Posted on 01/27/2015 11:58:18 AM PST by longtermmemmory
...
Tragically, a record number of Americans subscribe to some version of this mythology, with 63 percent (67 percent of men polled and 58 percent of women) believing that guns truly do make them safer. The public’s confidence in firearms, however, is woefully misguided: The evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns leave everybody less safe, including their owners.
... That is, in the absence of guns, would-be criminals are not switching to knives or some other weapons to carry out homicide. These results are supported by a host of previous studies that illustrate that guns increase the rate of homicides.
The evidence against firearm ownership becomes even stronger when suicides and accidents are included in the analysis—guns make both much more likely and more fatal. There can be nothing closer to a consensus in the gun debate than this point. Indeed, every single case-control study ever conducted in the United States has found that gun ownership is a strong risk factor for suicide, even after adjusting for aggregate-level measures of suicidality such as mental illness, alcoholism, poverty, and so on.
One might accept that firearms are dangerous and that they substantially elevate the risk of homicide, suicide, and fatal accidents, but still believe that policies regulating gun ownership are ineffective—criminals, after all, won’t follow them. However, another recent study from May of 2013 analyzed the impact of state firearm laws on firearm-related fatalities. It found that the most gun-restrictive states have significantly fewer firearm fatalities than the states with the least restrictive laws. The results are in line with previous academic studies tackling the same question.
... The costs of gun ownership unequivocally outweigh the benefits. ....
In light of the overwhelming evidence that guns are a public health threat,...
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Roger that. The problem, of course, is they have a warped sense of good and evil, as in they don’t think they exist (except for conservatives, of course.)
I think they have this attitude because they identify with evil (and in reality ARE evil) and think they’re capable of doing the things the evil do, and if that’s the case, they don’t want to get shot doing those things. So, in essence, they want everybody disarmed because of “enlightened self-interest.”
The gun control think tanks are working hard to figure out ways to reduce that huge number of firearms. UN treaties, requiring all firearm to have biometric smart triggers (the old ones that would be destroyed by the conversion, well destroy them for the public safety), making certain features illegal and subject to confiscation (too large a magazine or capable of being fitted with a large magazine), etc. Making people fear firearms and give them up or confiscating and destroying firearms for people deemed a threat to themselves (when it is legal to do medically assisted suicide in some states) is all part of the plan.
And there is no real statistical way to factor in defensive uses of firearms that do not require firing the weapon. Libs like to pretend there is no such thing.
the auther...” manages the evaluation of poverty-reduction projects in Nairobi, Kenya. “
sort of a community organizer of sorts....from Obie’s “home country of kenya”
One huge flaw in this analysis is that they are comparing stats for law abiding gun owners and law abiding non-gun owners, while completely ignoring those who don’t obey the law.
The funny part is that the libs still think that they can eliminate this right with the simple stroke of a pen, and no further consequences.
Most of us know that the good guy with a gun does not necessarily equate to the nice guy with a gun.
beyond the stats of firearms accidents and those with mental issues cited in the article, the fact remains as Wayne La Pierre has stated; the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun................ My point about big government being bad for your health is in line with La Pierre of which I wholly subscribe.
If guns don’t make you safer, let’s do cops a favor and disarm them.
Can’t have people protecting themselves from the “private” wing of the “progressive” movement.
Imagine all the surprised "Moms" facing firing squads or lamp posts, because they don't really understand the concept of "treason."
That's just a bald faced lie.
“Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.” -Cesare Beccaria
Gun control is an idea that falls squarely against logic. As Beccaria notes in in the latter part of this passage, not having a weapon is worse than having one. .00001 chance of defending yourself is still better than .000000... The fact is that the arguments for gun control largely rest on fabrications and the motive of those who advocate for it is nothing less than treason, regardless of the lies they spew to cover that up.
The “studies” that he cites simply lie with statistics. The international “study” only looks at cherry picked “developed countries” and then only at firearms related homicides.
It is selection bias on its face.
The domestic study that he cites comes up with 1.1 percent increase in firearm homicide rate for a 1 percent increase in firearm ownership using a proxy for firearm ownership and “controlling” for numerous other factors.
The “public health” gun studies have been notoriously biased and unprofessional. I would like to see what their “proxy” is, and how they controlled for “confounding factors”.
You have to pay for the study. The author is a Physician, not a criminologist.
Used to be I’d actually try and reason with people like this. Then I realized facts were the last thing they were interested in.
So now I simply say, “If you think I shouldn’t have guns, feel free to put your life where your mouth is at anytime.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.