In The U.S. Guns Are Used To Kill Or Injure 276 People DAILY

[tucsonlib]

Of those shot, 75 adults and 9 children die. Over 100,000 victims yearly.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/americas-gun-outrage-276-people-killed-or-wounded-a-day-20091109-i4gj.html?autostart=1

[slackmaster]

1. I went out to the desert with three other men yesterday to shoot old military rifles

Six pumpkins and one rotting honeydew melon bit big one, and the Mountain Empire of San Diego County was kept safe from zombies once again.

It was a lot of safe, sane, sober fun.

Of those shot, 75 adults and 9 children die

More than half of those deaths are suicides. Roll your own query at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[cognoscere]

15. Might one of those rifles have been a Mosin?

I just got one and between the flame, the blast, and a noise that let's everyone know you have a real rifle, it's a riot. Still have to go through about 800 rounds - a nasty job, but somebody has to do it. By the way, pumpkins are fun, but you should try some Tannerite. Hmmmm...maybe Tannerite in a pumpkin. Enjoy.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

20. Must be an M44 and there is a reason it only holds 5 rounds

Shoot more than that at one time and your shoulder falls off. Seriously. I can't shoot more than about 20 rounds before the flinch factor totally screws up my aim so good luck using up 800.

Great fun though.

[slackmaster]

23. Yes, one participant brought his M38 and shot well with it

The other rifles included two M1 Garands, two 8 mm Mausers, and two Lee Enfields. My Lee Enfield failed to fire. Looks like the firing pin spring is weak.

[spin]

24. On last Saturday, I also went shooting...

On son in law had his 8mm Mauser and I had the 6.5X55 Swedish Mauser that I had recently bought. He also brought his lever action 30-30 and a bolt action .22 and a semi-auto .22. We also brought along a bunch of handguns in .22, .22 mag, .38 special, .38/.357, .40 S&W and .45acp. I brought one shotgun, a 12 gauge double barrel Stoeger coach gun. My daughter and three of my grandchildren accompanied us.

The 6.5X55 Mauser was a real pleasure to shoot. Recoil was moderate and the firearm seems extremely accurate. If your enjoy shooting Mausers but find the recoil of the 8mm punishing, the Swedish Mauser might work better.

I found the coach gun a big surprise. I had been led to believe that the recoil would be severe. It was stiff but manageable with 2 3/4 #00 buck. I didn't try anything stupid like firing both barrels at the same time.

We tore up a lot of paper targets and a bunch of plastic gallon milk jugs filled with water. We had a BLAST. Boy am I glad to see ammo returning to the store shelves.

[slackmaster]

28. I like Swedish Mausers so much that I own seven of them

More than any other type of weapon. I have reloaded the 6.5 x 55 cartridge with excellent results.

[spin]

43. Question about 8 mm Mauser...

My son in law was cleaning his and wondered if a magazine extension was available.

I checked on the internet and found a 20 round extension magazine.

I found this:

Mauser 98 20 Round 8mm Detachable Magazine

Are you at all familiar with detachable mags for a Mauser? Are they worth it or just jam-a-matics.

Personally, I can see little practical value, but he felt one would be "cool". I guess that would be true if you wanted a bolt action "assault weapon".

[slackmaster]

49. If it wasn't developed by the Germans, it's probably a jam-o-matic

I am not familiar with that particular accessory.

[spin]

73. Thanks, that was my initial thought. (n/t)

[Lefty48197]

29. I love how the responses in the dungeon work to totally ignore the topic at hand.

Oh not your post Slack. You did bring up the suicide response after telling us about your guns. And notice how all your friends then jumped in and started to talk about your guns too, totally ignoring the topic at hand? Then you responded by talking about your guns and yourself ignoring the point of the thread. Nice job of hijacking the thread. Now we can all scroll down 1/4 of the way through the responses down to onehandle's response to see the next actual response to the original post. That's 1/4 of an entire DU anti-gun thread dedicated to sucking the atmosphere out of the thread and that's a victory for the gun club.

[slackmaster]

35. The topic at hand is a "Gee Whiz" statistic with no suggestion for reducing violent crime or suicide

There is no real seed for discussion.

BTW - To support the figure of "9 kids per day" you have to include 18- and 19-year olds.

[SteveM]

128. Respectfully, the OP's stuff has been posted many times...

If you want to see what come of that, then hunt through the archives. If you wish, you can discuss the OP now. The data about suicides and the promiscuous definition of children, all seen above, is a good place to start. I would add that the number of childhood deaths by "gun accident" has been declining since the mid-90s (if not earlier) and is now less than at least three other measured accidental death categories (drowning, electrocution, falls) and declining faster than those categories as well (Nat'l Safety Council). Yet, from 1995 until present the number of firearms in civilian hands has risen from about 190,000,000 to over 300,000,000 (various ests.).

[onehandle]

2. Yeah, but everybody else successfully defends themselves with guns daily.

Or shoots their wife while having sex. I forget which.

Man Accidentally Shoots Wife During Sex
http://www.livescience.com/health/081204-gun-deaths.html

[Euromutt]

126. Guess which is more newsworthy

You post that link as if it somehow proves that the event is a common occurrence. The very fact that it is news is evidence that it is not a common occurrence. That's what news is: uncommon occurrences. "Dog bites man" is not news, because it happens hundreds, possibly thousands, of times a day; "man bites dog" is news precisely because it happens so rarely.

Similarly "Man accidentally shoots wife during sex" is news because it's a rare occurrence. "Regular citizen uses gun to scare off would-be assailant; no shots fired" is not news precisely because it happens thousands of times a day.

[RKP5637]

3. Wasn't there something like 16 Billion rounds of ammunition sold in the

US over the past year? What the crap is this country trying to do, annihilate ourselves?

[cognoscere]

16. Yeah, and about 15.5 billion rounds

were used to shoot targets, clay pigeons, bottles, cans, and various game animals.

[benEzra]

21. Ever heard of, oh, target shooting? Skeet? Sporting clays? IPSC?

What do you think we do those things with? Sharp sticks?

[PavePusher]

97. If so, we're doing a remarkedly poor job of it with firearms.

Now, if you want to claim that we're out to commit national suicide by automobile, you'd have a talking point.

[ensho]

4. what a pathetic country we are

nt

[rl6214]

11. Leave

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. But don't go to Switzerland. It's like Somalia with skiing and fine watches

wait...OK, it's not like Somalia, even with all the assault rifles people keep at home. Not very immigrant-friendly, however.

Brazil, or Mexico then. Interesting cultures, fairly well industrialized, low cost of living, nightmarish murder rates...
wait.

United Kingdom then. Universal health care, you already know the language, the violent crime rate is higher than the US...
wait.

Canada or New Zealand for you, then. IF they'll let you in

[PavePusher]

98. Hey! What's wrong with Somalia?!

I got a fantastic Rolex there. Sure, the second hand is a bit jumpy....

O.K., and the skiing sucks...

But the food is.... oh wait....

[ensho]

19. I'd rather stay and fight to make it better

nt

[eqfan592]

22. Then fight to make it better,

and go after the root causes of the violence instead of wasting time and political capital on this nonsense.

[proteus_lives]

26. You're a grabber....

So your version of "making it better" includes stripping fellow citizens of their rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. What do you propose to fight with?

Hmm?

[rl6214]

114. Ok then, come up with some CONSTRUCTIVE answers

instead of just stating what a pathetic country we are.

[Xenotime]

18. Somehow we don't see the shame.

[rd_kent]

50. yup, especially when a pipe leaking in the toilet of a nuclear power plant is called a "nuke event"

and posted by someone. oh, wait, thats you!

[eqfan592]

5. Of course, a rational person would also attemp to look at...

...incidents where firearms were used in self defense or to prevent a crime (and these are often under-reported as many times just the showing of a firearms is enough to deter an attacker), but obviously for some of you, rationality is not a big problem.

[depakid]

31. Studies do and they show that having a gun around increases the risk of injury or death

Of course, talking sense to the irrationally fearful is a losing proposition. Fear trumps reason and responsible risk assessment every time.

[eqfan592]

32. lol, way to twist the numbers.

That's like saying "studies show that driving a car increases your risk of getting into a car accident" and using that alone for your "risk assessment." Indeed, fear does trump reason, but that problem is NOT on my side of the issue, but yours.

[depakid]

34. Epidemiological studies don't "twist" numbers- they analyze them

And they in fact show a substantial increase in yours or a household member's being involved in a tragedy or perpetrating a violent crime by having a gun in the house.

Not that cowardly folks will accept that- but that's what the numbers show.

[eqfan592]

41. Wow, way to miss the point completely.

Those studies are useless for the discussion at hand. Does owning a gun increase the risk of a gun related accident in your house? Of course, because if you don't have a gun you can't have an accident with it. The same goes with a car. This sort of study says nothing about any possible benefits may exist through firearm ownership. They also don't tend to differentiate between legal and illegal ownership. Obviously, a criminal who owns a firearm illegally has a much higher probability to use that firearm while committing a crime, or to be involved in a firearm related incident of some sort.

Like I said in my previous post, if you're only looking at the types of numbers that you are speaking about here, then guns are far from your biggest worry. You should be working hard for a ban on all motor vehicles. After all, the numbers do show that owning a motor vehicle substantially increase the chances of you or someone in your household being involved in a tragedy or perpetrating a violent crime while driving a vehicle.

And owning alcohol substantially increases the chances of you getting drunk.
And having a video game system substantially increases the chances of you playing video games.

Again, if you take these numbers without any sort of context, then you can draw a lot of crazy conclusions from them. Context must be applied in order to draw any useful data from them, and you've failed to do this.

[Euromutt]

90. How many times have we been over this now?

Because I've lost count.

The various studies that purport to "show"* increased risks by having a firearm in the house or carrying one on your person consistently fail to establish a causal relationship, or to ask, assuming that a causal relationship exists, which way it runs: namely, does possession of a firearm make people more likely to get shot, or does a perceived likelihood of certain people getting shot prompt these people to acquire a firearm?

The various studies co-authored by Arthur Kellermann, moreover, failed to determine whether injury caused to a member of the studied households was actually inflicted with a firearm kept in that household. Though the studies' conclusions and press releases certainly implied this was always the case, closer reading showed that it was not. In one study by Kellermann published in 1998, it turned out that in assaultive shootings studied, of the firearms involved of which the origin could be determined, over 67% were brought into the household from outside (the percentage could not be determined in Kellermann's 1993 study, because Kellermann refused to publish his research data).

This illustrates the fundamentally flawed premise upon which epidemiological research of firearms is based: to wit, that it treats firearms like a pathogen, which affects everybody exposed to it in more or less equal manner. The fact is that this is not the case. Something in the order of 90% of firearm homicides are committed by people with a history of criminal and/or violent behavior (convictions, multiple arrests, repeated police responses to domestic disturbances at that household), which indicates that people with a prior history of violent confrontational behavior are far more likely to use a firearm to inflict unlawful violence than someone with no history of such.

The notion that people "snap" without warning and use a firearm to commit violence that they would not have committed had they not had a firearm is a myth; one largely perpetuated by the gun "control" lobby, and not without success, I might add.

* - No study ever shows anything, because science cannot prove anything to be true; it can only determine what is demonstrably false and discard that. At best, studies can indicate (i.e. provide evidence) that something is true, and if enough studies by enough different people indicate the same thing, science provisionally accepts it as true.

[gorfle]

124. Wonderful post. I am bookmarking.

"...people with a prior history of violent confrontational behavior are far more likely to use a firearm to inflict unlawful violence than someone with no history of such."

And there it is in a nutshell.

[PavePusher]

99. Wait, wait....

There might be a point here.

If I have a firearm in the house.... I am much more likely to shoot a criminal breaking in than if I do not own a firearm.

What's the down-side again?

[slackmaster]

38. No they don't - Let me suggest some reading material for you

They show that people who have guns around are statistically more likely to be injured or die in a violent crime, not that the presence of a gun causes anything.

Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257798858&sr=1-1

[rl6214]

115. Then tell us why you are so irrationally fearful

Maybe we can come up with a solution to help you overcome your fear and then you will listen to reason and really understand what the risk assessment is.

[crim son]

6. Oh, who cares?

Let's just point out the other ways that people die in the U.S. and use those as an excuse to justify gun deaths and injuries. Go, Rational People! :sarcasm:

I wonder how many people die daily for lack of health insurance, and if gun nuts here think that's fine too?

[eqfan592]

7. Wow, are you 15 different shades if irrational.

Also, don't blame us when we point out your hypocrisy. It's not our fault you are incapable of seeing it for yourself and have to have it pointed out on an almost daily basis.

EDIT: Also, healthcare is something we can fix, and the solution doesn't have to include stripping people of their basic civil liberties as the drooling mouths would have us do in the case of solving the violence problem in this nation (not to mention, their drooling mouth solution wouldn't actually solve the problem).

[dhpgetsit]

9. Nobody is justifying gun violence.

Any more than you would justify vehicular homicide.
Do you advocate banning automobiles too?

[aikoaiko]

12. Legal gun owners and RKBA supporters are very concerned about gun violence

, but simply not willing to trample over individual rights to do so.

We all need to work on ways to reduce gun violence without violating civil rights.

[spin]

25. Why would Democratic "gun nuts" oppose health care for all? ...

It's possible that the Republican gun nuts may oppose the public option but they have their own forum. You might go there and ask them.

But you are talking to Democrat gun nuts here. I have been trying to get a universal healthcare system since the first Clinton presidency. It always seems to fail so the profits of the medical heathcare insurance companies can be preserved or maybe increased. I fear that is what will happen again.

The medical insurance companies are parasites, sucking the blood out of their members.

[SteveM]

129. Well, let it all hang out!...

The OP has trotted out for the forty-eleventh time this "study" which has been debunked for years, if for no other reason than it could not sustain peer-review. Then from out of right field you throw the deaths due to lack of health insurance, and suggest "gun nuts here" think that's fine. If you are serious about your argument, then be energetic enough to find out how many people die daily for lack of health insurance. I'm 61, and I hope that I don't die for that sorry-assed reason. So you can rather suspect what my answer is. You are clinging to a morally-charged but bankrupt culture war. Respectfully, give it up.

[X_Digger]

8. What a whopper!

re the FN 5.7 - "and are about the most murderous handgun it is possible to buy"

Let me see.. can't get armor piercing ammo unless you're .mil or LEO? Then it's a glorified 22magnum. Tiny hole, likely to be a 'through and through' wound.

If you did get your hands on AP ammo, shooting at un-armored targets? Same tiny hole, likely to be a through and through.

If you did get your hands on AP ammo, shooting at a cop wearing a Level IIIa vest? Wounds similar to being shot with a 22 without a vest, but more fragmentation.

Without armor in the mix, almost _any_ handgun larger than a 32 would be more 'murderous' than a 5.7.

[benEzra]

10. I would use the word "journalist" loosely, there...

given that he couldn't even be bothered to do 5 minutes of Googling to check his facts.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Now do cars.

Also, heart attacks, for those evil assault burgers we like to eat so much.

[rrneck]

17. Careful you don't

miss your fainting couch on the way down.

The article cited is a perfect example of how to use statistics for emotional impact instead of research.

[spin]

27. NINE CHILDREN DIE EVERY DAY FROM GUNS?

Bullshit.

Many of those children are gang members old enough to join the army. If they do join the army or marines, they can travel to foreign lands, meet interesting people, and kill them. They will be considered heroes while gang members the same age will be considered criminals and murderers.

Note: I support our troops and believe they are heroes. I often wonder about the wisdom of our leaders who send them into harms way.

[depakid]

30. Australians just shake their heads at things like this...

Much as they do about healthcare.

[eqfan592]

33. And I shake my head at Australia...

..and their censorship programs. If you honestly think getting rid of guns reduces violent crime rates, then you're a damned fool, and your country and a country of fools for letting a bunch of drooling mouths convince them of it.

[depakid]

36. Look at the facts- no mass shootings since the gun buyback

I can't even remember the last shooting in the Hunter region. I think it was about a year and a half ago.

As to "censorship" LOL.

I can turn on the TV and watch films without dubbing, while your society remains obsessed with and afraid of bare breasts and curse words!

Bottom line is that America's policies in this and other areas are profoundly dysfunctional- causing you to build a huge prison system, while slashing education funding- and while watching health care bankrupt millions of your citizens.

[slackmaster]

37. Only if you define "mass shooting" as an event in which more than 4 are shot within a 24-hour period

I've seen that one before.

The bottom line is that the murder rate in Australia has not changed as a result of the firearm restrictions. Those "mass" shootings were always rare events in Australia, so rare they don't contribute significantly to the overall numbers.

[depakid]

39. Science begs to differ...

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments
united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key
component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in
rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether
there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in
firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.

Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates
of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per
100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in
the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the
reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but
not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution
effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm
homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass
shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the
same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of
reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

Full study: http://www.iansa.org/regions/asiapacific/documents/AusGunLawReforms.pdf

Bottom line of course is that Australia has become a much safer and freer society than the United States- a place where people don't walk around afraid of their own shadows.

[slackmaster]

40. The point went right over your head

Firearm-related deaths (meaning suicides and criminal homicides) are a subset of suicides and homicides. If someone decides to commit a murder, can't get a firearm, and uses an edged weapon, the murder has still occurred.

If a gun ban doesn't result in a drop in the overall number of homicides and suicides, it hasn't accomplished anything useful.

ETA I doubt that many women and children have been flogged with buggy whips in the last 100 years, but women and children are still being abused. If the rate at which they are being abused has dropped, it's not because of the unavailability of buggy whips.

[depakid]

42. Apparently, you didn't read the article....

[eqfan592]

45. Apparently, you read too much into it. (nt)

[slackmaster]

47. The data show that NON-FIREARM homicides and suicides dropped at about the same rate

As firearm homicides and suicides, and total homicides and suicides.

The authors have interpreted that as lack of evidence for a "substitution" effect, i.e. people using other weapons. But the corresponding drop in non-firearm events deflates any claim that the gun restrictions contributed significantly to improvements in public safety.

Obviously there is more than one way to look at the numbers. Look at the charts and tables at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2008/1%20recorded%20crime.aspx , and it does not look like things are really getting any better in Australia over time.

[eqfan592]

44. BS

Bottom line is that the US has experienced a decline in violent crime rates as well, yet our firearms ownership rates have increased.

Any stat speaking of a decline in firearms crimes after a gun ban is pants on head retarded if your trying to prove a point about gun bans reducing the overall crime rate.

Yes, your study does show that the overall homicide rate has declined over the years since the gun ban. But does this mean that the reason the homicide rate has declined is BECAUSE of the gun ban? No, not at all, and any statistician worth their salt will tell you that. Especially when there is evidence to show that other nations, where firearms ownership has increased instead of decreased, have similarly experienced a decrease in their violent crime rates over the same span of time. This points to there being other factors linked to violent crimes beyond simple firearm ownership. It's these factors that need to be worked on, not gun ownership.

[depakid]

46. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about

You're sounding like a factless AM radio host....

[eqfan592]

48. lol, whatever buddy

This is pretty damn simple to understand for anybody willing to to think about it for a few seconds, but obviously you're not willing to do so. Thankfully, the number of people like yourself, who are more than willing to deny reality, is dwindling every day.

[depakid]

52. It is simple to understand! Less guns = a safer society and a safer household

No amount of rationalization or denialism changes that fact.

[slackmaster]

53. The more than 50 firearms in my household aren't a threat to anyone including me

A person's age and socioeconomic situation have everything to do with the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime.

Firearms account for only a small fraction of untimely deaths and injuries. Over the course of their lives, people face far greater threats from chronic disease and transportation mishaps.

[eqfan592]

54. but it's not a "fact" at all...

....and THAT's where you seem to have the major disconnect. Not even the numbers you provide bare that "fact" out, because the number you provide do show a complete picture, but a small snapshot of a small portion of the picture. And that's where the real "denialism" comes into play. You feel that this one set of numbers proves out your point. You've had it shown to you now by at least 3 DU members how it doesn't work that way, but you continue to refuse to see reason. Sorry pal, but that's all on you. There's regular ignorance, which we all have to an extent. Then there's willful ignorance, which is much worse. You fall into the later category. You refuse to accept reality, even after it's been pointed out to you several times now. At this point, the only person who can help you is yourself.

[depakid]

57. What a bizarre post

The evidence in the epidemiological studies that show a higher risk of harm in households with firearms- and in western nations countries where firearms proliferation has been reversed- or stronger regulation is in place there's less homicide and violent crime.

That's what the science shows- both here and abroad.

[rd_kent]

55. But it DOES NOT = safer society and a safer household.

Thats the whole fucking point of what everyone here is telling you. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALA does not change anything.

[depakid]

56. Of course it does- that's what all the evidence shows!

That and common sense- neither of which are persuasive to those who are cowardly or obsessive.

Basically, you're so full of it you no longer know which way is up on the issue- and find all of the excess deaths and injuries to be quite acceptable in your quest for firearms proliferation. If people would just be honest about it and admit that, I for one would have much less of a problem with you.

As it is- you're denying an obvious public health problem- that you and the policies you support are exacerbating- if not creating.

[eqfan592]

58. lol, it's not what "all the evidence shows"

But that's OK. You're going to believe what you want to believe, in spite of 3 progressives doing everything they can to point out the major logical fallacy you are perpetrating.

And really, when you call us "cowardly" and "obsessive" you're just projecting, and we can see that very clearly, so I'd stop doing so if I were you.

[depakid]

59. "in spite of 3 progressives" LOL I think I'll read the science (which I've posted many times)

And many of you ARE cowardly and obsessed!

How else to describe living in such irrational fear that you'd make yourself and your family LESS SAFE by feeling the need to keep (or carry) a gun around!

Australians don't feel that need- and don't live with such a pervading sense of fear, which I surmise is one of the reasons why the OP wrote his article for the Herald. In some respects- he's laughing at your absurdity (in a tragic sort of way).

[X_Digger]

60. "Science" by epidemiologists, not criminologists..

.. using epidemiological methodology to study a social problem, where the 'confounding factors are accounted for' by correlating your subjects with non-matching controls..

Applying scientific methodology to a false premise doesn't make good science.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=44

You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.

[depakid]

62. The epidemiological approach deals with relative risks

And the conclusion reached is that having firearms in the household increases one's and one's family's of injury or death- and that's inclusive of the instances where some outside "bad guy" is involved.

You're at more risk from the bad guy within- or kids finding the gun- not to mention having it stolen- which puts others at risk.

Want to increase the risk of harm? Bring a gun home. Want to decrease it? Remove the gun from the house.

[X_Digger]

64. Like the 14.2% in the Kellerman study?

You know, the 14.2% who were injured by a gun kept in the house?

"only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred." (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267)

[depakid]

71. You're still stuck there with your talking points on Kellerman?

:rofl:

There have been several studies since- all pointing to the same thing. Yet, like Global Warming denialists- you keep on with the obsession, as if it were some threat to manhood. Or something.

[eqfan592]

74. you keep bringing up fear, obsession and issues of manhood.

I would seriously recommend seeking some sort of help with your feelings of inadequacy, as they are the only thing that I can think of to explain THIS MUCH projection. It's to the point where you can't post without projecting now.

[depakid]

77. LOL- this is how Aussies look at you (especially Aussie women)

You're the ones who feel some need to walk around with a gun strapped on your person- or in your nightstand- or wherever. Australians took a look at that and said, hey, we can do better as a society.

And so they did.

That- that can do attitude, is something Americans lost along the way.

btw: the attitude also extends to the road toll:

[eqfan592]

80. Wow, I had no idea Australians were so arrogant!

Or maybe it's just you? And are they as irrational as well? They must be, if they thought that they were doing so much better as a society by disarming the populace. After all, it takes a real "can do" attitude to distrust your neighbor to such a large degree that you feel he can't keep a device such as a firearm in his home! What next? How about wire taps for everybody so you can always hear what they say? After all, your nations blatant disregard for civil liberties has NEVER lead other nations down a dangerous and deadly road!

And what do you say to women who also carry firearms? Do they have issues with their "manhood" as well?

Maybe it's time you stopped looking down your nose at everybody around you for 2 seconds and actually look at the so called "evidence" you've put forward, then look at the counter evidence and arguments that have been provided. We've raised legitimate questions as to the veracity of your claims, and all you've managed to do is be insulting and arrogant, and you have totally failed to address any of these issues.

Frankly, if this is what you think of as a "superior" society, then I want nothing to do with it.

[depakid]

83. Guess you never met an Aussie woman

Tough as nails- sweet & spicy as pumpkin pie.

[eqfan592]

86. I have, in fact, met an Aussie woman.

And ironically, it was at a shooting range. I seriously couldn't make this up if I tried! lol. But for the record, I didn't make mention of "aussie" women at all, but rather American women who carry, and if you guys also think they only carry because they want to prove how big of a man they are....

Anywho, you may continue now about how morally superior you Australians are. I'm just waiting for the "master race" stuff to be coming around any time now. :)

[depakid]

89. You will learn or you will not

[eqfan592]

91. ohhh, Depakid, I'm pretty sure I've learned just about all I need to about you. Thanks. :) (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. How very progressive of you. Using an ethnic slur.

n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. Bigotry from a wowser

Why am I not surprised?

For those unfamiliar with the word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser

...The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined it thus: 'Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'

As we've seen, they don't take it well when their moralizing is rejected...

[rl6214]

118. LOL- this is how Aussies look at you (especially Aussie women)

Really, is that so. Well this is how Americans look at you,(and many other parts of the world).

Where are you from?

Either we saved your ass or we kicked your ass, which on are you?

[SteveM]

132. You should write Reefer Madness adcopy (nt)

[X_Digger]

84. You and I have had this conversation multiple times..

The other sources you link to make the same mistakes..

Usually they have one of three problems, or all of the below
1) Case control correlation disconnect- between the subjects and the control groups, there are different rates of home ownership, family size, criminal history, drug use, neighborhood crime rate, neighborhood age, etc
2) Methodology- 'confounding factors' correlated independently, as though this actually were a disease where factor A has no bearing on factor B
3) Treating correlation as causation- No exploration as to _why_ a person might have a higher chance of owning a gun, such as being the victim of domestic abuse. As if that kid gunned down in a drive-by while walking in gang territory would have been at less risk had his mother not had a gun in her closet.

[eqfan592]

65. Ahhh, so simplistic. Too bad it's not reality.

Does owning a firearm increase the statistical probably of having a firearm accident? Of course it does. It's a matter of risk vs reward. It's also a matter of personal responsibility. Included in your statistics are a lot of very stupid people who likely did stupid things with their firearms and either got themselves or somebody else hurt. Again, the same can be said for cars, but to an even larger degree because so many more people are killed or injured by cars than by guns. I drive my wife and I around in a car because it's convenient, and because we don't have a public transportation option where we live for in city commuting. This is a risk I accept because the obvious rewards out weight the risks. I still take precautions, like driving a safe vehicle and wearing seat belts, but I don't cast my car to the side because a study comes out and states the obvious: that driving a car increases your risk of being in a car accident.

I look at firearms much the same way. It's risk vs reward. Keep a gun in your house and you may hurt yourself or somebody else if your careless. Don't keep one, and you may be left defenseless in a home invasion situation (which just recently happened to a neighbor of mine, who thankfully was armed and was able to defend his family from the also armed attacker in their home). Firearms also offer a great recreational opportunity, and can actually be fun for the whole family when taking common sense safety precautions.

So what it comes down to is this. You ran the risk vs reward assessment and found that, for you personally, the risks out weight the rewards. That's fine. But don't try and force your choice on the rest of us (which you can't do anyway, as you don't even live in the US). Your argument is not a good one for social policy. It's merely a good one for personal choice.

[eqfan592]

61. You haven't posted "science" at all.

You've posted one statistical report that only shows one part of a very large picture, and drawn a totally unsupported conclusion from that report. I have no idea what you think that is, but it's not science.

Here's some numbers for you, though.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html

Take a look at the violent crime rate. 2008 had the lowest recorded violent crime rate on the books, with the peak being in 1991. During that entire span, gun ownership rates increased in the united states, as did the number of states that adopted Shall Issue type concealed carry laws.

Now I'm not going to be like you and make a sweeping judgment based off of these two facts alone and state that OBVIOUSLY guns alone REDUCED the crime rate! I don't think they did. In fact, I don't think there's a very strong causal relationship between firearm ownership rates and violent crime. At best I think gun ownership has a slight positive affect on certain crimes, such as rape and home invasion (especially when combined with CCW for rape).

These numbers are out there for you to examine. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the restroom to wash off all the insecurities you've been projecting on everybody.

[depakid]

63. Yep- America's a safer place because of gun proliferation

as are women in households!

Kiowa County Man Charged In Wife’s Death
Nov 9, 2009

38-year old Mark H. Ralstin of Mullinville is charged with first degree murder in the death of his wife, 35-year old Bobbie Jo Ralstin.

http://www.wibw.com/localnews/headlines/69585062.html

[eqfan592]

66. Lol, did you even read what I said?

I said that I DIDN'T believe there was a strong causal relationship between firearms ownership and crime, or at best it was a slightly positive one, not that America is a safer place only because of firearm ownership!

And bringing up a single anecdote such as yours, when I can bring up so many that show the usefulness of firearms in the home, is a massive waste of time.

[depakid]

75. Are you daft?

or incapable of subtlety and tete a tete?

Yes, that was an anecdote- much like the anecdotes the author of the OP used to illustrate his point.

This is where the epi studies come in- they look at the entire range of uses- and determine the relative risks to a household, controlling for various factors. You know, sciency type thingys.

[eqfan592]

76. lol, "sciency type thingys?"

Very cute. Maybe you should try employing more of those "sciency type thingys" so you can understand all the concepts we've been trying to hand-hold you through this entire time.

EDIT: I also note that you totally failed to even attempt to address the issue I brought up in my post dealing with the FBI crime statistics. You remember the one. It was the post that shot some holes in your entire argument that "all" the statistics show that lower gun ownership rates lead to reduced violent crime rates. If "all" the evidence points to this, then how can you account for the decreased violent crime rates in the United States while the firearm ownership rates increases?

[depakid]

81. You keep on thinking that- and watch as the play unfolds again and again

Eventually, you'll "get" the sciency thingy.

[eqfan592]

82. Wow, nice comeback kiddo!

Yeah, you really show how you "get" the "sciency thingy" more than I do by blowing off my valid counter arguments to your arguments! That's how REAL scientists do it! They NEVER listen to dissenting opinions and they ONLY think that THEY are correct, no matter WHAT evidence is provided to show them otherwise.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, that wasn't a scientist I was thinking about. It's a religious zealot. Honest mistake, I guess. :)

[depakid]

85. Comebacks and stuff- we're not interested in that

Hopefully you aren't going to be either.

[eqfan592]

87. Umm, if you're not interested in comebacks, then why do you keep making them? :P (nt)

[depakid]

93. The facts are as they are

And yeah, I do hope that you and others will see them.

[eqfan592]

94. Spend less time hoping, and more time looking at the facts yourself.

You'll find it more productive.

[depakid]

96. Well said- and this is what we did

[eqfan592]

100. nooooo....

...lapping up the distorted "facts" of an anti-civil liberties organization without bothering to investigate the numbers for yourself is not the same thing as what I was speaking about.

I was once like you, thinking the Brady Campaign (our anti-civil liberties organization on this side of the pond) was the greatest thing ever. Then I actually started to look at the numbers, and rapidly the truth became apparent, as it may for you in time, if you are so inclined as to open yourself up to reality.

And really, if your facts were so strong and so secure, then why can't you effectively counter the fact that the US does not follow the model you propose (that more guns = higher violent crime rates, where the US has seen an increase in gun ownership rates, but a decrease in violent crime rate). A logical person would look at this, then compare it to other situations, and would likely draw the conclusion that the causes of violence are many faceted, and the cure for the problem is likely to be somewhat complex. But any rational person will not key in on a single device and say that IT'S removal will solve ALL our problems as you have.

[depakid]

102. You don't even know how disgusting you are, Do you?

Wow.

[eqfan592]

106. lol, go read my reply to your "report." It's number 105.

Then talk to me about "disgusting." Nothing more disgusting that basing public policy on bad data, then refusing see the light when it's clearly pointed out to you.

[depakid]

116. You are digustung- and we will deal with you

Actually we have dealt with you- and we'll continue.

[SteveM]

134. ...the gleam is in his eye; the riding crop is at hand... (nt)

[eqfan592]

136. Ohhh, I'm shivering now!

You'll "deal" with me! Or rather, you already have and will continue to "deal" with me! Wow, sounds like a threat almost! I have upset the master race somehow to warrant it's wrath?? :P

That's OK. I'm an optimist, and that means I think the facts will usually win out over the BS, and we have the facts on our side. ;)

[Euromutt]

107. You mean, as the anecdotes stack up?

Here's a tip regarding "sciency-type thingies": the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Anecdotes are evidence--hence the term "anecdotal evidence"--but they are not representative. You simply cannot gain a representative idea of the social costs and benefits of something by looking only at the costs. And you're simply not going to get a representative idea from examining stories in the news media, because not all events involving firearms are newsworthy. In fact, pretty much anything involving guns in which nobody gets shot is considered not newsworthy, and criminological research indicates that that includes over 90% of defensive gun uses.

You're not basing your opinion on science or logic; you're engaged in one big appeal to emotion.

[depakid]

119. You know why we win?

We live in a fine society.

You don't.

No matter what you say- no matter what you do, you're a bunch of losers

Holding on to guns.

[dairydog91]

121. Now that you've resorted to ad hominems, I think we can call this a victory...

So if an increasing gun ownership rate is associated, or at least accompanied, by a steady fall in violent crime, the answer is to ignore this fact. Got it.

[eqfan592]

122. Not JUST ignore the fact....

...but call your society a bad one and a bunch of "losers" for managing to pull this off, which is odd because if Australia really DID experience a sharp decline in violent crimes after strict firearm regulation, they'd actually be the oddball. It just normally doesn't work out that way.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. Just keep telling us how great Australia is, Dr. Pangloss

Seems it's not quite Sunnybrook Farm with assorted marsupials:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=263885

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=263879

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=263881

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=258011

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=215447

And that's just from a quick search of the Guns forum. Shall we try the same elsewhere at DU?

[PavePusher]

127. "Neener, Neener, Neener!" Really? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. And the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. And the data to be had agrees with us

Americans have been buying more guns, at the same time our violent crime and murder rates have been declining.

Parse that as you want, but the data is there.

[rd_kent]

88. I LOVE how you change the subject when confronted with ACTUAL facts. And you call others "cowardly"

yeah, right. I would put you and your nonsense on ignore but you and your posts are like a car wreck...horrific to look at but unable to look away.....

[SteveM]

133. While some 2A defenders think this is the case, I am unconvinced...

You are using an error of logic by assuming an "opposite" causation. The evidence showing that crime rates go down as a result of such factors as concealed-carry laws or increase in overall firearm ownership is not very convincing at this time. The studies suffer from some of the same post hoc ergo propter hoc traps as the gun-controllers "studies."

See, I'm a reasonable man.

[SteveM]

131. Ah, yes, the usual bathtub surface burst of insults.

You really ought to drop this hot-wired public health model; it's not even a good wind-up toy. See what the CDC has to say "interventionist" gun control/policy proposals & laws and the effect they have on lowering crime, accidents, deaths, murders, etc. Look it up.

[SteveM]

130. He has made a valuable contribution to dismantling your argument...

"More gun = more crime" is a gun-control mantra. This is not supported by the data.

[rrneck]

69. Interesting link.

As I look at tables A and B there seems to be an abrupt drop in homicide death rates using both firearms and non firearms, then the non firearm homicide rate continues to fall at about the same rate as the firearm homicide death rate.

How would enhanced regulation of firearms cause the non firearm homicide death rate to fall?

In table C the firearm homicide death rate omitting mass killings continues downward at a consistent rate before and after 1996.

In tables E the firearm suicide death rate abruptly drops then continues the previous trend while in table G the non suicide rate spikes about the same amount then begins a roughly parallel decline.

It looks like there is some other factor or factors at play beyond firearms regulation.

Edited for boogered up fingers

[eqfan592]

105. LOL! Did you ever bother to read some of the critical responses to this report???

Some of your own people rip it apart!

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full/reply#injuryprev_el_1696

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

They point out some of the obvious things that the rest of us have been trying to point out to you for some time now.

But it doesn't take a statistician to noticed that your violent crime rate was already on the decline before you even enacted the laws, and any sudden "improvement" after the new regulations were put in place are barely noticeable, statistically. I'll also take note that the firearm ownership rate has continued to increase in your nation, in spite of these laws. Yet the violent crime rate, on a whole, continues to decline.

Yep, you've got some mighty fine, "conclusive" evidence there to back up your there, buddy.

[Euromutt]

137. Four people shot AND killed, or you can't ignore Monash University

In that incident, seven people were shot, though "only" two of them died. That was in 2002, by the way. Funny how smug Australians always seem to conveniently forget that one.

[Tejas]

72. No satellites shot out've the sky before the ban either.

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

101. Has your overall crime rate gone up or down?

Oops.

[Euromutt]

138. Monash University, 2002; seven people shot

Sure, "only" two of them died, but seven people shot sounds like a "mass shooting" to me. Moreover, the shooter had five loaded handguns; he was fairly obviously intending to shoot more people, and would presumably have done had he not been overpowered while trying to switch weapons.

So that was five or sex years after the Buyback, yes?

[Euromutt]

112. In that regard, the United States provides a vital service

Whenever the white members of the Commonwealth need to feel better about themselves, they can always disparage the Americans.

Have you ever considered how insulting you'd find it if somebody said the Scandinavians or whoever shake their heads at some aspect of Australian society or public policy? Oh, and can you provide any evidence that you actually speak for all 19m+ Australians?

[rl6214]

117. And why do I care what australians think?

[Tejas]

67. So.....off-duty cops shouldn't carry?

Lock up their weapons at work? Not only confused about the LEO shooting a citizen

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/69394157.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUI

but can't find any details (much less an article) anywhere about "Michelle Valentine" getting shot to death by police.

Not that media whores would make anything up......

[Tejas]

68. Where are those numbers from..oh wait, I see..the VPC (what a surprise)

Good old reliable/truthful/honest VPC/Brady bunch.




:eyes: <----------- my surpised face

[Tejas]

70. from your prized article: "military-style assault rifles"

Hmm, wonder what "NON-military-style assault rifles" look like?


:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Let's not forget this howler:

...It doesn't help that Hasan simply walked into the Guns Galore shop in Killeen, Texas, and bought the gun he used, an FN Herstal Five-seveN, quite legally. According to the website, they sell for about $US1000 and are about the most murderous handgun it is possible to buy, designed to shred body armour and favoured by the Mexican drug cartels....

[Tejas]

120. they make it seem like that gun doesn't even need bullets!

.....which is fodder for a complete new thread.

"This gun is evil-er than that one, even though the ballistics are the same, so it must be teh bannished!!1!"


:crazy:

[SteveM]

135. If it weren't for MSM, the gun-control "movement" would have collapsed by now (nt)

[Euromutt]

78. In the US in 2006, transportation killed or injured 11,854 people DAILY

According to WISQARS, 2006 saw 47,878 transportation-related deaths (of which 43,664 motor vehicle traffic-related) and 4,279,070 transportation related injuries. Over 4,300,000 victims annually.

[Euromutt]

79. And the same years, domestic dogs killed or injured AT LEAST 851 people daily

The same year, at least 30 people were killed and 310,710 injured by domestic dogs. Note that this is by no means a full picture, because the majority of dog bites don't receive medical treatment, and thus don't make it into the WISQARS data. Also, for unclear reasons, WISQARS does not track deaths from dog attacks, so the number of fatalities are drawn from news media reports, which may not give a full picture. By some estimates, as many a million people are bitten by domestic dogs every year in the US and Canada; 60-70% of them are small children.

More worryingly, the number of fatal dog attacks appears to be on the increase. Where about a decade ago, dogs killed 18-19 people a year in North America, 2005 saw 28 deaths in the US alone, 2006 saw 30, and 2007 saw 35. Admittedly, the number dipped to 23 in 2008, but it remains to be seen whether this signals a downward trend, or is merely a blip.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. The CDC calls bullshit on the articles statistics.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[Euromutt]

108. Indeed; the figures do not correspond to CDC WISQARS data

On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those shot, about 75 adults and nine children die.

According to WISQARS, from 1999 to 2006, there were 11,960 fatal GSW victims aged 0-17. Averaged over 2921 days (8*365, +1 for a leap year), that breaks down to 4 minors/day (note that I not say "children"), less than half the number claimed in the Sydney Morning Herald article. For 2006 alone (the most recent year available), the average is ~4.3/day, still less than half the number claimed.

It's worth noting, moreover, that the figures for 2006 include 1,161 legal interventions (i.e. people shot by police, of whom 360 fatally), 20,073 instances of deliberate self-harm, and an indeterminate number of instances of citizens defending themselves or others. It's indeterminate because the CDC classes fatal self-defense shootings as "undetermined intent," and insofar as can be determined, classes nonfatal self-defense shootings under "assault."

[imdjh]

109. So which is better?

A PF-9 or a P11?

[Euromutt]

111. There's only one way to find out...

FIGHT!

Sorry, it's a reference to Harry Hill's TV Burp. You can find it on YouTube if you're interested.

[rl6214]

113. My guns haven't hurt or killed anyone...EVER

[shooter55]

123. nice broad statement to stir the anti's emotions

of those 75 adults that die everyday, how many are shot by LEO? suicide? negligent discharge? home invaders shot by homeowners? car-jackers, armed robbers, muggers or rapists that are shot by law-abiding citizens that carry? how many are gang-bangers or drug-dealers?? I'm sure several of the kids that die are from irresponsible gun storage practices from the parents, don't blame the gun, blame the parents. If a parent leaves out rat poison and the kid drinks it and dies, are we going to fight to ban rat poison??

I have a feeling a large number of these people brought it on themselves, it's not 75 law-abiding citizens that get up to go to work in the morning and end up getting shot somehow...

Well in my city, Cincinnati, we usually have about 1 shooting a night and it's typically some inner-city degenerate gang-banger or drug dealer.. No bother to me, one less degenerate I have to support with my tax dollars.