Video of Penn & Teller's take on gun control

[Gunner]

what I can never understand about gun ownership is that most people think the way I do: everyone's an idiot except for themselves ....so why would you want some who's not as bright as you are to own a gun?

"I can trust myself not to do something stupid, but I cant trust the other person will do the same"

Well it's obvious what they want: guns for white people only.

 

[Solaris]

but it's not just gun crime ..in fbi stats for gun related deaths they found that the overwhelming majority of people were killed by someone who was known to them ...which kinda dispells that whole "we need guns to protect ourselves from random strangers intent on killing us/stealing our stuff"

Yes, but that figure doesn't take into account the would be home invaders deterred by the possibilty of guns.

 

[Raziaar]

and collects in the sentiment ..which you have walk through ..which causes you to stir it up again

A crater that size... you wouldn't be stirring up very much

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This statement is highly ignorant. You assume that people as a whole are going to keep their leaders in check, but the problem doesn;t come with a radical change like those dictators imposed, but with gradual changes that lead to the cessation of power from the citizens to the government.

Highly ignorant? That's rather unfair.

My point is that the gradual changes under the current system are happening as a result of the popular vote, which is supported by at least half the populace. "Four more years" and all that jazz.
People are far too knowledgable about the dangers of dictatorship to let it happen, especially gradually.
And, if a dictatorship were to occur, I think it would have the support of about half the U.S. population already.

You've already got pundits going on about how we can't question the president, and whatever.
You don't just up and say that shit on TV unless you know over half the people don't care. That Bill O'Reilly is a major celebrity proves this more than anything.

In other words, a civil war is far more likely than a dramatic people's revolt, and even then it's not very likely.

If you look at hitler and stalin as I said, there were no revolts under them. Not under Saddam even.

Revolts pretty much exclusively happen where the dominant power is weakened by lack of resources. France, as an example, was fairly successful against the nazi occupation. Same with the anti-british in America, or the insurgency in iraq. The big guys overextended, and that's what allowed the rebellions to happen.

Guns can do damage and hinder the US gov in its future evil form, but they won't win against it.
It's far more likely that a win would occur as a result of international intervention, as has happened with most overthrown dictators.
Some country tired of the gov's crap would send in all the guns the revolution would need, and chances are they'd be much more powerful than the average handgun a guy carries for self-defense, making the current slew of guns largely unecessary for rebelling.

I agree that they are good against criminals, but gun owners in the US just can't win a rebellion on their own.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, but that figure doesn't take into account the would be home invaders deterred by the possibilty of guns.

is it really that high in number? pro-gun supporters always go on and on about it but are never able to produce figures ..well here's a figure:

"guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home

 

[Glirk Dient]

Having handguns acts as a deterent stern. We need more guns. Would someone go and try to shoot someone else if there was a very good chance that person, and people around them would have guns and would shoot back? Nope, that person isn't that crazy. However if none of them had guns it would be all too easy to pull up, shoot the person and speed off.

 

[CptStern]

Having handguns acts as a deterent stern. We need more guns. Would someone go and try to shoot someone else if there was a very good chance that person, and people around them would have guns and would shoot back? Nope, that person isn't that crazy. However if none of them had guns it would be all too easy to pull up, shoot the person and speed off.

you cling to these ideas despite the fact that I just showed that having a gun is more likely to get a family member/friend/aquaintance killed than it is a perfect stranger?

 

[kirovman]

Likewise, if you have a circular saw at home, you are far more likely to have an accident involving your foreskin and a circular saw, than if you didn't have one at home say.

 

[CptStern]

dont forget about those dangerous pencil sharperers ...they're just made for foreskin accidents :O

 

[Glirk Dient]

you cling to these ideas despite the fact that I just showed that having a gun is more likely to get a family member/friend/aquaintance killed than it is a perfect stranger?

They also brought that up in the video. Did you watch it?

The ratio of gun accidents to guns is so small that if your advocating getting rid of guns to make a safer home you should get rid of lights, knives, furniture, sharp objects/corners, anything hard, fists and shoes.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The circular saw is much more likely to be used cutting wood than slicing your own bits off too, unlike handguns as stern showed.

They stop crime in theory, but in practice large amounts of people act rather unsafe out of laziness and stupidity.

It is true that lots of things kill people like cars and such, but cars are used all the time, compared to the 150 valid gun homicides over however many million guns.

If everyone owned a car, but only 3000 were driven and 2800 of them resulted in vehicular manslaughter, that's the more accurate comparison.

 

[CptStern]

They also brought that up in the video. Did you watch it?

no, I'm at work

The ratio of gun accidents to guns is so small that if your advocating getting rid of guns to make a safer home you should get rid of lights, knives, furniture, sharp objects/corners, anything hard, fists and shoes.

what mecha said

 

[Glirk Dient]

If everyone owned a car, but only 3000 were driven and 2800 of them resulted in vehicular manslaughter, that's the more accurate comparison.

No it isn't. Watch the video.

Here are some statistics for ya. and I quote for those that won't click the link.
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

So we should now ban doctors? Granted they kill as is apparent from those statistics but we know very well that isn't all they do. They benefit society.

Gun kill, but they also do other things. They can be used for recreation like target shooting. Guns also deter crime, make people feel safe and is another way to express our freedom.

 

[kirovman]

What about intentional deaths? Also, your doctors suck.

 

[Gray Fox]

They also brought that up in the video. Did you watch it?

The ratio of gun accidents to guns is so small that if your advocating getting rid of guns to make a safer home you should get rid of lights, knives, furniture, sharp objects/corners, anything hard, fists and shoes.

simple matter of fact is that they take more lives then safe. And no, advocating to get rid guns does not mean you should get rid of knives or lights. The ratio of lethal gun accidents vs guns is much, much bigger then the ratio of lethal knive accients vs knives. Plus knives have very usefull purposes as do lights, having a lights gives you the ability to see better in the dark and hence it's positieve sides far outweigh the negatieve sides.
Oh and we haven't even touched on how much people get killed on purpose with legally bought guns. All guns do is guve you a false sens of security which benefits criminals.

No it isn't. Watch the video.

Here are some statistics for ya. and I quote for those that won't click the link.
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm


So we should now ban doctors? Granted they kill as is apparent from those statistics but we know very well that isn't all they do. They benefit society.

Gun kill, but they also do other things. They can be used for recreation like target shooting. Guns also deter crime, make people feel safe and is another way to express our freedom.

As far as I can see that site fails to give a proper fair analogy as well as it fails to list it's "various"sources.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No it isn't. Watch the video.

Here are some statistics for ya. and I quote for those that won't click the link.
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm


So we should now ban doctors? Granted they kill as is apparent from those statistics but we know very well that isn't all they do. They benefit society.

Gun kill, but they also do other things. They can be used for recreation like target shooting. Guns also deter crime, make people feel safe and is another way to express our freedom.

Problem: your ratios exclude the benefits.

Doctors kill people accidentally while they are constantly trying to save lives and treat problems.

For your ratios there to be valid, you would need to compare accident-free treatments to accident-causing treatments.

At the same time, you would need to compare the criminals stopped by legal guns with the legal guns used in crimes.

It's no secret that the vast majority of household guns go unused. What is important is what those few that are used are used for.

Your source is manipulating the statistics by comparing number of people to number of accidents, when it should be comparing number of non-accidents to number of accidents.

Stern's stats show that the majority of fired guns are fired at the wrong people.

Doctors, on the other hand, will perform thousands of successful procedures for every accident.

 

[Glirk Dient]

simple matter of fact is that they take more lives then safe. And no, advocating to get rid guns does not mean you should get rid of knives or lights. The ratio of lethal gun accidents vs guns is much, much bigger then the ratio of lethal knive accients vs knives. Plus knives have very usefull purposes as do lights, having a lights gives you the ability to see better in the dark and hence it's positieve sides far outweigh the negatieve sides.
Oh and we haven't even touched on how much people get killed on purpose with legally bought guns. All guns do is guve you a false sens of security which benefits criminals.

So your going to say because of an accident ratio of 0.000188 that guns should be banned? That is lower than most things like water, cars, fire, falls, eating, choking, and being a pedestrian.

Gun accidents are simply receive national attention when a child is involved then politicians demand gun safety classes, etc. More lives could be saved by educating people about driving, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits.

So getting rid of gun would take guns out of law abiding citizens and there would be less of a deterrent for those gun weilding criminals to commit violent crime with guns now that nobody can shoot back at them. Those criminals are now in control. Many more lives would be at stake because of those few accidents.

Here is a site that lists accidental deaths on a chart.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So your going to say because of an accident ratio of 0.000188 that guns should be banned?

That ratio is not mathmatically valid.

Your source is manipulating the statistics by comparing number of people to number of accidents, when it should be comparing number of non-accidents to number of accidents.

See the "False Analogy" fallacy in the logical fallacy thread, or at least my debunking in the post above.


Your new source does the same thing. It compares deaths - but not benefits.

The vast majority of cars are used properly when they are used.
The majority of guns are used incorrectly when they are used.

Excluding the benefits can make anything look bad, as you showed with your doctor link.
You can make it look like doctors are evil, and kill 20% of patient by simply manipulating the math.
That's not proper math.

 

[CptStern]

No it isn't. Watch the video.

Here are some statistics for ya. and I quote for those that won't click the link.
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm


So we should now ban doctors? Granted they kill as is apparent from those statistics but we know very well that isn't all they do. They benefit society.

Gun kill, but they also do other things. They can be used for recreation like target shooting. Guns also deter crime, make people feel safe and is another way to express our freedom.

rense isnt a good source ...have you read anything but that one link? ..funny you should pick rense of all places ....look:

http://www.rense.com/



btw ...it's pretty funny that this stat is reprinted over and over again in dozens of pro-gun sites:

http://www.google.ca/search?client=...+physician+is+0.171.&meta=&btnG=Google+Search


funny enough I cant find the original source because some of the numbers dont gel ....physicians usually dont perform surgery:

phy·si·cian:

2. A person who practices general medicine as distinct from surgery.



so how exactly are these doctors causing death? misdiagnosing? wrong prescription?
according to this there are around 680,000 physcians

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04124.pdf

yet it only includes these types:

"Generalists are physicians whose primary specialty is family practice, general practice, general internal medicine, or general pediatrics as reported in the American Medical Association or American Osteopathic Association Masterfiles. Other physicians are designated specialists."

none of these doctors would be in charge of your health if you are in need of serious medical attention. so again, how did they come up with that figure?

 

[Glirk Dient]

That ratio is not mathmatically valid.

Your source is manipulating the statistics by comparing number of people to number of accidents, when it should be comparing number of non-accidents to number of accidents.

See the "False Analogy" fallacy in the logical fallacy thread, or at least my debunking in the post above.

How isn't it valid? We are talking about getting rid of ALL guns because they pose a threat of accidental death. So when you are including all guns you take all guns owned and divide by the amount of accidental deaths to get the ratio of accidental deaths compared to gun owners. The ratio is still valid.

Then look at the chart I posted as well as read the article. Gun accidents only seem more prevailant than they really are.

Stern - The site I posted wouldn't hold up in a debate...it was used simply to point out the absurdity of claiming guns should be banned because of accidental deaths.

 

[Gray Fox]

So your going to say because of an accident ratio of 0.000188 that guns should be banned? That is lower than most things like water, cars, fire, falls, eating, choking, and being a pedestrian.

Gun accidents are simply receive national attention when a child is involved then politicians demand gun safety classes, etc. More lives could be saved by educating people about driving, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits.

So getting rid of gun would take guns out of law abiding citizens and there would be less of a deterrent for those gun weilding criminals to commit violent crime with guns now that nobody can shoot back at them. Those criminals are now in control. Many more lives would be at stake because of those few accidents.

Here is a site that lists accidental deaths on a chart.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Even if mech was wrong and that was the true ratio, then guns should still be banned. They can only serve two purposes to protect the innocent or to kill them since they are more often used for the second they should be banned. And like i said, those accidental deaths still do not take in to account the pruposefull deaths cause by legally bought gun. And getting rid of a gun would certainly not have that effect that you describe, since there are a lot of countries like holland where you can't buy a gun that are infact much safer. And we life next to the east european countries, probably the single largest supplier of illegal firearms. All guns do is give you a false sense of security and make you neglect measures that really do infact make you safer.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Then look at the chart I posted as well as read the article. Gun accidents only seem more prevailant than they really are.

Actually, that doesn't prove anything about prevalence.
I hate to use the cliche, but it is comparing apples to oranges, instead of rotten apples to good apples.

Find the number of crimes started by guns and compare that to the number stopped.
That is pretty much the only math that isn't misleading.


Your source, for example, points out that 46,000 children were shot/stabbed by their parents.

Compare even a quarter of that 46,000 to the 150 crimes stopped by guns in Stern's stats to see what I mean.

Also, you can add 600 accidental gun deaths to that list.

So, assuming that stabbed kids outnumber shot kids by a factor of three, that's still a ratio of around 25 000 : 150

167 misused guns for every 1 used to kill in self defense.

And keep in mind that I am leaving out intentional gun violence against adults, which would push that 167 even higher.


That's not perfect math because your source leaves out which guns were legal or not, but it is much closer to the truth than your source's conclusions.

 

[Glirk Dient]

You can't find that info mecha.

You don't know that the people who used guns in the crimes wouldn't have commited the same crime without a gun. So we don't know if guns are really to blame for those crimes.

Second you can't figure out the number of crimes stopped because the guns act as a deterent. If someone plans on killing someone else it would be all too easy to walk up and shoot him because the guy doesn't have a gun. However if that guy and people in that area had a good chance of carrying a gun then the person wouldn't commit that crime, so it wouldn't show up in any statistics.

 

[Some_God]

If it's not guns killing people, it's something else. Eventually it might come down to people dying by a stick... now seriously, how are you going to "ban" a stick? (please don't answer that)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You can't find that info mecha.

It's not up to me to find it. You are presenting all the statistics and ratios in favor of guns.

It should be up to you to find the valid info. Burden of proof and all that.

Finding the number of legal guns used can't be that difficult. There's gotta be a record somewhere.

If there isn't a record, then that means research is required before a conclusion can be made.
However, I think I have shown that the pro-gun side isn't looking too good.

You don't know that the people who used guns in the crimes wouldn't have commited the same crime without a gun. So we don't know if guns are really to blame for those crimes.

The important thing is the failure rate. If 167 cars exploded for every one that didn't there would be a recall.

What ifs don't matter when we are counting the failure rate of guns, which is apparently high.

If you'd like to talk about knives, pretty much every person in america uses a knife every day, often repeatedly.
I think you will find the number of successful knife uses is far higher than the number of stabbings.

Guns, however, are not knives, and are apparently far more likely to be used incorrectly.

Second you can't figure out the number of crimes stopped because the guns act as a deterent.

Actually, you can gauge the detterent factor easily by comparing an illegal-gun town with a similar legal-gun town.

Do that, and you can add the results to the "crimes stopped" statistics.

Once you have that simple info, you can successfully argue using maths.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Guns don't kill people - people do.

Guns just make it a hell of a lot easier

 

[Raziaar]

Guns don't kill people, physics kill people.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Guns don't kill people - people do.

Guns just make it a hell of a lot easier

Exactly. The "Guns Don't Kill People" slogan is misleading in that it erroneously includes unused guns.

It is true that guns don't kill people on their own.
But the minute you combine the person and the gun, the chance of an accident or crime is very high.

You can't validly compare all guns with crime guns, because most just sit on a shelf doing nothing.

You need to compare what they are actually being used for.

 

[Ikerous]

I'm against a gun ban from a libertarian viewpoint :/

 

[Glirk Dient]

It's not up to me to find it. You are presenting all the statistics and ratios in favor of guns.

It should be up to you to find the valid info. Burden of proof and all that.

Finding the number of legal guns used can't be that difficult. There's gotta be a record somewhere.

If there isn't a record, then that means research is required before a conclusion can be made.
However, I think I have shown that the pro-gun side isn't looking too good.

You can't find those statistics because they don't exist. You are attempting to rely and base your side off of statistics and now your going to say neither side can be correct until we find out how many illegal guns criminals have and the amount of crimes that would be stopped due to gun deterrent? Are you crazy?

Guns, however, are not knives, and are apparently far more likely to be used incorrectly.

We could say the same about fire...however more people accidentally die from fire then guns.

Actually, you can gauge the detterent factor easily by comparing an illegal-gun town with a similar legal-gun town.

Do that, and you can add the results to the "crimes stopped" statistics.

Once you have that simple info, you can successfully argue using maths.

Wrong, you can not figure it out that way. The towns would have to be exactly the same in every aspect. We know very well that is impossible. There are way too many facotrs that would invalidate that study.

You need to compare what they are actually being used for.

No you don't...in fact most gun accidents where kids die are the guns that are sitting on a shelf doing nothing. Every gun whether used for crime or it is sitting has the same capacity to kill someone in an accident.

 

[SIGbastard]

is it really that high in number? pro-gun supporters always go on and on about it but are never able to produce figures ..well here's a figure:

"guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home

You need to see how they came up with those numbers. The brady Campaign is notorious for skewing things and out right lying. For instance that thing about a gun in the home is 22X more likely to kill a family member. I am not sure but I am fairly confident that they included guns that an intruder actually brings into the home. They did a study like that before I just don't know if this is actually it.

Also gun crime is at an all time low regardless of what the brady campaign would have you believe. Going to them for a study about gun violence would be like me posting a study done by the NRA for the same topic. It is to biased to be worth anything.

 

[SIGbastard]

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/jan98b.html

An increasing number of states are allowing people to carry concealed weapons. And states which have passed such laws have seen a decline in murders and assaults.

* Thirty-one states now allow citizens to carry concealed weapons -- up from just nine in 1986.

* While 10 million violent crimes are committed in the U.S. every year, potential victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense, estimates Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

* University of Chicago researchers John Lott and David Mustard have found that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent from 1977 to 1992.

* Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year.

Vermont, which has long had the least restrictive laws, also has among the lowest violent crime numbers in the country.

* In 1980, when murders and robberies had soared to 10 and 251 per 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont's murder rate was only 22 percent of the national average and its robbery rate was just 15 percent.

* In 1996, Vermont's murder rate was just 25 percent of the national average, and its robbery rate was 8 percent of the national average.

Although Dade County, Florida, has 21,000 carry-permit holders, there have been no reported incidents of a permit holder injuring an innocent person in the six years since records have been kept. Data from Virginia paint a similar picture.

Opponents of concealed-carry laws argue accidents will happen. But there are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the U.S. every year, and police commit three times as many mistaken killings as civilians.

In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years, even as gun ownership has more than doubled.

Source: Morgan O. Reynolds and H. Sterling Burnett (both of the National Center for Policy Analysis), "No Smoking Gun With Concealed Weapons Laws," Investor's Business Daily, January 8, 1998.

 

[SIGbastard]

http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt050301a.html

DALLAS -- Imagine a crime fighting policy that, by itself, substantially reduces the incidences of murder, rape and assault. A policy that enlists citizens in the fight against violent crime - empowering them to take back the streets and live in less fear.

Now imagine that this policy is cheaper to implement than any other measurably effective crime-fighting tool. Indeed, the citizens who participate in this crime-fighting effort, voluntarily commit substantial amounts of resources and time for equipment and training.

The good news is that you don't have to "imagine" this policy, because it exists in many jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, despite its proven effectiveness, some people are fighting hard against efforts to expand this initiative. This effective, but controversial, crime fighting tool is allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns.

Firearms are used by law-abiding citizens about five times more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. Thus, it should not be surprising that the evidence shows that when a state allows its citizens to exercise their right to carry a concealed firearm, crime rates decline.

More than 30 states have "right-to-carry" laws. Under these laws, the state establishes certain objective criteria that a person must satisfy before he is allowed to carry a concealed handgun.

Most states require training courses for concealed carry permits that take the student through a wide range of issues, including: hours of conflict resolution, a review of and final test covering the laws of self-defense and the consequences of the misuse of deadly force. And a stringent gun safety and shooting accuracy test which applicants must pass each time they renew their permit.

The favorable results of concealed-carry laws have been documented by many experts, including Yale University's Dr. John Lott.

Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties Lott found that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

Nor has allowing more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms resulted in increased accidental shootings or "heat-of-the-moment" killings.

Indeed, while firearm ownership in the U.S. is at an all time high, the firearm accident rate is lower than it has ever been since 1903 when the government first began compiling such data. And FBI data shows that killings as a result of arguments are declining as a share of all homicides.

And concealed carry permittees have proven themselves quite law abiding compared to the general population.

For instance, between 1987 and 1995, Florida had issued nearly 300,000 permits, but only 19 were revoked because the permit holder had committed a crime. That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders during a nine-year period - ten thousand times lower than the criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans each year.

And in Texas, where more than 215,000 concealed carry licenses have been issued, licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 14 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.

Those who argue against right-to-carry laws have none of the facts on their side. As John Russi, director of Florida's licensing division said, "They said there would be gun fights and confrontations in the streets. As far as I can determine, there has been no negative impact." Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea.

H. Sterling Burnett is senior policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org), a non-partisan, non-profit research center based in Dallas. Readers may write him at NCPA, 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75251-1339.

 

[Raziaar]

Try not to double/triple post.

As far as gun control though, to stay on topic... I don't think gun control does much, but guns scare me, so any type of control that does at least a little bit, makes me feel easier.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You can't find those statistics because they don't exist. You are attempting to rely and base your side off of statistics and now your going to say neither side can be correct until we find out how many illegal guns criminals have and the amount of crimes that would be stopped due to gun deterrent? Are you crazy?

I am not crazy, and my "side" is not gun control.
If you hadn't noticed from pretty much all my other posts, I am in favor of guns being used to deter crimes.
However, I am also in favor in much higher safety measures to prevent accidents and crimes caused with 'legal' guns.

Neither side can make concrete conclusions. However, they can still estimate, and the best estimate I can come up with based on avaliable data shows that guns aren't as safe.
Your estimates were based on faulty sources, so now the burden of proof lies on you.

If you cannot find valid sources to support your argument, then you should ask your goverment or some independent researchers to do the needed studies.

We could say the same about fire...however more people accidentally die from fire then guns.

This is again misleading.
People use fire and fire-causing heat sources correctly all the time.
I am assuming that there is a fire in your house right now, in a water heater or a candle or whatever.

Deadly fires are vastly outnumbered by beneficial controlled fires and other heat sources. Otherwise over half the buildings in North America would burn down every year.

Wrong, you can not figure it out that way. The towns would have to be exactly the same in every aspect. We know very well that is impossible. There are way too many facotrs that would invalidate that study.

There are such things as variables, which can be accounted for by a proper statistician.
Simply put, just about any comparison between similar towns would be better than just saying "this is impossible" and giving up.

No you don't...in fact most gun accidents where kids die are the guns that are sitting on a shelf doing nothing. Every gun whether used for crime or it is sitting has the same capacity to kill someone in an accident.

The gun is not on the shelf doing nothing if it is shooting a child.

You misunderstand me.
I am interested in what happens once the gun is picked up either by a child, an adult or a criminal.

Saying the that the motionless guns are safe is the same as saying a car with no wheels can't hit someone.
It's fallacious.

 

[SIGbastard]

Also just because people believe there are lots of idiots out in the world doesn't mean anything. I know plenty of people probably think I'm an idiot just because that's life and people are different. Even if you are stupid you can still be safe if trained/taught how.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

HOLY SHIZZLE! You made me spit my coke out onto my keyboard in shock!!
-The gun laws here in VA - if I'm not mistaken, are 16 to own a rifle

SIXTEEN!?!?? TO OWN A RIFLE!?!? WITH THE POTENCIAL TO EASILLY KILL!?!?!

Omg that is just..... I'm gobsmacked by the thought that people in my class if we were in America could legally own a gun.

That's just crazy.

Um most people who own guns anyway have their own set at a younger age anyway, just under parent's or guardian's name for legal purposes.

Hell a lot of times kids around here plan out an afternoon to go get a their dovestamp and go bird hunting and stuff. It's a lot of fun.

is it really that high in number? pro-gun supporters always go on and on about it but are never able to produce figures ..well here's a figure:

"guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home

When guns are used in self defense they rarely result in a kill or even a shot being fired. When our barn was being robbed all we had to do was draw weapons and they bolted.

So let's include one of the few studies of the amount of times firearms are used in self defense without HAVING to result in a kill.


* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year.

Note the HIGHEST value is 3,609,000. So it's highly likely the number is actually from 1 to 2 million times a year.

This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)


SOURCE:


Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

b) The study states: “Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of [Defensive Gun Use] frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/ CNN. Neither asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question of all [respondents]; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those [respondents] not asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year.” [Table 1 lists these studies and various facts about their methodologies. Eight of the 11 studies mentioned above were nationwide surveys. Among these, the range of defensive gun uses per year is 764,000 - 3,609,000. The 9th nationwide survey is the one this study is based upon. It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year.]

c) The study states: “Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been ‘scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.’”

 

[Mechagodzilla]

See, that's better with the research.

At the same time though, I do think the gov should research how many legal guns are used in crimes, just to serve as a valid comparison.

SIG gave some numbers, but they were based on just a few counties, and only on permit revokations in those counties.
Also, SIG's numbers are based only on concealed-carry handguns.

 

[SIGbastard]

See, that's better with the research.

At the same time though, I do think the gov should research how many legal guns are used in crimes, just to serve as a valid comparison.

SIG gave some numbers, but they were based on just a few counties, and only on permit revokations in those counties.
Also, SIG's numbers are based only on concealed-carry handguns.

Yea his stats are better. It's just what I knew of offhand so I posted it. I am trying to study but I just can't stop lurking a few different forums;( .

 

[CptStern]

Um most people who own guns anyway have their own set at a younger age anyway, just under parent's or guardian's name for legal purposes.

Hell a lot of times kids around here plan out an afternoon to go get a their dovestamp and go bird hunting and stuff. It's a lot of fun.


When guns are used in self defense they rarely result in a kill or even a shot being fired. When our barn was being robbed all we had to do was draw weapons and they bolted.

So let's include one of the few studies of the amount of times firearms are used in self defense without HAVING to result in a kill.



* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year.

Note the HIGHEST value is 3,609,000. So it's highly likely the number is actually from 1 to 2 million times a year.

This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)


SOURCE:


Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

b) The study states: “Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of [Defensive Gun Use] frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/ CNN. Neither asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question of all [respondents]; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those [respondents] not asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year.” [Table 1 lists these studies and various facts about their methodologies. Eight of the 11 studies mentioned above were nationwide surveys. Among these, the range of defensive gun uses per year is 764,000 - 3,609,000. The 9th nationwide survey is the one this study is based upon. It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year.]

c) The study states: “Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been ‘scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.’”

yes but we're talking murders (or at least I was) ..shooing off an intruder hardly compares to a deadly confrontation. Your assertation that guns deter crime isnt supported the numbers: the majority of people murdered are killed by known assailants.

for 2002 only 1963 out of 8039 murders were committed by strangers (6015 murders the assailant was unknown for a total for that year of 14,054).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-12.xls