fan the gun ban flames to get more gullible sheep to buy some firearms that they won't understand well, store correctly, or think about very long - and their children can find later and play with.....

Statistics can say nearly anything. One reason, and perhaps the most important one, for owning a firearm is to retain control over your own possible end. One day I may well chose my time and therefore method of death. The resulting statistic should speak to a well chosen tool performing its intended function, it will just be another "your gun makes you less safe" number.

Your life, your car, many things make you less safe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
"Nov 10, 2015
Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation's secret problem

"Previously unseen police statistics show that the number of pistol-related offences doubled in Victoria and rose by 300 per cent in New South Wales. At least two other states also saw a massive jump in firearms-related offences during the same period.

"NSW: in 2014-15, there were 3463 firearms charges, up 83 per cent on 2005-06
• Victoria: in 2014-15, there were 3645 firearms-related charges, up 85 per cent on 2005-06
• SA: in 2014, charges for possession and trafficking of guns are up 49 per cent on 2010-11
• Tasmania: in 2014, charges for unlawful gun possession were up 32 per cent on 2005-06"
don't hang around science sites accusing researchers of bias
"Australia's suicide rate is the highest it has been for at least ten years. In 2015, 3,027 people ended their own lives in Australia... 12.6 people in every 100,000."

-Post gun ban. Keep your lies off this site please.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
otto
Hey - nobody here cares what you think.
Wow - you speak for everyone who reads physorg... Then you hope to be taken seriously (I assume). Your need to bully people is interesting. There are different sides to the debate - and I can understand the pro gun debate. I think the data tells us that we are better off getting guns out of our society. Perhaps the biggest problem is the number of bullies there are in the world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
Wow - you speak for everyone who reads physorg
No. Everyone in America who believes that we decide how to run our own country.
think the data tells us that we are better off getting guns out of our society
And I think that in past discussions I have demonstrated that you dont think very well.

Sadly the revelation was lost on you.

Only trying to help.

For instance did you peruse any of the vids or articles I posted? No?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
No. Everyone in America who believes that we decide how to run our own country
That's pretty revealing right - that you speak for everyone in America who believes that we decide how to run our own country. Your comment was this
Hey - nobody here cares what you think
That comment was posted on physorg. It is reasonable to assume that you meant 'nobody here on physorg.' It shows you up as a bully. I am interested in what he/she is thinking. Of course the other option is that you were speaking for everyone in America who decides that we run our own country. So any one in America who disagrees with you - does not believe in democracy. You really are a bully.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
It shows you up as a bully. I am interested in what he/she is thinking
Stop dodging. Respond to the sources I posted.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
Stop dodging. Respond to the sources I posted
I wont respond to your utube videos. Not interested. My position on gun control is one that I have arrived at after a life time - living in Europe, and the U.S. Just as you feel that I don't think well - I feel the same about you - with the added issue of how you often do not address the science, or the facts - but you bully people by calling them names. On this thread - you have claimed to speak - either for all Americans who believe in democracy - or all people who read physorg. Either way you are shown to be very careless - and a bully.
mackita
not rated yet Dec 09, 2017
Ex-Mesa Officer Philip Brailsford found NOT GUILTY of murder in shooting of unarmed man pleading for his life. Just how... Family picture of man who was shotten by a cop in Arizona last year Body cam footage released showing the fatal police shooting of 26-year-old Daniel Shaver. According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with the phrase "You're F—ed" etched into the weapon. The police report also said the "shots were fired so rapidly that in watching the video at regular speed, one cannot count them."
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
I notice that the pro-gunpenis crowd are too cowardly to admit that they are the ones violating the Second Amendment.

They lack the self-discipline to enlist in their State Militia. They react with fear and hate towards even the mildest suggestion of "well regulated". Cause that would include testing for mental stability. And their infantile tantrums and threats are public proof of their mental incompetency.

I am amused that they treat weaponry as cult fetish totems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
I wont respond to your utube videos. Not interested. My position on gun control is one that I have arrived at after a life time - living in Europe
Riiight. "I've actually BEEN there and so I know." Why do people think this is worth anything?

I've actually lived in Europe too ya know. And I've been to Detroit, Camden, cincinatti, Chicago, Houston, phila, las vegas, seattle, etc etc etc etc

So I think by your cracked logic I know better than you.

The authors I cited are actually Aussies too so they know far better than you as well. But they wouldnt use that idiot logic - they rely on statistics which can be read no matter where you are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
Hold on
Of course the other option is that you were speaking for everyone in America who decides that we run our own country
Are you saying you think that foreigners should be running our country?
http://www.dailym...nks.html
Futility
5 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
Stop dodging. Respond to the sources I posted.


Well, you didn't post any sources except for one youtube video about an incidence where burglars were shot by the owner. It might be news to you but the plural of anecdote is not data. By the way, one can as easily find cases where the same situation goes terribly wrong:

www[dot]cbsnews.com/news/retired-chicago-cop-fatally-shoots-son-after-mistaking-him-for-burglar/

Notice, that the shooter was a retired police officer who was trained for these kind of situations. But to no avail. Your video doesn't prove anything except that in some, isolated cases weapons do help. But if this were generally the case, break-ins would practically not happen in the US which is obviously not true.
Futility
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
Australia's suicide rate is the highest it has been for at least ten years. In 2015, 3,027 people ended their own lives in Australia... 12.6 people in every 100,000."

-Post gun ban. Keep your lies off this site please.


So, what has this to do with anything? People can of course kill themselves by other means, not only with guns. It only shows that despair is growing.
However, if somebody uses a gun to kill himself, he almost always is successful. If he uses other means, the likelihood of his survival is much higher. Your comment only shows that had they more access to guns, the numbers would even be higher than they currently are. So it is a good thing, that gun control laws are in effect in Australia, otherwise the suicide rate would even be higher.
Futility
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
I still say that all of the anti-gun comments here don't mean anything to someone who is about to be raped or assaulted and that's what matters. All those kidnappings and mass murder in broad daylight south of the border are glaring contradiction to your assessment of the situation. ...


You do know that the majority of weapons in Mexico are smuggled there from the US? I am sure that is fine with the manufacturers who earn splendidly because of it.
According to your logic, there shouldn't be any rapes or assaults in the US since statistically there is one gun for every American (estimate is 89 to 100 guns per 100 Americans). So, a potential rape victim should have no problem defending herself, but somehow that is not the case. Most of the times, no hero with a gun is around. Isn't that weird? Maybe gun owners are just heroes on their couch?

Futility
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
Also those studies have a clear liberal bias so I don't believe it is right using them. They will knowingly overlook other factors beside gun ownership.


Right, because of your unmatched knowledge of the pertinent literature you are singularly able to draw that conclusion. You might want to look up the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Futility
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2017
Otto:

"Previously unseen police statistics show that the number of pistol-related offences doubled in Victoria and rose by 300 per cent in New South Wales. At least two other states also saw a massive jump in firearms-related offences during the same period.


Again, what is this supposed to prove except they have some difficulty in enforcing law and order? One way to react to this would be to hire more police officers, have better border controls to catch gun smugglers, etc. And even so, the death rate by guns is still way below America's.
Another possible explanation would be a dramatic increase in economic despair so that more people are driven to crime. If that is the underlying cause, trying to improve the overall welfare (i.e. higher median income) would alleviate that problem. To gun-nuts, the answer is always more guns which seems to show a serious lack of imagination.
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
I notice that the pro-gunpenis crowd are too cowardly to admit that they are the ones violating the Second Amendment. ...
I am amused that they treat weaponry as cult fetish totems.


To my observation, these people are impervious to rational arguments. Their main arguments are a tortured interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which really is poorly written) and self-defense. However, if they have an actual opportunity to fight the evil government (say, to oppose illegal spying on phone conversation without probable cause under Bush II,...), they cannot even get bothered to stage an actual demonstration in a street. And they never seem to be around when a crime happens except for the occasional anecdote.
The simple truth is, they simply do not care if guns hurt others, if a kid accidentally blows its brain out, if mass shootings at schools happen regularly, as long as they can continue playing with their toys. And they don't notice that they are tools for the gun industry.
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
I notice that the pro-gunpenis crowd are too cowardly to admit that they are the ones violating the Second Amendment. ...
I am amused that they treat weaponry as cult fetish totems.


To my observation, these people are impervious to rational arguments. Their main arguments are a tortured interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which really is poorly written) and self-defense. ...
The simple truth is, they simply do not care if guns hurt others, if a kid accidentally blows its brain out, if mass shootings at schools happen regularly, as long as they can continue playing with their toys. And they don't notice that they are tools for the gun industry


Since GhostofOtto's entire argument is "all data and evidence is fabricated, here's a YouTube video", I think everyone can see how specious the pro-gun lobby's position is.
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
Since GhostofOtto's entire argument is "all data and evidence is fabricated, here's a YouTube video", I think everyone can see how specious the pro-gun lobby's position is.


True, but somehow they still command a lot of influence. The Rethuglicans want to weaken the gun laws further, they won't even wait a decent amount of time after the Las Vegas shooting. The pro-gun lobby is very useful to moneyed interests.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2017
Otto
Are you saying you think that foreigners should be running our country?
No - I am saying that you don't speak for anyone beside yourself. But you want to bully people by saying things like "Hey - nobody here cares what you think" Other people here (notice you won't define what 'here' is) do care what he/she thinks. You are the one with sloppy - and bullying posts. As a result of observing this about you - I am not interested in looking at your youtube videos. I am also saying that because my view of this topic has been forged over a life time - and one in which I have had the opportunity to experience different cultures first hand - I am very solid in my convictions. Youtube videos linked by a yobbo - are not going to sway me. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. No video you linked could convince me that white supremacy was a compassionate world view. Not interested in head banging.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
But you want to bully people by saying things like "Hey - nobody here cares what you think"
I like to call it righteous indignation. In response to

I get that the US has this weird relationship with guns. But if you can't handle the reality of what that fixation has meant for the safety of your own people, then don't hang around science sites accusing researchers of bias just because the truth hurts
Response in kind. Insult for insult.

I think I displayed proper restraint.
Since GhostofOtto's entire argument is "all data and evidence is fabricated, here's a YouTube video", I think everyone can see how specious the pro-gun lobby's position is
Sorry liar that's not what I said.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
More outrageous bullshit:
Another possible explanation would be a dramatic increase in economic despair
"Has Anyone Noticed That Trump's Economy Keeps Beating Expectations?
"The number of people filing for unemployment benefits last week came in "unexpectedly" low.

"ADP reported that payrolls "unexpectedly" climbed 190,000 in November, while analysts had predicted 185,000.

"Consumer confidence "unexpectedly" hit a 17-year high in November.

"Labor costs "unexpectedly" fell in the third quarter while productivity surged. Economists thought costs would edge up by 0.3%.

"Retail sales in October "unexpectedly" rose."

Etc. That's why we can ignore whatever this poster wants to post.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
Again, what is this supposed to prove except they have some difficulty in enforcing law and order?
It proves that the Aussie who claimed his country had something to teach the US about gun control, didn't know what he was talking about and didn't care enough to check.

You should read through the entire discussion before commenting on it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
I notice that the pro-gunpenis crowd are too cowardly to admit that they are the ones violating the Second Amendment
- And I know the vaginahat isn't familiar with conclusive US supreme court rulings on the 2nd amendment, and doesn't care.
https://www.theod...eferrer=
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2017
Otto
I like to call it righteous indignation.
calling it a fancy name - does not change what it is - "Hey - nobody here cares what you think" is a bully - wanting to speak for other people. You don't understand a pretty straightforward construct - we are all responsible for our own posts - and don't speak for others.
Futility
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
More outrageous bullshit:
Another possible explanation would be a dramatic increase in economic despair


"Has Anyone Noticed That Trump's Economy Keeps Beating Expectations?
"The number of people filing for unemployment benefits last week came in "unexpectedly" low.
....
Etc. That's why we can ignore whatever this poster wants to post.


You do know that I was referring to your Australia stats, right? So posting stuff about the US does not refute anything. Reading comprehension: fail!
Futility
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
Has Anyone Noticed That Trump's Economy Keeps Beating Expectations?
...


Just because the fun of it: What exactly has "The Deal" Trump done to effect this? Right, nothing! Even if he had, there simply wasn't enough time yet for change to set it. Had the US voted for a red-haired monkey as president (Oh, wait! They did!), the trajectory of the economy would have been the same. It was already improving under Obama.
By the way, highlighting "unexpectedly" in your quotes, does only show that you don't know that economists are usually terribly bad about predicting anything regarding the economy. No, wonder, it is not a science but dressed up ideology.
And the 'tax reform' is just a huge give-away to rich people like himself. If you think this will create jobs you are as delusional as the clowns in the administration. Things will get worse soon.
Futility
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
It proves that the Aussie who claimed his country had something to teach the US about gun control, didn't know what he was talking about and didn't care enough to check.

You should read through the entire discussion before commenting on it.


No, it does not prove what you claim it does. As I posted, there could be lots of other reasons which explain the stats you cited. However, it does in fact teach something about the US's problem. You are just in denial about it. So far, none of your responses even come close to refuting anything. Try looking up the Dunning–Kruger effect. It clearly applies to you.
Now: waiting for the invective because that is usually the gist of your "arguments".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
No, it does not prove what you claim it does
It PROVES that the Aussie didnt know what he was talking about when he claimed that gun control reduces suicide rates. That's what I was trying to PROVE.

Mitigating factors apply to his arguments as well as mine. But his claim is false and a lie because he failed to research it.
nobody here cares what you think" is a bully
No the Aussie is a bully for telling people not to post here. You ought to know from teaching in the ghetto that you respond in kind to a bully. But you send both of them to the principal yes? Whether the bully is on your side or not.

I think refusing to acknowledge facts presented in an argument and instead insisting that facts are irrelevant to your POV is pretty passive aggressive itself, isn't it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
What exactly has "The Deal" Trump done to effect this? Right, nothing!
Nothing that you would want to acknowledge.

"the stock market tends to react to expectations as much as reality, so it's reasonable to assume that traders responded to some of Trump's campaign promises, such as cutting taxes. But employers make hiring decisions... "presidents do have a major impact on the rise and fall of the stock market"... The growth in the stock market during Trump's first 100 days was the most under any president during that period since 1989... "the election of Donald Trump had something to do with it. Maybe a lot to do with it"... Job growth has increased steadily under Trump. Through the president's first five full months in office, employers added 863,000 jobs and the unemployment rate decreased from 4.8 percent to 4.4 percent..."

-Trump provided optimism that his promises would be fulfilled. And they are, one by one.

The silent majority is laughing at you vaginahats.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
You do know that I was referring to your Australia stats, right? So posting stuff about the US does not refute anything. Reading comprehension: fail!
Hmmm Perhaps I was in error... let's see, economic despair in australia...

"This paper compares Australia's performance against 34 other peer countries. Australia came sixth in the Prosperity Index in 2016, and performs particularly well in Business Environment, Health, Education and Social Capital. On other pillars, it is not far behind peer countries.Oct 27, 2017"

- Perhaps your vaginahat is too tight to prevent you from making up facts. A desire to return to the womb with the certitude of warmth and transportation and tube-feeding?

No, out here you have to feed yourself and protect yourself vaginahat.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
otto
I think refusing to acknowledge facts presented in an argument and instead insisting that facts are irrelevant to your POV
I never said that any facts were irrelevant to my point of view. What I am telling you is that I am not interested in looking at your utube vids. I will give you an analogy. I am comfortable with my understanding that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Plenty of utube vids dispute that - and claim it is 7,000 years old. I am not interested in head banging with someone who wants to push that position - especially if it is a bully boy - who calls people names like asshole etc. Zzzzz is correct - we can find stats to support our position - what ever it is. I feel the data is overwhelming in terms of guns leading to more violence - not less. My personal experience living in countries with far less guns, and far less violence - supports that. Correct - correlation does not equal causation. The Australia example satisfies me..
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
greenonions1, I feel your pain. Recently I went round and round with Otto trying to encourage Otto and others to think logically about gun ownership and it was a complete waste of time as far as Otto is concerned.

If you want to understand the current Republican Party, it has become very simple. It is all about the money! All their lies, mislabeling and half baked non-sense ideas are simply to provide cover for the legal bribes ("political donations" thanks to the Citizens United case) they receive to do whatever they are paid to do.
Futility
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
It PROVES that the Aussie didnt know what he was talking about.... That's what I was trying to PROVE.


False, his claim was correct in general, but since suicide is not a mono-causal phenomenon, there can be deviations in specific cases.

But it is true for the US if one compares states with high gun ownership to states with low gun ownership (graph 10):

https://www.vox.c...s-charts

Source and paper is here:
http://www.nejm.o...p0805923

From the stats it is clear that in high gun ownership states more suicides are committed with guns while in low gun ownership states the pattern is reversed and the total is also higher in high gun ownership states. To site from the referenced paper

"The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling."
Futility
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
What exactly has "The Deal" Trump done to effect this? Right, nothing!
Nothing that you would want to acknowledge.
...

-Trump provided optimism that his promises would be fulfilled. And they are, one by one.


So you know what I would want to acknowledge? Now you are also omniscient. Projecting much?
But instead of at least giving one concrete example, you only claim a general sense of optimism is the cause. Well, that can change as fast as it came. And it will, no doubt about it. Until the psychopaths that run Wall Street figure out their mistake.
How is the revitalization of the coal industry going? Where does the infrastructure project stand that he pledged during the campaign? Things like these might be more relevant to folks like you. I don't surmise you own millions in stocks? Of course, then the tax reform is great for you but not for creating jobs.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2017
Despite a lot of whining and posturing from the ammosexuals, study after study says, more guns = more shooting deaths. It's not even properly science any more; insurance companies increase your premiums if you own guns. If you want hard-eyed pragmatism, insurance actuaries are about that. They only care about how much you're likely to cost the company when the inevitable happens.

What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.

Get over it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.

What's amazing about this? They encourage people to buy guns so that they can charge higher premiums from them - seems like solid business sense to me.

Insurance companies are never going to try to make you behavie in a way that costs them money. The entire business idea behind an insurance company is to charge money off of people who behave dumb.
Futility
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
You do know that I was referring to your Australia stats, right? So posting stuff about the US does not refute anything. Reading comprehension: fail!
Hmmm Perhaps I was in error... let's see, economic despair in australia...


Again, reading comprehension: fail. I never claimed that the economy was the cause for the higher rates. I just said that this would be a possibility to explain the increase in suicide rates in the absence of more guns. There might be others. The point being, that from an increase in suicide rates in the absence of more guns, one cannot conclude that more guns have no effect on suicide rates. But the reverse is true and that might be hard for you to grasp: from the evidence, as I already pointed out, it is clear that easy access to guns in a home increases the likelihood of suicide.
Futility
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
- Perhaps your vaginahat is too tight to prevent you from making up facts. A desire to return to the womb with the certitude of warmth and transportation and tube-feeding?

No, out here you have to feed yourself and protect yourself vaginahat.


You are just confirming what I expected from you:

Now: waiting for the invective because that is usually the gist of your "arguments".


Also,your choice of words strongly suggests a misogynist is typing this drivel. How does this work out for you with the ladies? Not too well, I would suppose.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017


"The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun". They're called police...


As someone with LE experience I must admit you are pretty dumb. Police cannot stop crimes you ignorant troll, we can only deter through patrolling or react after a crime has been committed. Perhaps in hyper sensitive beta male societies your shit flies for substantive introspection on the nature of crime prevention, but in the real world you are a damn idiot.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
greenonions1, I feel your pain. Recently I went round and round with Otto trying to encourage Otto and others to think logically about gun ownership and it was a complete waste of time as far as Otto is concerned.

If you want to understand the current Republican Party, it has become very simple. It is all about the money! All their lies, mislabeling and half baked non-sense ideas are simply to provide cover for the legal bribes ("political donations" thanks to the Citizens United case) they receive to do whatever they are paid to do.

No, you are just an irresponsible beta male turd.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
What has happened to Physorg. This is obviously an anti gun funded article that is using a very narrow scope dataset to express a politically driven result. With the types of articles I am seeing come across this site in that last few months I am starting to wonder why I come here. this site is obviously owned by corporate interests catering to the lowest common denominator and willing to push politically driven dribble to maximize its funding.

As someone who has been coming here for at least 10 years, I can reassure you that Physorg has changed very little. Additionally, as a scientist I can objectively say that Physorg is almost entirely apolitical. If you feel a difference, it is likely because your views have shifted.


As a "scientist".... So... what of it? Everything is propaganda. EVERYTHING.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.

What's amazing about this? They encourage people to buy guns so that they can charge higher premiums from them - seems like solid business sense to me.

Insurance companies are never going to try to make you behavie in a way that costs them money. The entire business idea behind an insurance company is to charge money off of people who behave dumb.
You are ignoring the balance of premiums vs. payouts. Insurance companies have to spend extra money to handle payouts; they can keep things easier if they don't have to handle them. My mother was a ratings manager and my father was an underwriter, and I will tell you that in all cases that minimizing risks-- and thus payouts-- was valued above charging high premiums. When you have high payouts you always get unrecovered costs.

There are risks insurance companies will not underwrite.
Futility
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.

What's amazing about this? They encourage people to buy guns so that they can charge higher premiums from them - seems like solid business sense to me.


The 'they' in "What's amazing is that they.." was referring to the ammosexuals not the insurance agencies.

He was just saying that insurance agencies take the science into account. They don't encourage people to buy guns, but if you own a gun, they take the heightened risk associated with it into account and charge higher premiums, the same way they charge higher premiums when you live close to a river that is prone to flooding. But they don't encourage you to live close to rivers.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
Anecdotal evidence, when I applied for "umbrella" coverage for my homeowner's insurance I was asked if I owned guns and frankly informed that if I did I was not eligible. I expect that an ammosexual would whine and cavil and threaten legal action and not get the coverage no matter what they did.

Ammosexual coverage is a losing actuarial proposition. Simple as that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
@Futility, you interpreted my post correctly; @antialias seems to have missed the point and preferred to whine about insurance companies instead of acknowledging the reality that their actuaries and underwriters simply do not issue coverage at any price where the risk is unacceptable.

As evidence to support our view, there are flood areas where you cannot get insurance without government subsidy and even then it is priced out of the reach of most residents. If one chooses to try to insure a risk in these areas one either pays exorbitant prices for high deductibles or is uninsured. The same is rapidly growing where firearms are involved and despite numerous lawsuits whining about 2nd Amendment rights this remains true. Insurance companies are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.


Not really. The conclusion of the data is at odds with what they desire, namely being able to play with their toys and pretend they are big shots on their couch. The little conscience they have left still pesters them in the face of so much misery too many guns undeniably cause. That's why they keep going. And being useful tools to the gun industry at the same time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
logically about gun ownership and it was a complete waste of time as far as Otto is concerned
No As far as Otto is concerned he enjoyed the opportunity to learn even more about the subject. You guys in contrast learned nothing, content with your obsolete opinions formed decades ago from long debunked lies.

But they still titilate, and they make you feel young again so win win losers.
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
As evidence to support our view, there are flood areas where you cannot get insurance without government subsidy and even then it is priced out of the reach of most residents. If one chooses to try to insure a risk in these areas one either pays exorbitant prices for high deductibles or is uninsured. The same is rapidly growing where firearms are involved and despite numerous lawsuits whining about 2nd Amendment rights this remains true. Insurance companies are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.


Yes, that is a good observation. But I am sure, the gun nuts will claim it is the liberal bias of insurance agencies. They do, after all, also take climate change into account for their premium calculations. And everybody "knows" climate change is a liberal conspiracy (or was it a Chinese conspiracy? It's hard to keep track.)
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.


Not really. The conclusion of the data is at odds with what they desire, namely being able to play with their toys and pretend they are big shots on their couch. The little conscience they have left still pesters them in the face of so much misery too many guns undeniably cause. That's why they keep going. And being useful tools to the gun industry at the same time.


I frankly don't give 2 shits what you peasants think. What the United States really needs is for Alpha males like myself to lay the smack down on you beta male turds with due prejudice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
more guns = more shooting deaths
And also fewer guns = More assaults, more rapes, more successful home invasions, more maimings and yes more deaths by other means.
Insurance companies are not covered by the 2nd Amendment
Except when they're forced to.

"NRA pushes for Maine bill to block gun restrictions in subsidized housing
"The legislation could have far-reaching implications for tenants and the state's landlords, even owners of private property."

-Govts and corporations will take away all sorts of rights if they have their way. This loophole will be plugged soon enough. Renters have the same right to protect themselves in their own homes irrespective of political bents and sinister affiliations.

When will you guys ever realize that your tiny minority is shrinking daily?
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.


Not really. The conclusion of the data is at odds with what they desire, namely being able to play with their toys and pretend they are big shots on their couch. The little conscience they have left still pesters them in the face of so much misery too many guns undeniably cause. That's why they keep going. And being useful tools to the gun industry at the same time.


I frankly don't give 2 shits what you peasants think. What the United States really needs is for Alpha males like myself to lay the smack down on you beta male turds with due prejudice.


Wow, another couch hero! The US is saved!
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
@antialias seems to have missed the point and preferred to whine about insurance companies instead of acknowledging the reality that their actuaries and underwriters simply do not issue coverage at any price where the risk is unacceptable.

I was just commenting on your post. I did not comment on anything prior (I have read almost nothing of this thread, so I didn't really read what you were making a point about..I tend to scroll through the comments until I find someone I think contributes)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
The time for fantasy dictating reality is over. The left has lost control of info dissemination. The internet has allowed the truth to win out. The new York Times is going bankrupt man!

The vast majority of humanity who have always taken responsibility for their own futures and their own security, have finally been vindicated.

You all can continue to use your prayer beads and your Harry potter wands and your anais Nin books to ward off rapists and thieves and collection agencies. Good luck. We'll see you on youtube.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.
Not really. The conclusion of the data is at odds with what they desire...
I learned to differentiate between what I want and what is real before I was a teenager. So basically what we're dealing with here is individuals incapable of growing up enough to admit what they want need not necessarily be so.

Like I said you gotta be equipped. Otherwise the hits life keeps putting on don't teach you anything.

...despite numerous lawsuits whining about 2nd Amendment rights this remains true. Insurance companies are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
...the gun nuts will claim it is the liberal bias of insurance agencies
The entire point of having actuaries is to avoid ideological bias and follow the money. It's not the money; it's the money.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
@antialias seems to have missed the point and preferred to whine about insurance companies instead of acknowledging the reality that their actuaries and underwriters simply do not issue coverage at any price where the risk is unacceptable.
I was just commenting on your post. I did not comment on anything prior (I have read almost nothing of this thread, so I didn't really read what you were making a point about..I tend to scroll through the comments until I find someone I think contributes)
Unfortunately it doesn't seem as if you actually understood my post. Anyone who expects an insurance company to be anything other than an insurance company isn't going to understand how it works.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.


Not really. The conclusion of the data is at odds with what they desire, namely being able to play with their toys and pretend they are big shots on their couch. The little conscience they have left still pesters them in the face of so much misery too many guns undeniably cause. That's why they keep going. And being useful tools to the gun industry at the same time.


I frankly don't give 2 shits what you peasants think. What the United States really needs is for Alpha males like myself to lay the smack down on you beta male turds with due prejudice.


Toxic masculinity is just a whinge by the leftist feminazi gender police.

Or, alternatively, thanks for making our point about the pro-gun side being empty of data and evidence and being more the product of a gun culture. You made it better than we ever could.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
Anyone who expects an insurance company to be anything other than an insurance company isn't going to understand how it works.

They are a profit oriented business. They will play the statistics and make money off of people who don't. They will not encourage people to act in a manner that will lessen their profit.

Seems fairly straight-forward to me.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
@anti, apparently you're not familiar with insurance regulations. They are not allowed to make unlimited profits in all sectors.

And even if they were there would always be a competitor willing to offer the same coverage for a lesser premium if they jacked the premiums up too high.

Why are they regulated? To prevent the unscrupulous from offering rates at which they cannot pay off on the policies. Just like a bank not being allowed to loan so much money that if all their borrowers default they can't pay off their account holders. Now, how well that actually works depends upon how whiney the Libertardians get about "regulations," as we saw in 2008. But that's the theory anyway.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
And even if they were there would always be a competitor willing to offer the same coverage for a lesser premium if they jacked the premiums up too high


Well, I thought so, too. Then (just 3 days ago) I came accross this comic (which isn't really comic)
http://www.smbc-c...althcare

Seems that if you have no competitors then you can put the prices at whatever level you want.

Just like a bank not being allowed to loan so much money that if all their borrowers default they can't pay off their account holders

I'm actually pretty sure that that is the case (It's been all over the news that that isn't the case - and hasn't been the case since banking came into being)

Banks are just now (post 2015) starting to be forced to have a somewhat larger cushion (Basel III standards) - but it is nowhere near the level where they could pay everything off. They have to have 100% of their 30 day cashflow in highly liquid assets. That's all
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
I'm not going to argue with you about what dumbsxxt Libertardians have done to the laws. Glass-Steagall and the standards required to get coverage under the FDIC dealt with a lot of this up until 2000 or so. Also, you're changing the subject; this isn't about health insurance.

You're not allowed to just open up an office and say, "OK, I'm a bank gimme money." Same with insurance. Too many people did that and then walked away with the cash after collecting money for a while. That's called "fraud." It's illegal. Mostly, anyway.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
There's a lesson here in The Ballad of Aimee McPherson:

Have ya heard the story 'bout Aimee McPherson
Aimee McPherson that wonderful person
Weighed a hundred eighty and her hair was red
An' she preached the word of God, or so the papers all said
Heidee heidee heidee heidee Hodee hodee hodee ho

Had a camp meetin' down at Ocean Park
Preached from early mornin' 'til after dark
Then they packed up the pulpits and they loaded up the tents
An' nobody knowed where Aimee went
Heidee heidee heidee heidee Hodee hodee hodee ho

The part about packing it all up and disappearing is the point. You can get away with that in a religious movement. In a bank or insurance company, not so much.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2017
And this is the point about deregulation: with no regulations, unregulated capitalism, red in tooth and claw, can be boosted by propaganda into a fraud machine. After a while there isn't anything you can invest in where they can't just take your money and walk away. And then nobody invests any more. The economy halts and then everybody suffers. What you wind up with in this case is 1% of people owning 99% of the wealth.

Oh, wait...

This is the situation fraudsters like Donald Frump think is a good idea. Can't have those little people making investments and stuff.

The whole point of this in the New Deal was to promote investment by those little people, and prevent them from getting ripped off. The fraudsters want to get rid of the "prevent them from getting ripped off" part, take all their money, and be the only investors. For most people this is a Bad Deal.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2017
See, this is why unregulated capitalism is a Bad Idea. The general rule is, when power or wealth get concentrated in too few hands, the economy suffers and revolutions happen. Nobody likes a revolution, but when you make revolution more attractive than the status quo, look the fxxk out. And the US is full of people with guns.

If I was rich I'd be against this. Give the little guys a chance, so they don't storm the parapets. It's just a matter of time until they think of it once you screw them bad enough.

Just sayin'.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2017
more guns = more shooting deaths
And also fewer guns = More assaults, more rapes, more successful home invasions, more maimings and yes more deaths by other means


Prove it. Show me the stats that demonstrate this. I guarantee you will not be able to because this is not true. Access to a weapon increases violent crime and has no correlation with crimes like home invasions.. But if you can show me the studies that prove otherwise, then do so.

Rape in particular is predominately a crime of Family and Domestic Violence (FDV). So how will a gun help a woman in that situation except as something that is used against her?

Your position is offensive to the lived reality of women and utterly unsupported by any evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
Your position is offensive to the lived reality of women and utterly unsupported by any evidence.
"One in six Australian women have been the victim of a sexual assault by a non-partner, compared to one in 14 women around the world, a new study shows... When sexual assaults by partners are included more than one in five — or 2.3 million Australian women aged over 15 are victims of rape, according to the NSW Rape Crisis Centre."

-Man you just can't HELP making shit up can you?

Like I said - your lying days are numbered. Live it up while you can (and serve as the kind of miscreant we need to expose).
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
Your position is offensive to the lived reality of women and utterly unsupported by any evidence.
"One in six Australian women have been the victim of a sexual assault by a non-partner, compared to one in 14 women around the world, a new study shows... When sexual assaults by partners are included more than one in five — or 2.3 million Australian women aged over 15 are victims of rape, according to the NSW Rape Crisis Centre."

-Man you just can't HELP making shit up can you?

Like I said - your lying days are numbered. Live it up while you can (and serve as the kind of miscreant we need to expose).


That comment has nothing to do with gun ownership. Unless you can see the quote where I said "sexual assault only happens in countries where there are guns". But I wouldn't say that because it would be stupid.

Quote me a relevant study that shows that gun ownership reduces the rates of rape or assault.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
That comment has nothing to do with gun ownership
No It has to do with you making up LIES about rape.

And of course you can shoot abusive spouses in self-defense.

"We believe she was the shooter," Knutzen said. "She did indicate it appeared to be a domestic violence type situation, (and it) appeared there was probably a physical altercation that took place between her and her husband that night before the shots were fired... based on what she said, there is some indication that it was self defense."

- And it can be the only way to save her own life. People like you dont think a woman has a right to do this
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2017
That comment has nothing to do with gun ownership
No It has to do with you making up LIES about rape.

And of course you can shoot abusive spouses in self-defense.

"We believe she was the shooter," Knutzen said. "She did indicate it appeared to be a domestic violence type situation, (and it) appeared there was probably a physical altercation that took place between her and her husband that night before the shots were fired... based on what she said, there is some indication that it was self defense."

- And it can be the only way to save her own life. People like you dont think a woman has a right to do this


I am a woman, asshole. And you are fucking pissing me off with this bullshit. Most women are raped by their partners or people they know. A gun does jackshit about it. Trying to use the disgusting rates of rapes and domestic violence as a prop for policies that promote gun violence is disgraceful, especially in the current environment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017

Quote me a relevant study that shows that gun ownership reduces the rates of rape or assault
Sure.

"As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse."
-Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185

- And BTW I don't play fetch for liars.
Trying to use the disgusting rates of rapes and domestic violence as a prop for policies that promote gun violence is disgraceful
And a woman making up LIES about rape statistics is pretty foul isn't it?
Most women are raped by their partners
LIE.
or people they know
And again asshole they're allowed to use a gun to defend themselves. Over here at least. Asshole.

"One in six Australian women have been the victim of a sexual assault by a non-partner, compared to one in 14 women around the world, a new study shows... When sexual assaults by partners are included more than one in five — or 2.3 million Australian women aged over 15 are victims of rape..."

READ IT.
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017

Quote me a relevant study that shows that gun ownership reduces the rates of rape or assault
Sure.

"As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse."
-Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185

- And BTW I don't play fetch for liars.


Quote me a relevant study that shows that gun ownership reduces the rates of rape or assault.

So far you've demonstrated that:
rape and assault exists
guns exist
people use guns

I fail to see where any of those points are in contention

So, quote me relevant statistics that show that gun ownerships reduces the rates of rape or assault
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
""As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse."
-Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185

-Show me how this study is irrelevant. Liar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
From the kleck study

"With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include too few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott,9 Quinsey and Upfold,10 Lizotte," and Kleck and Sayles12 all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them."

-Hey that's 4 more studies. Liar.
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2017
""As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse."
-Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185

-Show me how this study is irrelevant. Liar.


It doesn't answer the question. You need a study that shows that guns materially reduce rates of rape or assault. This statistic - assuming it's accurate - just shows that people use guns sometimes.

How about you show me data that demonstrates that rates of the crimes that you mentioned - home invasions, assault, rape - are lower in gun states compared to non-gun states. Or data that shows that rates of these crimes are lower on average in countries with lax gun laws versus stringent gun laws.

Now these issues are complex and multi-factoral but at least if you had a headline data study I'd concede there may be something there worth exploring.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2017
This recent Scientific American article sums up the evidence that shows your contention is not evidence-based

https://www.scien...e-shows/
axemaster
5 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2017
Pretty remarkable. That article states that:

"In another [study], published in 1998, they reported that guns at home were four times more likely to cause an accidental shooting, seven times more likely to be used in assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide than they were to be used for self-defense."

This pretty much lines up with my previous understanding of the issue, though it's considerably worse than I had remembered. But these kinds of statistics go a long way towards explaining why the USA has the highest rate of gun violence in the world.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Dec 11, 2017
You're not allowed to just open up an office and say, "OK, I'm a bank gimme money." Same with insurance

True. But this also leads to highly specialized businesses lacking in competition (hey, I work for a large healthcare machine manufacturer...no startup can get from zero to the level of actually competing with the current crop of global players without a miracle. I wouldn't be surprised if the all global players don't know this and price their products accordingly - and not just by pure market value)

Same with banks. You need some assets to start a bank - but you only have to cover a very small percentage of potential losses (depending on how big the bank is it will just default or claim 'system-relevant' status and get bailed out by the taxpayer in such a case)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2017
Lietenant opines
It doesn't answer the question. You need a study that shows that guns materially reduce rates of rape or assault. This statistic - assuming it's accurate - just shows that people use guns sometimes
But you keep trying to answer the question by making up facts and refusing to acknowledge it when you are exposed.

How come?

And you play the gender card as if THAT would automatically make your lies true.

Pretty foul.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2017
It doesn't answer the question. You need a study that shows that guns materially reduce rates of rape or assault
I dunno why don't you ask this woman?
https://youtu.be/_NJQK2BscIg

-Raped once, he comes back a 2nd time. But this time she has a shotgun.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2017
otto
But you keep trying to answer the question by making up facts
But leetennatn linked to this article - https://www.scien...e-shows/ That is not making up facts. Then to support his argument - otto quotes one individuals situation on a youtube vid. No mention of Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

The level of thinking cannot be more obvious than this contrast.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2017
Lessee we have one person here making up facts, and one person here defending her who has demonstrated no regard for facts... we can call this entertainment i suppose.
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2017
Lessee we have one person here making up facts, and one person here defending her who has demonstrated no regard for facts... we can call this entertainment i suppose.


That's nonsense. Nobody denies that guns are used successfully for self-defense (Incidentally, the paper you cited is contested in the scientific community regarding the methodology used. Self-reporting is not known to be very accurate.). What is challenged, however, is your conclusion (which you don't explicitly state but seems obvious from your writings) that from this follows that no gun regulation is needed in the US. A valid question, therefore, is if increased levels of gun-ownership is inversely correlated with the rape rate what your argument seems to suggest. Simply put: the more guns, the less rape. But this is not the case, for example rape rate in the US is 27.4 per 100.000 vs. e.g. Germany 9.4 (source: http://www.nation...e-rate).
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2017
How do you explain that? Statistically, almost every US citizen has a gun, whereas gun ownership in Germany is much lower. How come that the rape rate is nevertheless 3 times higher in the US?
Additionally, even assuming that high gun ownership had a beneficial effect on rape rate (which doesn't seem to be the case), is a ultra-liberal stance regarding gun ownership really the best option? Weighted against the (only assumed for the sake of the argument) benefit must be the costs. It is just as easy to imagine situations where the possession of a gun by the rape victim results in her death, e.g. when she is overpowered and her own gun is used against her. Additionally, if every woman would potentially carry a gun, wouldn't then every potential rapist also come with a gun and use the moment of surprise (on his side, since he is the attacker) to overpower the victim before she could pull her gun out?
Futility
5 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2017
Thus, in aggregate, women's lives would even be more endangered in such a society (which the US seems to be approaching rapidly.)
Besides, why is the only option for the rape victim to have a gun on her? She could also have other means of self-defense, like pepper spray, martial arts, ...
Having a gun for self-defense is a legitimate reason (and countries like e.g. Germany allow gun possession for this purpose), but does it follow from this alone, that anybody should be able to buy a gun without minimal background checks, etc.? Most sane people would argue, no, based on the available data. Yes, guns are used successfully for self-defense, but should a society as a whole therefore allow unfettered access to guns to anybody? I think not.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2017
Otto
we can call this entertainment i suppose
Call it what you want - you demonstrate wonderful Trumpian skills with reality. I was just commenting that this link that leetennant posted was very evidence based - https://www.scien...e-shows/ Not 'made up facts' at all.
Zzzzzzzz
not rated yet Dec 11, 2017
What's amazing is that they, like the rest of the science impaired, keep trying to find excuses to deny the data.


Not really. The conclusion of the data is at odds with what they desire, namely being able to play with their toys and pretend they are big shots on their couch. The little conscience they have left still pesters them in the face of so much misery too many guns undeniably cause. That's why they keep going. And being useful tools to the gun industry at the same time.


I frankly don't give 2 shits what you peasants think. What the United States really needs is for Alpha males like myself to lay the smack down on you beta male turds with due prejudice.


"Stevepidge".... Another scrawny pimpled filth spewing squirming braying keyboard coward for the ignore list.....
drrobodog
5 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2017
...gun ownership reduces the rates of rape or assault
...200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse...

How many cannot defend themselves due to the perpertrator having a gun?
Of those 200,000 cases, how many repeat offenders were there?

Most women are raped by their partners
LIE.

*or people they know*

I'm not sure why you would cut someone's statement in half, and then call the one half a lie. I supposed if you didn't it wouldn't match the study you referenced, as non-partners may also include *people they know*, but it doesn't do your argument any justice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet 12 hours ago

How many cannot defend themselves due to the perpertrator having a gun?
Perps will always have guns. Or knives or clubs or fists. The only way for a woman to effectively defend herself against these things is with a gun.
Of those 200,000 cases, how many repeat offenders were there?
Lots. The more shot the better. Here's one of dozens and dozens on YouTube and the local news
https://youtu.be/lnYQw93j_8c

-Hey I cut your statement in half! My bad-

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.