DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on June 13, 2016, 01:49:07 PM
-
http://www.guns.com/2016/02/25/vox-the-state-of-gun-violence-in-the-us-explained-in-18-charts-video/
-
With the added fact that upwards of 10x more lives are saved by the use of a gun, than those taken by acts of violence. But let's not let that fact get in the way of the opportunity to try and score political points on top of a horrific tragedy
-
With the added fact that upwards of 10x more lives are saved by the use of a gun
=================================================
Yeah, sure, you proved that one, didn't you?
Pulled it out of your nether orifice, didn't you?
-
Yea, I did...prove it. It's called math
FBI generates homicides by gun, at around 9k to 11k (that includes all forms of firearms, including rifles.) So, will go with 10k, as in roughly 10,000 homicides a year, because of a gun
now
The studies regarding the use of a firearm in defending onself use equations generated from questionaires sent to those who have reported the use of a firearm in defending themselves from imminent danger/death
The rosiest #'s that researchers reference in the amount of lives saved by the use of a firearm was over 2 million annually (Kleck study). That's 200 lives saved by a gun to just one taken
Now, the left came out of the wordwork, claiming those numbers couldn't be accurate, so a gun control reseracher by the name of David Hemmingway proclaimed that the Kleck study had too many "false positives". So, the left produced their own study, advocated by Hemmingway, referred to as the National Crime Victimization Survey, that knocked that # down to about 100,000. That's a ratio of 10:1
Other social Scientists have concluded a more accurate figure of between 250k - 370k of lives saved by the use or even brandishing of a gun. So, we'll pick a middle number...300,000. That makes the ratio of lives saved by the use of a gun to those taken by the use of a gun to 30:1
So, in other words, using the left's most one sided research, the lives saved in this country, to those taken in a homicide is ....... drum roll.......10 to 1
Not to mention, hardly anything I simply pulled out of thin ear. Sorry to burst that bubble, but facts, just aren't your best friend, whenver this topic comes up
-
With the added fact that upwards of 10x more lives are saved by the use of a gun
=================================================
Yeah, sure, you proved that one, didn't you?
Pulled it out of your nether orifice, didn't you?
How about in the Orlando case?
This guy shot the croud unimpeded until one policeman with one weapon showed up and converted this massacre into a hostage siege.
If that one weapon had been there ten minutes later we would be talking about a much higher number of casualties.
If that one weapon had been there ten minutes sooner , perhaps we would be discussing half as many .
Why are there great gatherings of unarmed persons at all?
Isn't this the USA?
Why do we put up with this needless risk?
-
Most of the people you allege were saved by guns, were threatened by guns in the first place.
You are saying that the only defense against guns is more guns.
That makes no sense.
There are numerous gun violence problems in this country, as the article posted states. Various measures are needed,and more guns is not a solution.
-
I'm saying no such thing. I'm merely pointing out a fact that in this country, a minimum of 10 lives are saved by a gun to one life murdered with a gun. You're the one trying to speculate. Nor is the solution "more guns". Based on the facts and Constitution however, one of worst things we can do is to make it even harder for law abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment right.
One more time, this isn't about some mandatory push that everyone must be armed. It's about allowing those who have gone that extra level of responsibility, in obtaining their CCW, the freedom to allow better access to places that only law abiding citizens would adhere to in the 1st place. A "gun free zone" doesn't stop a terrorist or thug, from entering it with a gun. It only stops the law abiding
-
Counting those killed with guns is easy. You have a corpse with a bullet in it. It is not moving and it is easy to count.
Counting ten people who CLAIM to have been saved by a gun is much more difficult. There is not any surefire way to determine the nature of the threat. Perhaps the threatening gun was not even loaded.
There is no database of people who weee saved by guns. If there were, its accuracy7 would be questionable, much more than any database of gun victims.
-
So now your opinion is that they are all lying? That's referred to as a false positive, that David Hemmingway was complaining about in the Kleck study. So, taking into account those false postives, HIS numbers, (the fella that pushes gun control) still demonstrated a 10:1 ratio.
Sorry, like I said, facts just aren't your best friend, when this topic comes up
-
You are saying that the only defense against guns is more guns. That makes no sense.
If it makes no sense....
then why do Obama, Hillary, & all the wealthy elite ass-hole Hollywood crowd hire armed body-guards?
-
(http://s32.postimg.org/w8y44puud/NRA.jpg)
-
Boy, ain't that the truth
But.....it does allow the Media to focus on that, and not on the ongoing Clinton corruption revelations
-
Most of the people you allege were saved by guns, were threatened by guns in the first place.
You are saying that the only defense against guns is more guns.
That makes no sense.
There are numerous gun violence problems in this country, as the article posted states. Various measures are needed,and more guns is not a solution.
How exactly does this make no sense?
In Orlando the gunman worked as quickly as he could and continued until a man with a gun confronted him.
That slowed him and created a hostage situation.
Suppose that gun had not been there , that gun wielded by a rescuer , would anyone be happier because there were fewer guns ?
More guns in responsible hands is definitely something we can do. Thereby shortening the interval in which a murderer can depend on being uninterrupted.
-
There are numerous gun violence problems in this country, as the article posted states. Various measures are needed,and more guns is not a solution.
How exactly does this make no sense?
In Orlando the gunman worked as quickly as he could and continued until a man with a gun confronted him.
That slowed him and created a hostage situation.
Suppose that gun had not been there , that gun wielded by a rescuer , would anyone be happier because there were fewer guns ?
More guns in responsible hands is definitely something we can do. Thereby shortening the interval in which a murderer can depend on being uninterrupted.
That's EXACTLY at issue. This has never been about "too many guns", or that the solution is more guns. It's about who has them. The more law abiding good guys that have them, the safer we will be.
Bad guys are going to get guns, be it legally or illegally. Bad guys aren't going to adhere to a "Gun Free Zone" sign or mandate. So, until the Government can do a better job at screening folks like this from having legal access guns, the best scenario that can realistically be implemented, is to allow those legal forearm owners, who have gone that extra level of training training to obtain their CCW, to have access to places that are presently so-called gun free zones
-
Wrong Diner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE
-
Bad guys rarely have guns in Japan. It is quite hard to get a gun in Hawaii without going through a security process.
\
It seems that Australians have made it hard to get guns.
-
Doesn't matter what Austrailia does......they don't have a 2nd Amendment
-
Wrong Diner
A lot of venues do encourage off duty officers to carry firearms .
One benefit is that these officers are seldom vulnerable to revenge attack.
Another benefit is a small population of dependable , responsible and well trained persons having concealed firearms in almost every population of civilians.
Too small a number tho...
It would be better if there were more responsible people with concealed carry .
Enough to complicate planning for attacks like Orlando or Mumbai.
How many is that, 10% 25%?
I really feel this a situation where the more the merrier.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
I have removed the Knife and arson killings from this list.
The people who say that Port Arthur ended shooting in Australia are wrong.
There has been no massacre as large as Port Arthur since 1996 but there was no massacre that large for seventy years before either.
Port Arthur massacre 28 April 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania 35 24 A spree shooting by Martin Bryant
Snowtown murders August 1992 – May 1999 Snowtown, South Australia 12
Monash University Shooting 21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria 2 A shooting spree by Huan Yun Xiang,
2011 Hectorville siege 29 April 2011 Hectorville, South Australia 3
Hunt family murders 9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales 5 0 Murder-suicide shooting spree
Logan shooting 22 October 2014 Logan, Victoria 3
-
We certainly beat them in mass shootings by a very large margin.
-
And for every life lost in a shooting, mass or otherwise, a minimum of 10 lives are saved....at least in this country
-
SIRS....since this thread is titled "the facts"....here are some FACTS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
-
We certainly beat them in mass shootings by a very large margin.
Is it exactly the margin by which we are larger?
If so the "improvement " over us means nothing.
-
Since Australia restricted guns, murders deceased by 72%
In the US in the same period, they decreased by 50%
-
And...........? Still doesn't refute the fact more lives are saved than taken by gun violence
-
can`t speak for austrailia but japan is another issue the need for a gun is alot less in japan . but crime is almost part of the culture over there but not as americans think. the gangs there understand how not to abuse the people to the point they cannot support themselves . so things are alot subtle in the illegal world over there. the violence are more control so it`ll cause very little public response. most gangs tend to be community protectors till in-fighting made them collapse.
-
Yea, I did...prove it. It's called math
FBI generates homicides by gun, at around 9k to 11k (that includes all forms of firearms, including rifles.) So, will go with 10k, as in roughly 10,000 homicides a year, because of a gun
now
The studies regarding the use of a firearm in defending onself use equations generated from questionaires sent to those who have reported the use of a firearm in defending themselves from imminent danger/death
The rosiest #'s that researchers reference in the amount of lives saved by the use of a firearm was over 2 million annually (Kleck study). That's 200 lives saved by a gun to just one taken
Now, the left came out of the wordwork, claiming those numbers couldn't be accurate, so a gun control reseracher by the name of David Hemmingway proclaimed that the Kleck study had too many "false positives". So, the left produced their own study, advocated by Hemmingway, referred to as the National Crime Victimization Survey, that knocked that # down to about 100,000. That's a ratio of 10:1
Other social Scientists have concluded a more accurate figure of between 250k - 370k of lives saved by the use or even brandishing of a gun. So, we'll pick a middle number...300,000. That makes the ratio of lives saved by the use of a gun to those taken by the use of a gun to 30:1
So, in other words, using the left's most one sided research, the lives saved in this country, to those taken in a homicide is ....... drum roll.......10 to 1
Not to mention, hardly anything I simply pulled out of thin ear. Sorry to burst that bubble, but facts, just aren't your best friend, whenver this topic comes up
Perfect example of lives saved with a gun (https://youtu.be/G0SloK6pB4g)