10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
Robert, I did read throught the questions, and the study does not account for legal vs illegal purchases. All that was asked of the respondant was if there was a gun in the house, if there was more than one gun, if there were handguns, long arms, or a mixture and if one or more were stored outside of lockers.

At no point was the firearm purchase history asked, nor were the serial numbers traced.

And even if it was asked, how would you account for false negatives, where the gun is actually illegal, but the respondant claimed it was legal out of fear of arrest.

Or guns stored outside of lockers, but with trigger safeties. Or in my case, I have several 22 bolt action firearms that I use for my Scout troop. The barrels and stocks are stored outside of the gun safe, but the bolts are stored inside the gun safe.

How is that reported?

Technically, once it’s disassembled, it’s not even a firearm anymore, so if that was all that I had, I could have honestly reported that I had no firearms in the house.

Likewise with my muzzloading flintlocks. That type of device is excluded from the Federal definition of a firearm. I could have a dozen in my basement, but claim ‘no firearms’ in this survey.

How would that be accounted for in the study?
Click to expand...
What you mention are not controlled in the study as a variable, you’re right, but the result still have strong implications for public policy and an individual’s knowledge of the potential risks. It’s a national sample, and it ought to be treated as such. The sample reflects households as a whole. Whether there are differences between legal and illegal owners, or whether the guns are being stored properly, are beyond the scope of this study.

LOVE! ❤️
 
LongingSoul said:
It’s striking how very, very different our countries are. I find that a most chilling image.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with it. It is the right of all US citizens to be able to own a firearm. And I’m glad to see young people are learning the proper use and handling of a firearm at a young age.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What you mention are not controlled in the study as a variable, you’re right, but the result still have strong implications for public policy and an individual’s knowledge of the potential risks. It’s a national sample, and it ought to be treated as such. The sample reflects households as a whole. Whether there are differences between legal and illegal owners, or whether the guns are being stored properly, are beyond the scope of this study.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Correlation does not equal causation. Public policy should not be based on correlation.
 
freeRadical said:
Correlation does not equal causation. Public policy should not be based on correlation.
Click to expand...
Ah, but it is! In case you are not aware of it, but cigarette smoking has never been proven to cause cancer in humans, but still, the Surgeon General has concluded that it does! How can this be?

Anybody who chooses to ignore the studies on gun ownership can put on their blindfolds if they wish, but in general, having a gun in the household will result in an additional risk that goes well beyond the need to use the weapon on an intruder. This is as assured as the additional risk of cancer that cigarette smoking causes.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Robert_Sock said:
As I mentioned to others here in this thread, go to Google and search the keywords “guns households homicide” and pick a study or article that you like. It’s an unrealistic “paranoia” to believe that they are all fraudulent.

Public health and public policy institutions rely heavily on these types of studies. No experimental methods are possible.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
I never said fraudulent. I said heavily biased, scientifically weak, and are generally limited to showing association (which has been pointed out time and again here, association does not equal causation).

It would be like saying, since several studies show that cities with strong gun control laws have the highest crime rates of the nation, gun control laws CAUSE higher crime. They are simply associations, not a proven causative factor.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
I never said fraudulent. I said heavily biased, scientifically weak, and are generally limited to showing association (which has been pointed out time and again here, association does not equal causation).

It would be like saying, since several studies show that cities with strong gun control laws have the highest crime rates of the nation, gun control laws CAUSE higher crime. They are simply associations, not a proven causative factor.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11920121&postcount=504

LOVE! ❤️
 
Robert_Sock said:
Ah, but it is! In case you are not aware of it, but cigarette smoking has never been proven to cause cancer in humans, but still, the Surgeon General has concluded that it does! How can this be?

Anybody who chooses to ignore the studies on gun ownership can put on their blindfolds if they wish, but in general, having a gun in the household will result in an additional risk that goes well beyond the need to use the weapon on an intruder. This is as assured as the additional risk of cancer that cigarette smoking causes.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
But we can also track the scientific pathways of cigarette smoking as well. The free radicals in the tobacco products are known to methylate the Onc-promotors on several places on our genome, thus causing cells to grow out of control.

Nobody’s found any scientific method for FreeRadical’s gun to jump out of its holster on its own and start mass murder.
 
I’m a late comer to this thread and haven’t had a chance to read through all of it, so if this has been addressed already, I apologize.

Taking a look at the sources in the article linked in the OP shows that it can’t be trusted. For example, Myth #8: “Vicious, violent video games” deserve more blame than guns uses a comparison between the US and Japan. Looking at the sources linked, however, shows that the chart in the article uses homicide rates from 2008, but calculates per capita video game spending for 2010 and gun ownership rates for 2005. Therefore, the resulting “statistic” is inherently flawed in that it is using three different time periods to get its three different data sets, so any correlation (assuming there is one) necessarily cannot be shown using the numbers provided. 2005 gun ownership rates says nothing about 2010 video game spending, nor 2008 homicide rates due to yearly fluctuations in such numbers. In order to even begin to have a meaningful statistic, they would need to gather all the data sets from the same year.

Another example, Myth #9 says that it is a myth to say more and more Americans are becoming gun owners. The claim is based on gun ownership expressed as a percentage of the population, 1973 being 49.1% and 2013 being about 45%. What the article fails to mention though is that the U.S. population grew by more than 50% from 1970 (203,392,031) to 2010 (308,745,538). So while the percentage number may have dropped slightly, because of the growth in population the actual number of gun owners increased by more than 39 million people. Even the government study cited by the article to support its claim regarding “myth” #1 contradicts the article’s claim with regard to “myth” #9, stating, “Per capita, the civilian gun stock has roughly doubled since 1968, from one gun per every two persons to one gun per person.”

Given the foregoing, I find it more than a little disingenuous for the article to claim that “the gun lobby’s favorite arguments are full of holes,” when a closer look at its own numbers show that its author is guilty of the very thing he ascribes to those on the other side of the debate.
 
LongingSoul said:
Oh there’s plenty of cute 7 years olds. Just not playing with real military standard weapons.
Click to expand...
It’s not military standard anything. The military use fully automatic assault weapons. That is what is called semi-automatic. It only fires once when you pull the trigger, the military ones will empty that magazine with one pull of the trigger.

Being a former Army Officer, I am very familiar with both military and civilian firearms, including the actual AK-47

Even inside, that one is completely different. The only thing similar is outward appearance.
 
It all just comes over as ‘off’ to outsiders. A year and a half ago, we were horror struck by the 20 cute little 7 and unders whose lives were ended while they innocently sat at their desks learning things to give them a future filled with potential and achieved goals and dreams. Not only is the gun culture not to be questioned, but it is to be promoted and esteemed. You must see the dissociation that is occurring here?
 
LongingSoul said:
It all just comes over as ‘off’ to outsiders.
Click to expand...
Not uncommon when people judge by external appearances alone.
Not only is the gun culture not to be questioned, but it is to be promoted and esteemed. You must see the dissociation that is occurring here?
Click to expand...
As other have stated. they are tools, nothing more. The UK has as interesting soccer culture of hooliganism. People have gotten trampled and injured for simply going to a game. But that does not stop me from kicking a ball around with my daughter either.

Should I not teach my daughter soccer for fear that she might get trampled at a game by some unruly hooligans?

Should I point wagging fingers at the UK and their dangerous ‘soccer culture’ and be glad that it doesn’t happen here in the US?

Why is teaching a child a sport so upsetting?
 
Brendan said:
It’s not military standard anything. The military use fully automatic assault weapons. That is what is called semi-automatic. It only fires once when you pull the trigger, the military ones will empty that magazine with one pull of the trigger.

Being a former Army Officer, I am very familiar with both military and civilian firearms, including the actual AK-47

Even inside, that one is completely different. The only thing similar is outward appearance.
Click to expand...
Did she actually fire it? That’s a big round (and loud indoors!) for such a little girl.
 
LongingSoul said:
Oh there’s plenty of cute 7 years olds. Just not playing with real military standard weapons.
Click to expand...
And THERE you are falling for the liberal media hype. In America you must have a special permit from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms branch to own “military standard weapons” (ie: large caliber, automatic, explosive, incendiary, tracer, etc).

Of course, our media makes every firearm out to be “military standard”, and our stupid politicians outlaw different firearms simply because they “look” scary, with no consideration of their lethality.
 
Gary_Sheldrake said:
That is correct. I wouldn’t harm anything. You may harm whatever you like if it pleases you.

As for Jesus, I have not seen an inventory of his diet. It has been suggested that He may have kept company with Essenes, and if this is true, it would give some clues as to His diet.

My children were raised and travelled the world with me without a scratch. I like to think they were protected in part by my intellect and the good sense I imparted on them. those who are not confident in their abilities in that regard may in fact feel the need for a backup such as a weapon. As for strangers entering my house, I have deadbolts and an alarm system. Unless an intruder knows you and has a particular reason to come after you, strangers usually intrude on the places most easily intruded upon.
Click to expand...
Uh, what kind of food do you suppose that Jesus, a Jew consumed at Passover.

Due to the fact that I too use my intellect and good sense I got myself out of a kidnap attempt several years ago. I would not have hesitated to use it if it got that far, however.
 
LongingSoul said:
It all just comes over as ‘off’ to outsiders. A year and a half ago, we were horror struck by the 20 cute little 7 and unders whose lives were ended while they innocently sat at their desks learning things to give them a future filled with potential and achieved goals and dreams. Not only is the gun culture not to be questioned, but it is to be promoted and esteemed. You must see the dissociation that is occurring here?
Click to expand...
Had a teacher or two been armed and ready, the horror would not have occurred or at least have been lessoned. You know that the shooter stole those guns from him mother and killed her right?
 
LongingSoul said:
When you live in a culture with a massive volume of guns in circulation, it is reasonable to feel constantly afraid and to assume the worst scenario. When you live in a culture where the number of guns in the community is minimal, it is not a fear that dominates a persons life. That doesn’t mean that we have our head in the sand like an ostrich, it just means we don’t have to live like Chicken Little.

My question there was not about wanting tourists to have access to defense guns, but in response to a poster who said that the Bill of Rights pertaining to guns could never be changed because it is a *‘God given’ right to bear arms for private self defense. I ask then if it is more than just a political/civil right that promotes the common good of the community… and actually is *a universal god given human right that by nature would apply to all people regardless of their qualities and capacities, why should it be limited to only a certain type of people? ie. American national/mentally competant/financially competant etc. etc. What other god given universal human rights are so limited to a small section of humanity deeming by default that many other people aren’t human.

The right to security of person is a universal god given right that applies to everyone. The right to bear arms for private defense is a political/civil right that anticipates the government turning the US defense forces on civilians and anticipates that foreign Kings are likely to come and enforce foreign rule over US citizens. In anticipation of those events, it is legitimate to enforce the founding principle of the right to bear arms for a civil militia for the common good. If those scenarios envisaged by the founders are remote… the principle is defunct in favour of laws that truly serve the ‘general welfare’ (common good) as envisaged by the founders.
Click to expand...
When you have to resort to speculation and ad hominem you know that you have lost the argument don’t you? How am I supposed to deal with you accusations about feeling constantly afraid? Or that I assume the worst scenario? Did I tell you that? Or are you once again making things up in your head. Chicken little INDEED. I deal with ad hominem by ignoring it except to point out that you lost this debate last summer. I pointed out that women are much more likely to be raped in AU and I cannot remember which major city in your country that has a major drive by shooting problem and I have no more time to research and research just to have it ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top