Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[OKTexas]

Really, did you look at how they came up with the numbers, first they only used numbers from 3 cities and only the numbers where there was an injury or death. There are hunders of thousands if not millions of instances where a firearm is used for home defense where there are no injuries and their myth ingnores them. Just more proof that when you control the input you can make stats say anything you want. Care to try again.

I am not going to say these figures are perfect because I haven't looked at the methodology - BUT, I have read research with excellent peer-reviewed statistical methodology conducted at Harvard - and the conclusions were broadly similar.

I suggest reading some of the Harvard research before attacking these too harshly.

These were obviously thrown together by a hack trying to push an agenda, you can't come up with accurate numbers looking at only 626 cases that had injuries and come up with the conclusions represented in the article. I'm just calling BS when I see it and this is BS. EDIT: I simply took his numbers and applied them to the country as a whole to show how far out they were.

 

[Saigon]

These were obviously thrown together by a hack trying to push an agenda, you can't come up with accurate numbers looking at only 626 cases that had injuries and come up with the conclusions represented in the article. I'm just calling BS when I see it and this is BS.

I do agree that the sample size is too small to draw great conclusions. You are right there....if your figures are correct, anyway!

However, the Harvard study used a far wider scope of data, and draws roughly similar conclusions.

 

[Pogo]

Talk about a bunch of bull shit, the author can't even address conflicting stats with reality so I'm only going to point out one that jumped out at me but there are many more.

From your link:

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Also from your link:

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Using their stats, if 1% (3.2 million) of the population used a gun in self defense and for every such use there are 7 assaults or murders, that would be 22.4 million assaults or murders, 11 suicides, that would be 35.2 million suicides and 4 accidents would equal 12.8 million accidents.

According to the CDC there are 11,032 homicides and 55,534 assaults by firearms which is no where close to the claimed 22.4 million.
According to the CDC there are only 19,392 gun suicides in the US no where close to the 35.2 million your author claims with his cherry picked stats.
The latest data I could find from the CDC on accident was for 1998 was about 15,000 once again no where close to the 12.8 million the author would indicate.

So your myths seem to myths themselves, care to try again?

Oh, stop it!!!

MotherJones said it so it's FACT

I hate that this is so predictable -- I hate predictability-- but I just knew when I put this up that someone would be in to poison the well. Actually I'm impressed that it took this long. Anyway for anyone who chooses to actually read the article, all those points are linked to documentation from the NIH and medical studies like this and so on.

I've got to say, I've raised this issue before, both here and other boards, and it's always striking that the responses are so emotionally-based, as if bringing up the gun culture is tantamount to insulting someone's mother. Some people really object to the term "gun fetish", and object on an irrationally distraught level, but all this emotionalism just affirms that description. A fetish is gut-level emotional.

There's no reason we can't parse out these points rationally without emotional meltdown. It's something we need to do. And we've been putting it off. Those who insist on continuing to put it off with ad hominem or poisoning the well, rather than confronting the issues head-on, just prolong the problem. The primary problem being one of understanding.

(/rant off)

 

[Pogo]

Using their stats, if 1% (3.2 million) of the population used a gun in self defense and for every such use there are 7 assaults or murders, that would be 22.4 million assaults or murders, 11 suicides, that would be 35.2 million suicides and 4 accidents would equal 12.8 million accidents.

No - because not all acts of self defense occur "in the home".

Two different stats there.

Really, did you look at how they came up with the numbers, first they only used numbers from 3 cities and only the numbers where there was an injury or death. There are hunders of thousands if not millions of instances where a firearm is used for home defense where there are no injuries and their myth ingnores them. Just more proof that when you control the input you can make stats say anything you want. Care to try again.

I'm completely stumped as to where you're getting these numbers. What I see under Methodology is here:
" Data come from two national random digit dial surveys conducted by Fact Finders, Inc in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1999. The samples comprise, respectively, 1905 and 2521 adults living in the 50 states." That's 4426 by my count.

"Three cities"?

I have no idea what link you're reading but slow down. It ain't a race.

 

[OKTexas]

Talk about a bunch of bull shit, the author can't even address conflicting stats with reality so I'm only going to point out one that jumped out at me but there are many more.

From your link:

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Also from your link:

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Using their stats, if 1% (3.2 million) of the population used a gun in self defense and for every such use there are 7 assaults or murders, that would be 22.4 million assaults or murders, 11 suicides, that would be 35.2 million suicides and 4 accidents would equal 12.8 million accidents.

According to the CDC there are 11,032 homicides and 55,534 assaults by firearms which is no where close to the claimed 22.4 million.
According to the CDC there are only 19,392 gun suicides in the US no where close to the 35.2 million your author claims with his cherry picked stats.
The latest data I could find from the CDC on accident was for 1998 was about 15,000 once again no where close to the 12.8 million the author would indicate.

So your myths seem to myths themselves, care to try again?

Oh, stop it!!!

MotherJones said it so it's FACT

I hate that this is so predictable -- I hate predictability-- but I just knew when I put this up that someone would be in to poison the well. Actually I'm impressed that it took this long. Anyway for anyone who chooses to actually read the article, all those points are linked to documentation from the NIH and medical studies like this and so on.

I've got to say, I've raised this issue before, both here and other boards, and it's always striking that the responses are so emotionally-based, as if bringing up the gun culture is tantamount to insulting someone's mother. Some people really object to the term "gun fetish", and object on an irrationally distraught level, but all this emotionalism just affirms that description. A fetish is gut-level emotional.

There's no reason we can't parse out these points rationally without emotional meltdown. It's something we need to do. And we've been putting it off. Those who insist on continuing to put it off with ad hominem or poisoning the well, rather than confronting the issues head-on, just prolong the problem. The primary problem being one of understanding.

(/rant off)

Really, point out where there was emotion in my response, I simply used numbers you provided, and they don't add up or were contrived with selective data.

 

[OKTexas]

No - because not all acts of self defense occur "in the home".

Two different stats there.

Really, did you look at how they came up with the numbers, first they only used numbers from 3 cities and only the numbers where there was an injury or death. There are hunders of thousands if not millions of instances where a firearm is used for home defense where there are no injuries and their myth ingnores them. Just more proof that when you control the input you can make stats say anything you want. Care to try again.

I'm completely stumped as to where you're getting these numbers. What I see under Methodology is here:
" Data come from two national random digit dial surveys conducted by Fact Finders, Inc in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1999. The samples comprise, respectively, 1905 and 2521 adults living in the 50 states." That's 4426 by my count.

"Three cities"?

I have no idea what link you're reading but slow down. It ain't a race.

All you have to do is what I did. Go to the link provided in the link to your article and it take you here:

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in - PubMed Mobile

And it says: METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Any questions?

 

[Saigon]

I think you are talking at cross-purposes - there are several studies listed, with different methodology.

Hence, I think you both have valid points.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, stop it!!!

MotherJones said it so it's FACT

I hate that this is so predictable -- I hate predictability-- but I just knew when I put this up that someone would be in to poison the well. Actually I'm impressed that it took this long. Anyway for anyone who chooses to actually read the article, all those points are linked to documentation from the NIH and medical studies like this and so on.

I've got to say, I've raised this issue before, both here and other boards, and it's always striking that the responses are so emotionally-based, as if bringing up the gun culture is tantamount to insulting someone's mother. Some people really object to the term "gun fetish", and object on an irrationally distraught level, but all this emotionalism just affirms that description. A fetish is gut-level emotional.

There's no reason we can't parse out these points rationally without emotional meltdown. It's something we need to do. And we've been putting it off. Those who insist on continuing to put it off with ad hominem or poisoning the well, rather than confronting the issues head-on, just prolong the problem. The primary problem being one of understanding.

(/rant off)

Really, point out where there was emotion in my response, I simply used numbers you provided, and they don't add up or were contrived with selective data.

I really wasn't talking about you. Don't take it so personally.

However you did rush through so fast that you mixed multiple points. I'm not even sure where we are. It appears you're taking studies that were done over periods of months or years, analyzing them in a space of ten minutes and declaring them "hack" and "bull shit". Yeah I'd say that's kind of emotional. What's your hurry?

 

[Pogo]

Really, did you look at how they came up with the numbers, first they only used numbers from 3 cities and only the numbers where there was an injury or death. There are hunders of thousands if not millions of instances where a firearm is used for home defense where there are no injuries and their myth ingnores them. Just more proof that when you control the input you can make stats say anything you want. Care to try again.

I'm completely stumped as to where you're getting these numbers. What I see under Methodology is here:
" Data come from two national random digit dial surveys conducted by Fact Finders, Inc in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1999. The samples comprise, respectively, 1905 and 2521 adults living in the 50 states." That's 4426 by my count.

"Three cities"?

I have no idea what link you're reading but slow down. It ain't a race.

All you have to do is what I did. Go to the link provided in the link to your article and it take you here:

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in - PubMed Mobile

And it says: METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Any questions?

Yes. What point of the OP are you talking about here? Can we do one at a time?

 

[OKTexas]

I'm completely stumped as to where you're getting these numbers. What I see under Methodology is here:
" Data come from two national random digit dial surveys conducted by Fact Finders, Inc in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1999. The samples comprise, respectively, 1905 and 2521 adults living in the 50 states." That's 4426 by my count.

"Three cities"?

I have no idea what link you're reading but slow down. It ain't a race.

All you have to do is what I did. Go to the link provided in the link to your article and it take you here:

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in - PubMed Mobile

And it says: METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Any questions?

Yes. What point of the OP are you talking about here? Can we do one at a time?

From the OP.

• Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home...

The very selective data I posted is where these bogus numbers come from, can you say with any itellectual honesty they are an accurate representation of reality considering their methods.

 

[Saigon]

Point #5:

OBJECTIVES: This study determined the prevalence and storage patterns of firearms in US homes with children. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and Year 2000 objectives supplement. A multistage sample design was used to represent the civilian noninstitutionalized US population. RESULTS: Respondents from 35% of the homes with children younger than 18 years (representing more than 22 million children in more than 11 million homes) reported having at least 1 firearm. Among homes with children and firearms, 43% had at least 1 unlocked firearm (i.e., not in a locked place and not locked with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism). Overall, 9% kept firearms unlocked and loaded, and 4% kept them unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition; thus, a total of 13% of the homes with children and firearms--1.4 million homes with 2.6 million children--stored firearms in a manner most accessible to children. In contrast, 39% of these families kept firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. CONCLUSIONS: Many children live in homes with firearms that are stored in an accessible manner. Efforts to prevent children's access to firearms are needed.


Read More: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

There seem to be several sources for that point - this is only one of them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Who will fact check the fact checkers?
Number of mass shootings stopped by good guys with guns, Zero? Rly?
Hero guard shot thwarting attack at Family Research Council HQ | Fox News

Do you even bother to read your own links? Yeah.............it WAS a security guard that stopped the gunman, but he didn't shoot him, he wrestled him to the ground and took his gun away from him, which is why the guard was shot.

You'd have a point if the guard drew down on the gunman and shot him, but ANYONE who is unarmed can wrestle someone to the ground and take their weapon away.

Sorry, but no points for guns this round.

 

[OKTexas]

Point #5:

OBJECTIVES: This study determined the prevalence and storage patterns of firearms in US homes with children. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and Year 2000 objectives supplement. A multistage sample design was used to represent the civilian noninstitutionalized US population. RESULTS: Respondents from 35% of the homes with children younger than 18 years (representing more than 22 million children in more than 11 million homes) reported having at least 1 firearm. Among homes with children and firearms, 43% had at least 1 unlocked firearm (i.e., not in a locked place and not locked with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism). Overall, 9% kept firearms unlocked and loaded, and 4% kept them unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition; thus, a total of 13% of the homes with children and firearms--1.4 million homes with 2.6 million children--stored firearms in a manner most accessible to children. In contrast, 39% of these families kept firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. CONCLUSIONS: Many children live in homes with firearms that are stored in an accessible manner. Efforts to prevent children's access to firearms are needed.


Read More: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

There seem to be several sources for that point - this is only one of them.

Who would know this if they took the OP at face value. Like I said it was put together by a hack with an agenda. Also these studies don't take into account households where the children have been educated on the use and handling of firearms. I can only speak for myself and many of my family, we all grew up with access to guns and ammo but had full knowledge of their capabilities and would have never played with them. The shame is liberal academics don't consider these factors in policy recommendations.

 

[Saigon]

OKTexas -

I agree that it is difficult to read a study with multiple sources of information. It's not ideal.

Nevertheless, the conclusions seem fairly sound.

The Harvard studies linked earlier do reach fairly similar conclusions, although obviously the numbers are a little different.

 

[DaGoose]

Well here it is -- it was only a matter of time:

Today, 12:16 AM

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -583 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
dunce

Regards,
The Rabbi

This is a first; I actually got negged for creating a topic. No discussion, no exchange, just a straight neg from a rhetorical pissant so drowning in his own insecurities that he just wants to shut people up. Too much of a spineless coward to debate. This is how afraid some people are of facing their hangups I guess.

Is this typical of the Right? Or of rabbis? Or just those who don't know baseball from their ass? You tell me.

Anybody else have the balls to discuss this without running to the neg machine like a little girl? (meant figuratively of course)

Actually this is illutrative; TheCrybabbi is illustrating the point that "gun nuts" go to their armamental paraphernalia to make up for the part of "gun nuts" that isn't "gun" -- and in the process demonstrate the whole fallacy of gun abuse: "shoot first, ask questions later". Literally.

That's because Rabbi's always been a gutless piece of shit. Right, Rabbi?

He negs people whenever he gets his ass handed to him (which is often since he's a mental lightweight).

 

[OKTexas]

Who will fact check the fact checkers?
Number of mass shootings stopped by good guys with guns, Zero? Rly?
Hero guard shot thwarting attack at Family Research Council HQ | Fox News

Do you even bother to read your own links? Yeah.............it WAS a security guard that stopped the gunman, but he didn't shoot him, he wrestled him to the ground and took his gun away from him, which is why the guard was shot.

You'd have a point if the guard drew down on the gunman and shot him, but ANYONE who is unarmed can wrestle someone to the ground and take their weapon away.

Sorry, but no points for guns this round.

Don;t mean to but in the love fest, but check out what happened to the Oregon mall shooter. He saw a civilian with a gun pointed at him and he took himself out. You ever thought that the reason civilians don't get credit for stopping mass shootings is because they never get to the mass shooting stage. It's happened several times, maybe they should have waited for a little higher body count before intervening.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas -

I agree that it is difficult to read a study with multiple sources of information. It's not ideal.

Nevertheless, the conclusions seem fairly sound.

The Harvard studies linked earlier do reach fairly similar conclusions, although obviously the numbers are a little different.

Why is it so hard to admit the numbers used in Myth #5 are bogus on their face because they do not take into account incidents where a gun was used and not discharged and the sample was so small. Tell me the data was not presented in a manner to mislead the reader.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

1) They are Coming for your guns.

You are right, at the CURRENT MOMENT, this is a myth. First they will have us law abiding citizens sign onto a National Gun Registry. Once they have acquired our names and addresses, they will use blatantly false arguments and take advantage of more tragedies to use that Registrar to then confiscate our guns.

We learn from history many times that confiscation is only possible after registration, and confiscation is often enacted.

Also, in the words of Daniel Finestien:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

The problem is, with the Senate so polarized, that she may actually have those 51 votes now.

POSSIBLE BOGUS QUOTE REMOVED

-Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

2)

he states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates

You fail to mention though, that free carry states (except Louisiana), like Vermont and Utah, have the LOWEST OVERALL MURDER RATE. Naturally however, more of the murders there will be committed by guns though. Have you checked the murder rate in Chicago lately?

3)

An armed society is a polite society.

I have yet to see this argument from Gun Rights people in SIGNIFICANT numbers. I personally could not care whether or not this is true. What I have learned is the unarmed criminals do become very polite when confronted by a gun.

4) More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

There are countless cases of armed civilians defending other civilians. Also, notice that these MASS KILLINGS happen at GUN FREE locations.

5)

Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

First, if it's suicide/accidental death by a gun, no one could care less.

As to homicide: Does this statistic ONLY include Law Abiding Gun users? Obviously not, because the Homicide rate in homes with LAW ABIDING GUN USERS is actually lower than the national average. This statistic that you cited includes criminals and gang members, who slaughter each other quite often. Also, no criminal/gang is going to abide by your pathetic gun control laws anyway lololol.

6)Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Ok then, our police and military should stop carrying guns then.

7) • Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers...

????
The topic has nothing to do with the following description. I'm pretty 99% of these women have no idea how to use a gun and have never shot a gun in their life. A better question is:

"Are women licensed and trained to carry a gun safer?" However, the US Department of Justice has answered this for us already.

U.S. Department of Justice, indicates that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than it is for women resisting with a gun.

8) "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

You are right, this one is a myth.

9) More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

This is also a myth, you are correct sir, if you consider it by PERCENTAGE of the population.

This is NOT a myth (you are wrong sir), if you consider the RAW numerical value of gun owners.

So this point is also void. Also, even if it was true, with increasing crime rates, don't you think that would actually work against your argument?

10) We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.

You are right, this is a myth, FOR BOTH SIDES IT IS A MYTH.

It should be:

"We should not have any gun laws, the 2nd Amendment clearly reads that this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Also, I invite you to watch this video presentation by CORE about Gun Control Laws originating from Jim Crow.

 

[Saigon]

OKTexas -

I don't know if the figures are reliable or not. Certainly it isn't hard to admit that they aren't the easiest to make sense of.

However, the conclusions are almost certainly correct, because multiple studies have reached much the same conclusion.

 

[Saigon]

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Starting off your argument with an unsourced, fictitious quote doesn't speak well of your reliability.