Political Discussion Thread

General Discussion Off-Topic
#1741

The VPC may not be the best source… they’re known to skew the data to support their politics. You wouldn’t take the NRA’s figure of 2.5 million at face-value, would you? Well, the VPC is the anti-NRA and they are not to be trusted - nor are the NRA (even though I give them money.) Hey… I give the ACLU money, too. It’s cool, yo.

It’s likely more than what the Times article stated. There’s a study from a Harvard lecturer who’s known as a fairly sturdy gun-control protagonist. His name is David Hemenway. Well, his study concluded that there are around 55,000 DGUs per year. When that’s contrasted with the 9-12,000 homicides committed with firearms annually, it’s a tough case to make that gun bans will somehow save more lives then they take.

The 2.1 to 2.5 million figure that the NRA likes to toss around is from a mid-1990s study, called the Kleck-Gertz Study, for those who’d enjoy attempting to thrash it mightily.

A more realistic number is presumably between the pro-gun control fellow and my fellow gun-fetishers at the NRA - likely between 100,000 and 300,000 annually. Keep in mind thought, that a defensive gun use (DGU) may not necessarily mean the saving of a life - it may “just” mean that someone will not have their brains bashed in. So…there’s that.

Personally, and this may just be me, but even with suicides and accidents added in, ‘only’ around 30,000 people die from guns each year. But if at least 55,000 are saved… well, the math seems fairly straightforward, no?

And yes, if anyone is wondering, or in case any of you wish to be further horrified at my Neanderthal ways, yes, I have a CCW. I carry a pistol just about anytime I’m out and about in public.

1 Like
#1742

well I’m not one of those, but I find it strange that no one bothered to check my citations contesting their perspectives.

1 Like
#1743

Ha, I just assume that most of the people I’m talking to in this thread that dislike guns, are almost certainly horrified at 1) the number of guns I own, and 2) that I carry.

Whatcha gonna do?

But yes, I took the CCW class and I’ve taken - for ■■■■■ and giggles - other firearms training classes. Mostly because they’re fun, but also because if I’m going to carry, I’d like to be as reasonably certain as I can that I know wtf I’m doing.

1 Like
#1744

Ohhhh, that DISLIKE guns.

Yeah…one of my favorite memories is shooting an M240 from the fantail of a carrier so that’s not me

1 Like
#1745

249,485,228 population over 18 in US

963 people fatally shot by police

            Vs.

1.1 million state and local enforcement employed
(120,000 authorized to make arrests and carry firearms)

64 police officers fatally killed in the line of duty

#1746

Where are you getting this figure? If the Times figure is correct there are an annual average of 67,740 incidents in which a gun is used in self-defence. How are you determining when that actually saved a life?

I had a look at this article and the CDC study it was based on, and it was extremely selective in its presentation of what the overall report says. It makes it sound as if the CDC has given a final verdict about whether guns do more harm than good in their deterrent capacities.The report, called Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, carries out a brief literature review of existing gun-violence related research and highlights priorities for future research. It is not seeking to make, and does not make, firm conclusions about the issues re gun violence raised in this thread.

The report does contain the quote CNS News uses:

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

This can’t be extrapolated to ‘guns save more lives than they kill’. It’s immediately qualified by quotes not mentioned by CNS News, stating that:

Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use.

Their conclusion on this issue is the same as in the report as a whole: ‘additional, careful exploration’ is merited.

I’m not familiar with CNS News, but it seems like they’ve cherrypicked quotations from a long report designed to direct research rather than produce conclusions, so I would be wary about the article.

('pologies for all the edits, typos are the bane of my damn life lol)

2 Likes
#1747

pops in to thread

takes one look around

IMG_0887

4 Likes
#1748

From my post, where it said that there are 55,000 DGUs annually as reported by noted anti-gunman, David Hemenway?

You’ll find that, assuming you stick with learning about guns, gun control and DGUs, that just about EVERY article is ‘selective.’ When DGUs outnumber people murdered with guns by at least 5 to 1, this is a fairly common tactic. See the VPC for examples.

#1749

One question, for the statistics is it only discharged weapons or using the weapon to intimidate the aggressor into backing down?

#1750

I’m new to this thread.

When we start talking about gun violence in the US, this is what is the most shocking (Chicago):

#1751

The irony is Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country

2 Likes
#1752

Interesting observation on this - a DGU does not get recorded by any law enforcement agency as such, if shots are not fired. So, if someone just shows or brandishes a firearm in the face of someone, say, preparing to beat you to a pulp with a ball bat and the bat-wielding assailant flees… It’s not recorded as a firearm incident. Oftentimes, people that do not discharge their firearm don’t bother calling police (which is a really, REALLY bad idea btw).

This is why there’s such variances between studies purporting annual DGUs of 55 thousand all the way to 2.5 million. One assumes that there’s some fluff in those figures due to the nature of guns, crime and self-defense with a gun - i.e, it’s likely not every incident is reported or admitted to when surveyed.

1 Like
#1753

…and it seems to be not important to talk about these “stats”.

#1754

DGU presumably meaning defensive gun use. What I’m asking is how do you know every incident of ‘DGU’ saves a life? How can that calculation possibly be made? Not rhetorical questions, I’m interested in how you go about calculating events that didn’t actually happen.

Yes. This is why it’s exceptionally difficult to come up with accurate stats, and hence the ‘guns save more lives than they take’ argument is not an easy one to make with security.

Some are worse than others. It’s ok to link articles with a partisan slant, but when they neglect to report the balanced positions taken in the science they report, it needs to be identified.

This isn’t true. In fact Sarah Sanders’ statement on this got the lowest rating of truth from Politifact (an excellent source of unbiased reporting regarding gun statistics and other claims)

1 Like
#1755

I know this a bit of an aside, but I feel like this may be a bit of interesting reflection for this debate.

The most controversial item in my shop, without a shadow of a doubt, is my ‘Hijos de Villa’ revolver.

The reposado is in the form of a slightly off Jericho 941, so apparently, Pancho Villa also had a time machine, something the histories forgot to mention.

I’ve had several customers express their displeasure with the fact that I sell that item in my store. The objection went as follows;

“You know, if some one filled that up with a dark spirit. They could mistake it with a gun and get harmed in some way.”

…

I OWN A WINE & LIQUOR STORE. They can’t think of any circumstance more likely than that one that some one could harm themselves? Not one? Like, gee, I don’t know. Actually just drinking the item and getting behind the wheel?

I have had customers threaten that they ‘don’t feel comfortable bringing their kids around’ the glass gun, and may not return as a consequence. As they’re buying a 1.75 of Nikolai vodka for the 2nd time this week. Needless to say, I told them that is no concern of mine.

While I absolutely agree with the notion that definitive and immediate measures must be taken in order to lower the rate of gun related homicide in the U.S., I also do see (first hand) the irrational fear of guns some people may have.

3 Likes
#1756

The definition of DGU isn’t that a life was saved - or it can be. Depends on the ‘study.’ The most broad definition of DGU is when the presence of a firearm prevents a forcible felony. These can range from severe ass-beating, to ■■■■, to kidnapping, to murder. But I’ll take preventing at least 55,000 of those things yearly against the 10,000 homicides - mostly committed by criminals against other criminals - any day. It would seem a fairly routine cost-benefit analysis.

Sure. But if you take the lowliest figure of 55,000 - that’s a lot of forcible felonies that would have otherwise been committed. So I’m cool wid it.

Nah, it’s true. He said that Chicago has ‘some of the most’ restrictive laws. He didn’t say THE MOST. Chicago DOES have very strict gun laws. Not as strict as pre-Heller and McDonald, but still a lot stricter than other parts of the country.

1 Like
#1757

Yeah, the hoplophobia is rampant. It’s funny, though - I’ve learned the hard way that you won’t make any friends, nor will you convert anyone to the pro-gun side by referring to their gun fears as irrational. They may well be behaving irrationally - but calling that out just makes them dig their heels in harder.

2 Likes
#1758

It’s one of the top 10 states.

Compare to “Del-uh-Where”:

1 Like
#1759

Seven states were graded higher than Illinois by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and according to Politifiact “Chicago has less authority to impose limitations than do many other large U.S. cities.” I don’t know how helpful it is to even echo Sanders’ claim.

#1760

This means you only hear about it when things went wrong and a life is taken meaning nobody really came out well…

I personally find politifact questionable on fact checking in many regards after noticing the trouble they have with bias and with inconsistent application of methodology

An article from last year from the daily wire showing the bias at some points

I’m just pointing it out that the methodology they use has serious room for questioning.

1 Like