imported post
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922
Wow, who whould have thought?
I thought different.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922
Wow, who whould have thought?
I thought different.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
new study concerning gun carry
- Thread starter cheese
- Start date
ichigo
Regular Member
imported post
I'm a bit bugged by the study. There was very little info like how many of the people shot/killed were open carrying and legally carrying, how many were gang members or known for gang activity? I can agree homies with guns think they are tougher than their rivals. I can't disagree the normal human feels more comfortable with everyday activities when they are armed but I can disagree that the normal citizen is more likely to act when they have a gun. I emphasize normal. Like I've commented before, if you are the type of person to act you will, whether it be by gun, stick, rock, nearest bottle, or hand to hand combat. There are as many different personalities as there are guns and I am no expert. Just a bit bugged at anything that makes gun carriers look bad.
-banki-
I'm a bit bugged by the study. There was very little info like how many of the people shot/killed were open carrying and legally carrying, how many were gang members or known for gang activity? I can agree homies with guns think they are tougher than their rivals. I can't disagree the normal human feels more comfortable with everyday activities when they are armed but I can disagree that the normal citizen is more likely to act when they have a gun. I emphasize normal. Like I've commented before, if you are the type of person to act you will, whether it be by gun, stick, rock, nearest bottle, or hand to hand combat. There are as many different personalities as there are guns and I am no expert. Just a bit bugged at anything that makes gun carriers look bad.
-banki-
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
cheese wrote:
More guns, less crime.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3635890
Kevin
cheese wrote:
For a real study and a great book of something researched that isn't "new and in the beginning stages", try a real source of info that shows that guns in the hands of citizens decreases and deters crime.
More guns, less crime.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3635890
Kevin
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
cheese wrote:
cheese wrote:
Wow, you are such a genious. Why don't you start one for us and get back with the results in say a year or so since anyone can do it. I would love to see your published findings.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
cheese wrote:
Kevin
cheese wrote:
Yes, I question your motives for posting here. Have you even red John Lott's book? You are ignorant. I'm calling you out for what you are, and that is an uneducated ignorant troll. Now, go back under your bridge and behave.
Kevin
imported post
You seem very hostile. How can I help you resolve your issues?
I found an article that was on subject for the website, was interesting to me and thought others might also look into it.
Why the anger and name calling?
Are you so narrowminded and insecure that you cannot discuss the issues?
Dose name calling and dick headery make you feel better?
You seem very hostile. How can I help you resolve your issues?
I found an article that was on subject for the website, was interesting to me and thought others might also look into it.
Why the anger and name calling?
Are you so narrowminded and insecure that you cannot discuss the issues?
Dose name calling and dick headery make you feel better?
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
cheese wrote:
cheese wrote:
This "study" has already been debunked, see http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5168
utbagpiper
Banned
imported post
Mike wrote:
Exactly. Here were my thoughts as soon as I read of this study last week:
RE: gun safetyMy first question on this study would be whether the victims of shootings who were carrying a gun are representative of the law abiding public or whether a disproportionate number of the shooting victims who carried a gun were in fact known criminals including gangsters involved in the drug trade.
Simply put, I believe the dynamics of a shooting where one criminal shoots another criminal (which also happens to be the biggest contributor of the percentage of shooting victims who “knew” their assailant) are very different than the crime of opportunity in which a criminal selects a law abiding person as a victim of a crime. A criminal shooting another criminal over a drug deal gone bad, over a turf war, as a retaliation for some prior slight, etc is determined and has a specific goal in mind. Ask the US Secret Service about how difficult it is to protect a known target from a motivated assailant. In contrast, a criminal looking for a crime of opportunity is looking for best pay off with least risk.
This is why uniformed police officers and NFL linebackers are not often mugged by lone, assailants. The moment a victim makes clear that he or she can put up a reasonable fight (such as by revealing the presence of a previously concealed gun), the most common reaction is for the criminal to flee. Indeed, in over 90% of the cases in which a gun is “used” to stop a crime in progress, the intended victim never even gets a chance to fire the gun as the assailant breaks off the assault and flees before the victim feels compelled to actually use deadly force (as compared to make a credible threat to use deadly force).
This leads directly to my second question, which is why did the study limit itself to asking whether or not carrying a gun reduces the chances of getting shot rather than considering whether carrying a gun reduces the chances of being victimized at all? Getting shot is bad. But so too is getting stabbed, getting raped, having your car car jacked, or being strong armed into giving up your wallet even if no weapon is displayed. One may well ask how the results of this study would be different had they focused on whether or not carrying a gun reduces a woman’s odds of being the victim of stranger and/or forcible rape.
It should not be the least bit surprising that once a criminal gets it into his head to shoot someone that simply having—even using—a gun defensively may not have much effect on whether or not the criminal’s bullet reaches its intended mark. But left unasked, and thus unanswered, is what effect having a gun has on the whole host of crimes other than being shot.
Other studies often touted by the CDC, Brady bunch, and other anti-gun groups will make the fundamental mistake (or engage in the overt dishonesty, depending on whether the study’s authors are merely incompetent, or downright malicious) of assuming that the only successful use of a gun is to shoot a criminal. Such a view is analogous to presuming that the police are only doing their job if they shoot suspects rather than peacefully arresting them. From an intended victim’s point of view, shooting an assailant is not the goal. The goal is to end the attack and go home safely. If that requires shooting the criminal, so be it. But if that can be achieved without even having to discharge the firearm, but merely by displaying it, even better; a LOT less hassle.
Mike wrote:
Exactly. Here were my thoughts as soon as I read of this study last week:
RE: gun safetyMy first question on this study would be whether the victims of shootings who were carrying a gun are representative of the law abiding public or whether a disproportionate number of the shooting victims who carried a gun were in fact known criminals including gangsters involved in the drug trade.
Simply put, I believe the dynamics of a shooting where one criminal shoots another criminal (which also happens to be the biggest contributor of the percentage of shooting victims who “knew” their assailant) are very different than the crime of opportunity in which a criminal selects a law abiding person as a victim of a crime. A criminal shooting another criminal over a drug deal gone bad, over a turf war, as a retaliation for some prior slight, etc is determined and has a specific goal in mind. Ask the US Secret Service about how difficult it is to protect a known target from a motivated assailant. In contrast, a criminal looking for a crime of opportunity is looking for best pay off with least risk.
This is why uniformed police officers and NFL linebackers are not often mugged by lone, assailants. The moment a victim makes clear that he or she can put up a reasonable fight (such as by revealing the presence of a previously concealed gun), the most common reaction is for the criminal to flee. Indeed, in over 90% of the cases in which a gun is “used” to stop a crime in progress, the intended victim never even gets a chance to fire the gun as the assailant breaks off the assault and flees before the victim feels compelled to actually use deadly force (as compared to make a credible threat to use deadly force).
This leads directly to my second question, which is why did the study limit itself to asking whether or not carrying a gun reduces the chances of getting shot rather than considering whether carrying a gun reduces the chances of being victimized at all? Getting shot is bad. But so too is getting stabbed, getting raped, having your car car jacked, or being strong armed into giving up your wallet even if no weapon is displayed. One may well ask how the results of this study would be different had they focused on whether or not carrying a gun reduces a woman’s odds of being the victim of stranger and/or forcible rape.
It should not be the least bit surprising that once a criminal gets it into his head to shoot someone that simply having—even using—a gun defensively may not have much effect on whether or not the criminal’s bullet reaches its intended mark. But left unasked, and thus unanswered, is what effect having a gun has on the whole host of crimes other than being shot.
Other studies often touted by the CDC, Brady bunch, and other anti-gun groups will make the fundamental mistake (or engage in the overt dishonesty, depending on whether the study’s authors are merely incompetent, or downright malicious) of assuming that the only successful use of a gun is to shoot a criminal. Such a view is analogous to presuming that the police are only doing their job if they shoot suspects rather than peacefully arresting them. From an intended victim’s point of view, shooting an assailant is not the goal. The goal is to end the attack and go home safely. If that requires shooting the criminal, so be it. But if that can be achieved without even having to discharge the firearm, but merely by displaying it, even better; a LOT less hassle.
ScottyT
Regular Member
imported post
People who carry guns get shot!
People who die from falling out of airplanes almost always have parachutes on, the parachute must be dangerous -- or is it the helmets that those dead people were wearing.
The "study" cited above is absolutely ludicrous on any statistical basis. Pure propaganda.
People who carry guns get shot!
People who die from falling out of airplanes almost always have parachutes on, the parachute must be dangerous -- or is it the helmets that those dead people were wearing.
The "study" cited above is absolutely ludicrous on any statistical basis. Pure propaganda.
b1ack5mith
Regular Member
imported post
well ill tell you what... the likelihood of a person who has a gun or knife in their hand anduses it in a threatening manner, has a higher chance of getting shot by ME
well ill tell you what... the likelihood of a person who has a gun or knife in their hand anduses it in a threatening manner, has a higher chance of getting shot by ME
b1ack5mith
Regular Member
imported post
P.S. im starting to get the impression that cheese is a troll POSING as one of us
P.S. im starting to get the impression that cheese is a troll POSING as one of us
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
imported post
cheese wrote:
Others carry because it's their belief that their armed presence will possibly deter a crime. Go, find us a study about how many crimes were deterred because the BG decided not to commit it because they saw an armed citizen. There isn't. Because of that reason alone, the study you posted is garbage. Since you can't count the number of deterred crimes, you cannot have point/counterpoint.
cheese wrote:
This forum is ABOUT carrying guns. It's what the forum was CREATED for. "OpenCarry.org" it's not about openly carrying bricks in your pocket, it's about exercising a right given to us by our forefathers. Whatever a person's motives for it are, he/she is allowed by law to carry. That does not mean they're scared of everything. I carry my gun because I *AM* afraid. I'm afraid some meth head needs some money to score his next fix and my apartment is going to look appetizing. I'm afraid that when my wife and I are leaving a restaurant with my newborn son at 10pm, someone is going to be drunk or high or just pissed off at his ex he was just beating left on him and will want to take it out on us as being random passerby.b1ack5mith wrote:P.S. im starting to get the impression that cheese is a troll POSING as one of us
--Deleted-- --Rules Violation--
Others carry because it's their belief that their armed presence will possibly deter a crime. Go, find us a study about how many crimes were deterred because the BG decided not to commit it because they saw an armed citizen. There isn't. Because of that reason alone, the study you posted is garbage. Since you can't count the number of deterred crimes, you cannot have point/counterpoint.
imported post
hey I changed my post to "some of you". clearly you feel like I attacked YOU. Seems like everytime I post what "I" think is reasonable some . So deal with it.
I am a 2 a supporter and I carry everyday.
So I belong.
hey I changed my post to "some of you". clearly you feel like I attacked YOU. Seems like everytime I post what "I" think is reasonable some . So deal with it.
I am a 2 a supporter and I carry everyday.
So I belong.
Kevin Jensen
State Researcher
imported post
cheese wrote:
cheese wrote:
cheese wrote:
Sooooo... Since some of us are , and carry a gun to feel like a man, what does that make you since you also carry everyday? :question:
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
I don't see you doing anything BUT whining. And insulting people. And being a plain jack ass.
A true Black Eye for gun owners you are.
I don't see you doing anything BUT whining. And insulting people. And being a plain jack ass.
A true Black Eye for gun owners you are.
GeneticsDave
Regular Member
imported post
And again:
And again: