or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › What the world needs now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What the world needs now - Page 2

post #21 of 24
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by dh2lotusdeb
That is called bias. Sorta like 'research' where you select your conclusion, and then go find data to support it. [/B]
Everything that comes out of your mouth is direct from the NRA and the 'pro-gun' lobby so what's your point? Or, aren't your sources biased. : Anyone who comes out with a different opinion then the one you want to hear is 'biased' though right?

In addition, lets see your back up information, you spout much but provide very little in the way of actual data. When you do, it's refuted. Oh, wait, that's right, those that disagree with the NRA are not credible.

There have been numerous studies done at Universities around the Globe regarding Hand Guns and violence. I'm sure you are aware of that. I am sure you are also aware of the most interesting statistic. You and your family are much more likely to be killed by your guns than some un-knowm assailant. (Sleep tight.)

Quote:
Hope you have a big yard, a strong back, and lot of spare shovels ... you're gonna need them.
I think your the one who needs a 'shovel' my friend.

Amazingly, I've been alive for almost 40 years and have yet to be killed, in spite of the fact that I don't carry a fire arm

I have lived in some of the most dangerous parts of various cities, and I'm still around???

I have many more links and information to provide you with when you provide your 'back up' information.

And, by the way this is about 'conceal and carry' legislation, not 'banning all guns' so lets try not to panic here.
post #23 of 24
Quote:
8 independant places that expressed intense disdain for Moore's work, the NRA not being amongst them.
You call those 'independant' sources? :LOL

Quote:
So, where are all these pro-gun lobby things I'm quoting and that have been refuted? They don't exist. Why? Sorry, the _actual research_ is one-sided, and it doesn't look good for the anti-gun position.
Oh, but they do exist... Allow me to illustrate once again. Perhaps you won't like the fact that I've provided information from 'consolidated' sources. My apologies in advance.

And, talk about BS studies see here..
Scientific studies...NOT!


Also, DH2 you'd best go back and re-read. YOUR information has been refuted and very credibly so. Also, John Lott is an embarassment to your cause. I think I'd find a new hero if I were you.

Quote:
"Lott, however, has come under intense recent criticism for his work. First, Julian Sanchez, a pro-gun, libertarian Cato Institute researcher, found evidence that Lott had created a fictitious soulmate named Mary Rosh to glowingly review his work on the Internet. Second, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren reported that he had investigated Lott's claim of a 1997 survey which found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack," and found no evidence of the survey's existence."

If things weren't already bad enough for Lott and his supporters, they've just gotten worse. The new Brookings Institution Press book, a collection of new research findings on gun policy, contains an article by two law professors who have reworked the Lott data and come up with conclusions that contradict him. The article, written by professors John Donohue of Stanford Law School and Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, summarize that "if anything there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it."
And, regarding Gary Klecks numbers...

Quote:
Gun control advocates say firearms are used 108,000 times a year for self-defense. Gun control opponents say the figure is as high as 2.5 million times a year.

Whom do you believe?
The 108,000 figure comes from the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey, the nation’s most comprehensive survey of victims. But gun control opponents discount the number, arguing that many people who used guns to protect themselves successfully don’t consider themselves victims and thus are not counted by the study.
They prefer the 2.5 million estimate from Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who surveyed 5,000 households and examined other studies. Gun control advocates reject Kleck’s conclusions because, they say, his sample size was too small to be accurate.
ABC News Story

I think I'd re-think my 2.5 million figure DH2. Based on 'surveys' of 5,000 people?

Also, we both know that If the 108,000 - 2.5 million people who defended themselves last year did not have a gun in tow, they would not necessarilly have been murdered regardless. They may have been robbed, had a purse stolen, been mooned?? We don't know, do we? So, you should correct your # of dead figures you tossed out previously to AmyMama.

Multiple sources of information are quoted here

The Centers for Disease Control
Journal of Trauma
American Journal of Public Health
U.S. Department of Justice
Injury Prevention
University of Chicago
ATF report, Crime Gun Trace Analysis
Johns Hopkins University

Also, I'm sure you know this...?

Quote:
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Journal of Trauma, 1998
K, enough hogging the threads, I've got to get outta here man!



DH2, we can ramble till were in the face. It will do no good. So I leave you in peace and harmony to polish your Gun collection

post #24 of 24
OK...if someone is so irresponsible and not-in-control-of-themselves that they WOULD go settle an arguement with a gun, what's to stop them from tucking it in their waistband, permit or not? I hope that isn't what you'd do if you were handed a gun. Murderers are generally NOT law-abiding citizens. And many criminals, particularly murderers and sexual predators, don't listen to 'reason.' They don't care if you feel sorry for them, but the threat of their life ending with a squeeze of the trigger MIGHT just be enough to convince them to leave. If more of these violent, unreasonable, mentally unstable criminals start turning up dead, maybe the others will think twice before accosting you, because there is a chance that you might be carrying a gun. If you don't wish to protect yourself, fine, but don't restrict the right of your fellowperson to. Regardless of what you might believe, the world IS a dangerous, unpredictable place. To carry a gun is not to show irrational fear, but to demonstrate that you realize the inherent risks of living and choose to tilt the odds in your favor, like buckling your seatbelt. If you do choose to carry, though, pursue training, and become very proficient. Maybe you'll never need it, I hope you don't, but if the time comes, you'll stand a better chance of living to tell about it.

I will say again, B4C was designed as an award-winning propaganda piece. I will also say that criminals like breaking laws. How do DC, NYC, LA, and Chicago have so many murders with such strict gun control? The bad guys get guns anyway. Why should you be legislatively disadvantaged?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › What the world needs now