carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Put 1000 people in a room with bricks, how many die by bricks? So what is the common denominator? Guns, Bricks, or PEOPLE? Put 1,000 people in a room without bricks, how many die by bricks? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Put 1000 people in a room with bricks, how many die by bricks? So what is the common denominator? Guns, Bricks, or PEOPLE? people with unregulated weapons? Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Don't have to believe me, the people at Harvard University are smarter than me, and probably you too. . . . just my opinion . . . but appeals to authority look bad. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 "Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" So your point is technically correct, less could die by gun, but more would die in total. Groovy. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 It's far more difficult to strangle, stab or beat someone to death than it is to pull a trigger. If we can make it harder for people to murder by enacting some common-sense gun reduction laws, I'm all for it. Link to comment
ZRod Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 "Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" So your point is technically correct, less could die by gun, but more would die in total. Groovy. I'm glad someone brought that up, it ticks me off when people like Piers Morgan get on their agenda and try to spin the statistics. Of course murder and violent crime are going to be higher in a country with a population of 300 million compared to 62 million! That's why you have to give statistics some context or they're just useless numbers. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 If only there were "common sense" in any law, that wouldn't end up in the "make them all go away" strategy you elluded to earlier, then you would almost have a point. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 If only there were "common sense" in any law, that wouldn't end up in the "make them all go away" strategy you elluded to earlier, then you would almost have a point. So you're saying the 2nd Amendment has no merit? Interesting. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 If only there were "common sense" in any law, that wouldn't end up in the "make them all go away" strategy you elluded to earlier, then you would almost have a point. So you're saying the 2nd Amendment has no merit? Interesting. ???? No, exactly the opposite. Pointing out the failed logic in combining the term "common sense" with gun control. It is what it is, an all out attack on the 2nd amendment. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 "almost have a point" was a thin attempt at saying I can understand that a reasonable person could hold your views, I just don't agree. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 It is what it is, an all out attack on the 2nd amendment. This is how radicalized the American right has become. It'd be even funnier if I wasn't concerned about the consequences down the road. Link to comment
ZRod Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 It is what it is, an all out attack on the 2nd amendment. This is how radicalized the American right has become. It'd be even funnier if I wasn't concerned about the consequences down the road. I'm almost with the NRA on some gun issues, but even I realize this is FAR from an all out attack on the 2nd amendment. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 who the hell wants to get rid of all guns? who honestly believes that is the goal? no one wants to prevent people from hunting or even self-protection. how does universal background checks or limiting clip capacity threaten to take away all guns? Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 who the hell wants to get rid of all guns? who honestly believes that is the goal? no one wants to prevent people from hunting or even self-protection. how does universal background checks or limiting clip capacity threaten to take away all guns? knapp said it a couple pages ago Link to comment
Junior Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Don't have to believe me, the people at Harvard University are smarter than me, and probably you too. Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases. Ok, you have successfully cited ONE study. Now I'll cite many. http://www.nejm.org/...199310073291506 During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. http://www.ncbi.nlm....j00266-0071.pdf Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm...._Article_76.pdf The increased rate of suicide and homicide in states with high gun levels was accounted for primarily by significantly elevated firearm suicide and firearm homicide rates. Unintentional firearm death rates were also increased in states with more guns. At the regional level, qualitatively similar results were obtained. http://www.ncbi.nlm...._Article_76.pdf Between 1988 and 1997, the suicide, homicide, and unintentionalfirearm death rates among women were disproportionately higher in states where guns were more prevalent. The elevated rates of violent death in states with more guns was not entirely explained by a state’s poverty or urbanization and was driven primarily by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence. http://archinte.jama...rticleid=623145 Household use of illicit drugs, domestic violence, and readily available firearms place women at particularly high risk of homicide at the hands of a spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a close relative. I could literally do this all day long. How many peer reviewed studies can you find to support your stance? Link to comment
Recommended Posts