Can you believe this crap?

I want to know where they get their stats from. I mean come on, "it's the law abiding citizens with guns committing homicides" WTF.


http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/20...-where-only-the-criminals-had-guns-yes-we-do/

renoglock22 said:

I want to know where they get their stats from. I mean come on, "it's the law abiding citizens with guns committing homicides" WTF.


http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/20...-where-only-the-criminals-had-guns-yes-we-do/

Click to expand...

I think its against the forum rules to answer that question.

We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns.

Click to expand...

I think I just gave myself a concussion doing this :banghead:

Well at least they live up to their names, victim. They are victims of pure unbridled ignorance and stupidity. I hate that they are Americans and I hate that I have to say that.

I posted a comment to that blog, pointing out a couple of factual errors, WITH a link so people can check out what I'm saying.
I doubt it'll get published, but at least the blog owner will know that some people know s/he is a lying sack of...

renoglock22 said:

I want to know where they get their stats from. I mean come on, "it's the law abiding citizens with guns committing homicides" WTF.

Click to expand...

It claims some stats from the FBI:

Over 50% of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals. (FBI Annual Uniform Crime Reports).

Click to expand...

Technically, almost all homicides are due to criminals. Only the justifiable ones aren't (self-defense & lawful police action). If someone is committing a homicide (non-justifiable) s/he is by definition a criminal.
Looking at the 2010 FBI Violent Crime Report,
the total murders blamed on "arguments" is 3,396, out of a total victim count of 12,996. That's 26%.
If you throw in "romantic triangle" & "brawls" it's 3665 for 28%.
They could accurately say that 2/3 of murders in 2010 were by firearm (8737 / 12946).
So taking 2/3 of 3665 is 2456, for 19%.
That's a far cry from the blogger's claim of "over 50%".
See how bad people in the US have gotten in math?

The only category that is marked as having anything to do with firearms is "sniper attack": 0.02%.
(Two one-hundredths of one percent.)

We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns.

Click to expand...

Technically true, though misleading.
100% is a fraction: 1/1.
Even if they're only referring to the current numbers of criminal homicide, & not lawful self-defense or actions by a LEO, the fraction would still be pretty large. I'm guessing better than 99%.


As an interesting aside, have a look at the graph toward the bottom of the page here.
It shows about a 200,000 drop in the number of violent crimes between 2006 & 2010.
Isn't that interesting?
Wonder what the numbers of cc licensees & legal gun owners have done during the same time.

This is rich:

sales to criminals represent 25% of the Gun Industry’s annual sales.
(Source: Expert witness report filed as part of the 1999 NAACP lawsuit vs. the Gun Industry.)

Click to expand...

Manufacturers are only allowed to sell to FFLs, aren't they?
And FFLs can't be prohibited persons or they'd lose their license, right?
But even if a manuf. could sell to a citizen, there'd have to be a background check, proving that citizen wasn't a prohibited person, right?
So I think their 'expert witness' is full of hooey.

According to Wikipedia (I know, not terribly reliable):

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world, and did so even before strict gun control legislation came into force.
Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added.)
So it's not the restrictions on freedoms of good people that's causing their firearm-related crime rate to be low.

Unsurprisingly my comment is awaiting moderation, just to make sure I'm not a big meanie.

Criminals are interested in getting money, not in killing people

Click to expand...

Most criminals are led by a desire whether it be money or otherwise, It's the pursuit of that leads to violence and sometimes fatalities. Then there are the ones who just want to kill, So as a matter of fact it does happen both ways

I don't need to go on, I'm just venting...

I know you guys feel the same way

Hardbuck90 said:

Unsurprisingly my comment is awaiting moderation, just to make sure I'm not a big meanie.

Click to expand...

yeah my comment is still awaiting moderation as well. It will never be posted..

It is the law-abiding citizens with guns, not the criminals, who are committing the majority of the gun homicides.

Click to expand...

Erm. How can you be a "law-abiding citizen" if you're breaking the law by committing homicide?

ThatOneChick said:

Erm. How can you be a "law-abiding citizen" if you're breaking the law by committing homicide?

Click to expand...

By the same logic that only "gun homicides" or "gun crimes" matter, not robbery, assault, or other murders that can and are defended against with firearms.

Damm, I ended up spending half an hour posting on their page. Everything I read was refutable and I made a bunch of posts.

They kept using England as a model nation. My mum-in-law is a Brit. When she first saw me open carrying it scared the dickens out of her. Seemed to be ingrained, almost stamped on her DNA. It took a little bit for her to get over it, but MY positive attitude has allowed her to soften.

"why do you have to wear that gun all the time?" says Mum. "To ensure that no one harms your daughter or your grandchildren, Mum."

I wrote a very long response to this article, which I think ended up in the wrong thread. I'm going to duplicate it here:

I've lived in his model country (England). The aspect his argument overlooks is the great difference in culture. In England, it is an accepted fact of life that a person will be regularly victimized by petty (and sometimes no so petty) crime. Not to mention that the regularity of muggings etc. and the acquiescence with which people are condition to respond to such victimization leaves the door wide open for "crime of opportunity" rapes and the like (much more common over there).

While it is impossible to logically disprove the notion that human life is of a sanctity which justifies such a state of affairs (that is a matter of faith, I suppose, or one's established moral framework), I will merely point out that Americans will not tolerate living in this manner. As an American who has lived over there, I can attest to this fact. Such a way of life is diametrically opposed to the fundamental American values which are ingrained in me to the very core.

When I was victimized (robbed) while living in England, I had strong feelings of dissatisfaction with my culturally-imposed inability to react by asserting and defending my rights. I soon found that these feelings were not shared by, and in fact were rather mysterious to, most Britons I knew. Most of them seemed to expect that I should accept it as an inevitable occurrence and forget about it. But, as an American, that single event in a way began to define my experience in the country and my notions of English culture -- hence my subsequent repatriation with no regrets.

I generally have little patience for those who instruct Americans to expatriate at the first hint of dissatisfaction with governmentally-imposed restrictions on common lifestyles -- for instance, gay marriage or marijuana use ("If you don't like it you can git out!") -- but when confronted with such a huge cultural mismatch as demonstrated by this self-declared "patriot", I feel inclined to point out that the man doesn't understand, appreciate, or fit in in his own country.

Instead of attempting to fundamentally alter the entire culture of the country to which he assigns his so-called "patriotism" in order to emulate a "model" nation from which we rebelled, he should just move the **** to England.

I would also like to add that people use firearms for more than just self defense. Hunting, sport shooting, collecting, etc etc come to mind. These people would try to deprive them of their hobbies, and for some a way to kill game so they can eat? Seriously? The GVA belong in an asylum where they can't hurt anybody else with their posionous ideals. smh

Did i surprise anyone that our comments are "awaiting moderation"

Does anyone know of ANY anti gun website that allows any open opinion? Even ANTI-CARRY posters can join this forum and discuss their opinion. Why? Because we operate on facts, not without bias, but still facts.

Retorts are fun (and funny), but let's see if I can respond to some of their claims with some intelligence.

"There is a country where only the criminal have guns—England." Well, then they turn right around and say citizens can own long guns after jumping through some serious hoops.

"England is a country very similar to ours." This is a logical fallacy, namely, a fault premise. Actually, we are not "very similar" to England. Sure, we both speak English, but there are some serious philosophical differences between our people. For one, the U.S. is made of adventurers and explorers and their descendants who uprooted themselves and traveled here to start a new life. England is predominantly made of those who remained behind.

"England has 75 gun homicides per year." The rate is actually 0.07 per 100,000 population, which comes to around 42. Compare that to the U.S.'s 4.8, which comes to about 14,400.

"There is only one explanation for these facts..." This is a logical fallacy, namely, begging the question. There may be just one explanation, but usually there are several, and often, many factors play a role.

"We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns." Not only is this based on a fault premise, but it's patently false, as correlation studies between changing gun control laws and changing crime rates have clearly showed.

"Criminals are interested in getting money, not in killing people." Oh, so I suppose murder is merely an "accident..."

"The NRA and gun lobby block any law that would make it harder for criminals to get guns." False. The NRA has actually supported some of the (saner) gun laws.

Bottom line: Just another flavor of anti-gun wacko.

boy, do they hate open carry!

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-open-carry-movement/

Schlitz said:

boy, do they hate open carry!

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-open-carry-movement/

Click to expand...

HAHA I got a good laugh when I read this.

"While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common. "

If it is becoming more common wouldn't that suggest that more Americans are finding it MORE socially acceptable?

KYKevin said:

HAHA I got a good laugh when I read this.

"While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common. "

If it is becoming more common wouldn't that suggest that more Americans are finding it MORE socially acceptable?

Click to expand...

Good point! You could substitute anything in there..that people at one time and many still do find "socially unacceptable".

I lived in the UK .. they wished they had their gun rights back ... now they just tax tax tax ..

Schlitz said:

boy, do they hate open carry!

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-open-carry-movement/

Click to expand...

And here they don't seem to mention having a issue with that Holder Guy selling guns to terrorists in Mexico.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sh...s-people-on-terrorist-watch-list-to-get-guns/

sudden valley gunner said:

Good point! You could substitute anything in there..that people at one time and many still do find "socially unacceptable".

Click to expand...

I believe the quote, "While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common." to be accurate. If "most" considered OC to be a socially acceptable behavior, wouldn't "most" be OC'ing (according to the 2010 U.S. Census, that would be the majority of roughly 235,000,000 adults of legal age)? I think that "most people" (I use the term most advisedly) are uncomfortable when they see an OC'er because they assume that since the OC'er is not in uniform or wearing a badge, s/he is up to no good. This is just my opinion based upon anecdotal evidence. (I have no "facts" to back it, so don't bother going there. Neither have I bothered to approach someone who appeared to be uncomfortable with my OC, to inquire if my presence with a sidearm made them uncomfortable for fear of making them even more uncomfortable). But, the very few who have inquired have gotten an honest, friendly answer, and seemed to have at least a minor attitude change about OC when we finished talking. I have no ill-will toward those who choose not to go about armed, but to recruit them as comfortably accepting of the practice for others is a matter of education and exposure. The more of us who OC in public, the greater the exposure, and (theoretically), the less uncomfortable the general public will become.

Having read the link supplied by the OP, I liked this statement - "Over 50% of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals. (FBI Annual Uniform Crime Reports)." Their assumption seems to be that criminals do not have "arguments", and that "50%" is all arguments between LACs ending in a murder by gun being committed! WTF is wrong with those NGVAC people? I didn't see a single provable fact in their entire posting. It would take a D-9 Cat and 50 yards of logging chain to pull their collective heads out. Pax...