Obama's Gun Report Backfires--Guns Save Lives

[asaratis]

The report further confirms that most gun deaths are at the hands of those who used the gun for suicide–not homicide. Suicide by guns outweighs the amount of deaths caused by violent crimes by 61%. This is not a gun issue; this is a mental health issue, but the President and friends don’t want to focus on that side of things.

where are all those bleeding heart liberals when you need them.........?

oh wait....liberalism is a mental disorder....

I have yet to need a liberal.

Oh I'm glad I'm first. This is the old bait and switch. Obama (and NO ONE ELSE EVER) has NEVER EVER EVER claimed that guns DO NOT save lives. Yet here is an article that says Obama report "backfires" - guns saves lives. Like anyone said the opposite in the first place. LOL.

Repubs: 1+2= 2
Obama: Actually its 3
Repubs: Reports prove you wrong. Reports say that 4 is an even number HAHA!

Then what is the basis for controlling guns?

So that less people can be saved….

That’s the ticket.

The basis for wanting to control guns is to control the people. An armed society is hard to control.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Australia has also had mass shooting post gun bans. Control, ban. Not the same. RThe results, however, are.
.

CARE TO PROVE THIS??

I doubt it somehow.

cons just make stuff UP.

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment, and is currently under psychiatric care. Several of the people present in the room of the shootings have been commended for their bravery in tackling Xiang and ending the shooting.

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Don't project yourself onto others, Dullard. A quick search instead of mouthing off would have offered you the information.

 

[RDD_1210]

And yet still. Gun ownership increases and gun related violent crime decreases. Thats a fact. Whether or not there is a direct correlation, is another story entirely.

Control schemes do not stop mass shootings. CT had some of the strictest laws in the country controlling firearms and yet, there was a mass shooting. Australia has also had mass shooting post gun bans. Control, ban. Not the same. RThe results, however, are.

You're welcome.

Holy **** are you a professional punter? You should think about it.

Wow, your argument is now, Gun ownership has increased and gun related violent crime has decreased but now you're not willing to make a stand as to whether or not they're correlated. So why did you bring it up in the first place? It's obvious that there is not a direct correlation to be made and you know it, That's why you have no answer to why aren't we the safest country in the world.

And Australia has absolutely reduced the number of mass shootings through their gun laws, that's why you had to switch the topic to CT which I never once mentioned. Good for you though, you've impressed your G.E.D. conservative buddies who don't care about actual facts.

LOL. Hack.

I cant answer a subjective and ridiculous question such as "the safest coutnry in the world". It's a mind numbingly stupid question. Even in this context. Going by the study and the questions to research, they do not know of a correlation. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist. What it also means is, despite a large increase in gun ownership (and control mechaniosms for firearms for that matter), gun related violence is, and has been, in decline. So clearly guns aren't the problem here. So controlling or banning them is irrelevant. Counterproductive even, given the study cited by another poster in the thread.

Australia - There is no correlation between mass shooting reduction and gun bans. There is, however, a cited correlation between gun bans and increased home invasions and violence. You want to put control with ban and then roll it all up nice and neat. Then you have the nerve to insult me for your lack of both making a point.

No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters

Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?

 

[Spoonman]

Looks like cherry picking from the report

Have the whole report so that we can see its findings? Should be interesting

idk rightwinger. I'm a third of the way through this report already and i don't see any cherry picking. these are not the results obama hoped for.


interesting guns are used in self defense 10 times more than in an assault. guns do save lives

interesting also how much focus is put on deadly assault style weapons and mass shootings when the numbers are so low.

obama better bury this report or his gun grab is dead in the water. much like his economic recovery

LOL, bullshit you are. You read 40 pages in 20 minutes while posting at the same time? You people aren't even good liars.

36, this is easy reading. Here's a suggestion. read it yourself before you continue to comment inccorectly on what it says

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Holy **** are you a professional punter? You should think about it.

Wow, your argument is now, Gun ownership has increased and gun related violent crime has decreased but now you're not willing to make a stand as to whether or not they're correlated. So why did you bring it up in the first place? It's obvious that there is not a direct correlation to be made and you know it, That's why you have no answer to why aren't we the safest country in the world.

And Australia has absolutely reduced the number of mass shootings through their gun laws, that's why you had to switch the topic to CT which I never once mentioned. Good for you though, you've impressed your G.E.D. conservative buddies who don't care about actual facts.

LOL. Hack.

I cant answer a subjective and ridiculous question such as "the safest coutnry in the world". It's a mind numbingly stupid question. Even in this context. Going by the study and the questions to research, they do not know of a correlation. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist. What it also means is, despite a large increase in gun ownership (and control mechaniosms for firearms for that matter), gun related violence is, and has been, in decline. So clearly guns aren't the problem here. So controlling or banning them is irrelevant. Counterproductive even, given the study cited by another poster in the thread.

Australia - There is no correlation between mass shooting reduction and gun bans. There is, however, a cited correlation between gun bans and increased home invasions and violence. You want to put control with ban and then roll it all up nice and neat. Then you have the nerve to insult me for your lack of both making a point.

No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters

Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?

Considering they had a mass shooting in 2002, I dont need to dispute the claim. it's false.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sure that stupidity is a major factor also.

Like all other anti-gun loons, he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
He, and they, prove this to be the case with every post.
They shoud be encouraged to keep up the good work.

I'm such a liar you cant find the quote huh?

M14 didn't see this post or the other two asking him to show where I lied. I guess he suddenly had a thing...with a guy.

 

[g5000]

Obama ordered a study on gun violence, and he got one, just not the one he may have been wanting. The new study is out and the conclusion is that there are more benefits to concealed and open carry than there are negative side effects.

Read at Obama's Gun Report Backfires--Guns Save Lives -

Wishful thinking.

I've looked at the report, and it doesn't even come close to "backfiring" on Obama. You should read it.

The report barely touches on defensive use, and it does not state things as black and white as your link pretends it does.

For instance, from your link:

The report ended up finding more benefits in regards to open or concealed firearm carrying than negative side effects. It is estimated that guns are used in defense up to 3 million times per year.

The CDC report says 3 million is the upper limit of estimates, so it is not surprising your pro-gun site would use that figure. The report says the 3 million figure is "based on an extrapolation from a small number or responses taken from more than 19 national surveys".

The lower limit of defensive use in the report is 500,000.

Here is what the report says in its final paragraph in the section about defensive use of guns:

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public - concealed or open carry - may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Hardly a backfire.

Now, just to be clear, I am pro-gun. Anti gun control. But to win the debate, you have to be honest and factual. Be wary of biased sites like your link.


What you should watch for from Obama with respect to this section of the report, if he even bothers to address it, is for him to state the beneficial effects of defensive use are conclusively outweighed by the rise in suicide, homicide, or use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners.

The report states this is not conclusive, and must be studied further.


I fully expect the pro-gun lobby won't be calling for that further study. Just in case it backfires on them.

 

[RDD_1210]

I cant answer a subjective and ridiculous question such as "the safest coutnry in the world". It's a mind numbingly stupid question. Even in this context. Going by the study and the questions to research, they do not know of a correlation. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist. What it also means is, despite a large increase in gun ownership (and control mechaniosms for firearms for that matter), gun related violence is, and has been, in decline. So clearly guns aren't the problem here. So controlling or banning them is irrelevant. Counterproductive even, given the study cited by another poster in the thread.

Australia - There is no correlation between mass shooting reduction and gun bans. There is, however, a cited correlation between gun bans and increased home invasions and violence. You want to put control with ban and then roll it all up nice and neat. Then you have the nerve to insult me for your lack of both making a point.

No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters

Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?

Considering they had a mass shooting in 2002, I dont need to dispute the claim. it's false.

1 mass shooting in 15+ years isn't a reduction? Where did you learn math?

 

[g5000]

It's a fact more people are killed by bare hands than by "assault weapons" each year.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Did your article state they had not suffered a mass shooting since 1996, or not?

YOu fail. Better luck next time.

 

[RDD_1210]

Did your article state they had not suffered a mass shooting since 1996, or not?

YOu fail. Better luck next time.

So I take it you're punting again? Won't even address the fact that you just supported what I've been saying all along and that Australia's gun laws have had a positive impact on mass shootings in that country.

Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Spoonman]

I love that you post "facts" that never are by supported by ANYTHING. I don't even have to guess, I know your post will contain a whole bunch of "facts" and absolutely nothing to support them.

It's almost as if you don't want to support anything you say with actual evidence. Wonder why that is.

are you really that clueless? i mean honestly

Another post from Spoonman, another post without any source for his "facts".

Let's face it. The reality of the situation is, you're just not a smart person and never have been. There are plenty of people in this world that are smarter than I am, but you're not one of them. This much is clear at this point.

Every time and I mean every time you and I debate something, you lose. Simply because you refuse to list sources for any of the dumb shit you say. I don't know if you honestly expect anyone to believe the crap you say, I use to think there is no way you could honestly believe the nonsense you're saying. But I've come to realize that you actually probably do believe this shit and the reason is you're just not a smart person.

Not everyone can be intelligent, I realize that. I do believe everyone has something that they are good at. Unfortunately critical thought is not "your thing". Perhaps you're good at finger paints or maybe you make a really mean peanut butter and jelly sandwich......who knows. But you should probably figure out what is you are good at, because having a conversation that involves using your brain obviously isn't it.

1993 homicides from guns - 18,253 2011 homicides from guns 11,101 a 39% decrease.

CDC data gun deaths per 100,000 per year by country. Look at that, The USA with the greatest decline. I guess gun deaths per year really have been dropping.

 

[g5000]

Australia has also had mass shooting post gun bans. Control, ban. Not the same. RThe results, however, are.
.

CARE TO PROVE THIS??

I doubt it somehow.

cons just make stuff UP.

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment, and is currently under psychiatric care. Several of the people present in the room of the shootings have been commended for their bravery in tackling Xiang and ending the shooting.

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Don't project yourself onto others, Dullard. A quick search instead of mouthing off would have offered you the information.

He used handguns. Not the semi-automatic rifles ("assault weapons") that were banned. There have been no mass shootings with automatic weapons since the ban.

He only managed to kill two people, compared to the 35 killed in the last mass shooting before the ban.

 

[RDD_1210]

are you really that clueless? i mean honestly

Another post from Spoonman, another post without any source for his "facts".

Let's face it. The reality of the situation is, you're just not a smart person and never have been. There are plenty of people in this world that are smarter than I am, but you're not one of them. This much is clear at this point.

Every time and I mean every time you and I debate something, you lose. Simply because you refuse to list sources for any of the dumb shit you say. I don't know if you honestly expect anyone to believe the crap you say, I use to think there is no way you could honestly believe the nonsense you're saying. But I've come to realize that you actually probably do believe this shit and the reason is you're just not a smart person.

Not everyone can be intelligent, I realize that. I do believe everyone has something that they are good at. Unfortunately critical thought is not "your thing". Perhaps you're good at finger paints or maybe you make a really mean peanut butter and jelly sandwich......who knows. But you should probably figure out what is you are good at, because having a conversation that involves using your brain obviously isn't it.

1993 homicides from guns - 18,253 2011 homicides from guns 11,101 a 39% decrease.

CDC data gun deaths per 100,000 per year by country. Look at that, The USA with the greatest decline. I guess gun deaths per year really have been dropping.

LOL, just LOL. Thanks for literally proving my point in your very next post.

I need to go make my lunch. Any tips?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Did your article state they had not suffered a mass shooting since 1996, or not?

YOu fail. Better luck next time.

So I take it you're punting again? Won't even address the fact that you just supported what I've been saying all along and that Australia's gun laws have had a positive impact on mass shootings in that country.

Thanks for proving me right.

OK, I'll give you the reduction in mass shootings. Reduction, mind you. There are also studies that show home invasions and other violence increased drastically after the gun bans in Australia.

Regardless, this isn't Australia.

In the US gun onwership has increased, gun related violent crime has decreased and mass shooting stats are negligable.


As for your main point about "we arent we the safest nation in the world", it's a fuckign retarded question from get go. Which means you really do not have any point here. You just want to see guns banned. OK, we get it. Group up with the other nutters and get the constitution amended. Good luck.

 

[RDD_1210]

Did your article state they had not suffered a mass shooting since 1996, or not?

YOu fail. Better luck next time.

So I take it you're punting again? Won't even address the fact that you just supported what I've been saying all along and that Australia's gun laws have had a positive impact on mass shootings in that country.

Thanks for proving me right.

OK, I'll give you the reduction in mass shootings. Reduction, mind you. There are also studies that show home invasions and other violence increased drastically after the gun bans in Australia.

Regardless, this isn't Australia.

In the US gun onwership has increased, gun related violent crime has decreased and mass shooting stats are negligable.


As for your main point about "we arent we the safest nation in the world", it's a fuckign retarded question from get go. Which means you really do not have any point here. You just want to see guns banned. OK, we get it. Group up with the other nutters and get the constitution amended. Good luck.

Never said I wanted guns banned, but if you need to argue that to feel like you've won something. Have at it, I won't stand in your way.

Glad to see you can recognize that gun laws CAN have a positive impact. Now can we have a rational discussion about what gun laws could help us in this country?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I fully expect the pro-gun lobby won't be calling for that further study. Just in case it backfires on them.

Two items stand out:

The lower limit of defensive use in the report is 500,000.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public - concealed or open carry - may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive use

How much does the unproven risk of simple ownweship need to increase in order to cancel the benefit of at least 500,000 defensive uses?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Obama ordered a study on gun violence, and he got one, just not the one he may have been wanting. The new study is out and the conclusion is that there are more benefits to concealed and open carry than there are negative side effects.

Read at Obama's Gun Report Backfires--Guns Save Lives -

Wishful thinking.

I've looked at the report, and it doesn't even come close to "backfiring" on Obama. You should read it.

The report barely touches on defensive use, and it does not state things as black and white as your link pretends it does.

For instance, from your link:

The report ended up finding more benefits in regards to open or concealed firearm carrying than negative side effects. It is estimated that guns are used in defense up to 3 million times per year.

The CDC report says 3 million is the upper limit of estimates, so it is not surprising your pro-gun site would use that figure. The report says the 3 million figure is "based on an extrapolation from a small number or responses taken from more than 19 national surveys".

The lower limit of defensive use in the report is 500,000.

Here is what the report says in its final paragraph in the section about defensive use of guns:

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public - concealed or open carry - may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Hardly a backfire.

Now, just to be clear, I am pro-gun. Anti gun control. But to win the debate, you have to be honest and factual. Be wary of biased sites like your link.


What you should watch for from Obama with respect to this section of the report, if he even bothers to address it, is for him to state the beneficial effects of defensive use are conclusively outweighed by the rise in suicide, homicide, or use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners.

The report states this is not conclusive, and must be studied further.


I fully expect the pro-gun lobby won't be calling for that further study. Just in case it backfires on them.

None of them even attempted to read it. They saw the title and by jove that was good enough for them to run with looking like the fools they are

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So I take it you're punting again? Won't even address the fact that you just supported what I've been saying all along and that Australia's gun laws have had a positive impact on mass shootings in that country.

Thanks for proving me right.

OK, I'll give you the reduction in mass shootings. Reduction, mind you. There are also studies that show home invasions and other violence increased drastically after the gun bans in Australia.

Regardless, this isn't Australia.

In the US gun onwership has increased, gun related violent crime has decreased and mass shooting stats are negligable.


As for your main point about "we arent we the safest nation in the world", it's a fuckign retarded question from get go. Which means you really do not have any point here. You just want to see guns banned. OK, we get it. Group up with the other nutters and get the constitution amended. Good luck.

Never said I wanted guns banned, but if you need to argue that to feel like you've won something. Have at it, I won't stand in your way.

Glad to see you can recognize that gun laws CAN have a positive impact. Now can we have a rational discussion about what gun laws could help us in this country?

Yes, by creating a new problem. In you example, mass shooting (which were already pretty rare), went down, while home invasions went up. I guess yuo could call that a positive. If you stick on some blinders.

 

[FA_Q2]

Holy **** are you a professional punter? You should think about it.

Wow, your argument is now, Gun ownership has increased and gun related violent crime has decreased but now you're not willing to make a stand as to whether or not they're correlated. So why did you bring it up in the first place? It's obvious that there is not a direct correlation to be made and you know it, That's why you have no answer to why aren't we the safest country in the world.

And Australia has absolutely reduced the number of mass shootings through their gun laws, that's why you had to switch the topic to CT which I never once mentioned. Good for you though, you've impressed your G.E.D. conservative buddies who don't care about actual facts.

LOL. Hack.

I cant answer a subjective and ridiculous question such as "the safest coutnry in the world". It's a mind numbingly stupid question. Even in this context. Going by the study and the questions to research, they do not know of a correlation. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist. What it also means is, despite a large increase in gun ownership (and control mechaniosms for firearms for that matter), gun related violence is, and has been, in decline. So clearly guns aren't the problem here. So controlling or banning them is irrelevant. Counterproductive even, given the study cited by another poster in the thread.

Australia - There is no correlation between mass shooting reduction and gun bans. There is, however, a cited correlation between gun bans and increased home invasions and violence. You want to put control with ban and then roll it all up nice and neat. Then you have the nerve to insult me for your lack of both making a point.

No correlation? Are you lazy or just ignorant?

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters

Let me guess, it's time to attack Reuters?

No. Instead, let’s take a look at the actual data that tells an entirely different story.
Australia - Homicide rate
The first and largest problem with the Reuters article is that it is not using valid data. The claim of ‘gun deaths’ is a misnomer. Dead is dead. By measuring homicide with a specific weapon (guns) to the exclusion of other homicides, you are already creating bias in the data. You have to look at the data WITHOUT bias or filters to get the picture. If ‘gun deaths’ decrease by 10 but ‘knife deaths’ increase by 20 you have created a NEGATIVE effect even though your gun deaths statistic would make it look positive.

With straight homicide rates, we find that a law passed in 1996 banning most gun ownership has virtually zero effect on homicide rates over the next 6 years. All the way up until 2002, the homicide rate fluctuates but really does not drop. After that, you see a steep decline.

The question then becomes, why are you attributing that declining to a six year old law that had zero effect in the meantime. That is completely illogical. There is a MUCH higher likelihood that something changed (or a few something’s really) in 2001 that started the new trend.

Use source data rather than people that have taken it, filtered it and then tried to interpret it for you.