The fallacy of self defence by gun

[TroglocratsRdumb]

We should ban guns in the deep blue states and see what happens.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

Sadly this self-image many of the gun advocates have of themselves as "the man who shot Liberty Valence" is a big part of their personalities.

The ones who come out of the military may very well be prepared to take a human life. But I always wonder about the "gravy seal" types who amass guns because they are attempting to build out their John Wayne fantasy. In some ways I fear that is part of the corrosion at the core of the gun debate. When questioning the validity of having so many guns in our society invariably these folks will suffer some degree of feelings of "persecution".

People who want fewer guns in society are a threat to them because so much of who and what they are (especially when it comes to their gender and sex-roles) requires these things.

Guns are great for self-defense. But if you systematically arm a society to its teeth and then amp up the fear of "The Other" it's going to go to a dark place pretty fast.

I can see, if you live in abject terror of everyone around you, and you lack any sort of means to have an impact on the greater society that guns might appear to be a salvation.

 

[Rigby5]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

Sorry, but that link was the stupidest and least scientific thing I have ever read.
It is all basically one guy, David Hemenway, and he clearly is an idiot.
He main argument is that if guns were used more to prevent crime, then we should have a lot more criminals with gun shot wounds.
And that is insane, because you almost NEVER have to actually pull the trigger, in order to use a gun defensively.

The most obvious way to know that private gun ownership is a good thing that greatly reduces crime and does not add much in the way or rage crimes, is that police used to not exist to any significant degree, until after 1900, and that greatly reduced crime. If nothing else, it reduces the thousands a year of unarmed people illegally murdered by police.
Having an armed mercenary police force instead of an armed population, is the worst possible scenario.
Police are mostly ex-military, who have been taught rules of engagement extremely hazardous to anyone else.
Veterans should never be allowed to be in the police.

 

[Rigby5]

But don't I have a point?

Harvard's class of 2018 was surveyed about their political viewpoints. 13 percent of the freshmen identified as "somewhat conservative", and 2.6 percent identified as "very conservative". 23% called themselves moderates, and 60% identified as liberal.

I am a liberal, and being a liberal means the belief in the defense of individual liberties.
Which gun control totally contradicts.
No liberal can possibly be in favor of any federal gun control at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Sadly this self-image many of the gun advocates have of themselves as "the man who shot Liberty Valence" is a big part of their personalities.

The ones who come out of the military may very well be prepared to take a human life. But I always wonder about the "gravy seal" types who amass guns because they are attempting to build out their John Wayne fantasy. In some ways I fear that is part of the corrosion at the core of the gun debate. When questioning the validity of having so many guns in our society invariably these folks will suffer some degree of feelings of "persecution".

People who want fewer guns in society are a threat to them because so much of who and what they are (especially when it comes to their gender and sex-roles) requires these things.

Guns are great for self-defense. But if you systematically arm a society to its teeth and then amp up the fear of "The Other" it's going to go to a dark place pretty fast.

I can see, if you live in abject terror of everyone around you, and you lack any sort of means to have an impact on the greater society that guns might appear to be a salvation.

That makes no sense at all.
Having personal guns does NOT at all imply anything about taking human life.
The main point of a gun is that it scares criminals away.
It also can be used simply as a noise maker that is going to quickly draw a crowd, in order to deal with a problem.
One can also shoot at extremities so is not lethal.

Those who want fewer guns in society are a threat to everyone because that gives a monopoly in power to a mercenary government, and makes any hope of a democratic republic impossible.
When the Founders wrote of a government by, of, and for the people, they meant that literally.
That means we all have to be armed, and we must NOT instead arm a mercenary force like police or enlisted military.
An armed mercenary force ensures the end of the democratic republic eventually.
It is just a matter of time.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Rigby5]

You're welcome to, and you would have to to keep your fallacy true. Unfortunately, there are various studies in that article that conclude the findings. So stamping your feet, sticking fingers in your ears shouting,"Ner ner ner", doesn't dismiss the academic studies and findings.

There was nothing remotely academic or scientific in that link.
Over 99% of the times guns are used defensively, there is no report because no one wants to talk to the police if they do not have to. And if no shot is fired, there is no reason for anyone to have to talk to the police.
No one even wants police to know you even have a gun, because you don't know what sort of crazy or illegal response the police are going to have.

 

[Rigby5]

I can see, if you live in abject terror of everyone around you, and you lack any sort of means to have an impact on the greater society that guns might appear to be a salvation.

Any NORMAL person should fear armed mercenary police.
The Founders did not want them, and they did not really exist in any number until around 1900.
They are NOT an appropriate part of any democratic republic.

Having an armed general population is millions of times better and safer than relying on armed mercenaries like police, instead.

 

[marvin martian]

It's obvious you're down at 4th grade level because the words in the Harvard link shot right over your head.

OK, I was wrong. You actually ARE that stupid! LOL

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That makes no sense at all.
Having personal guns does NOT at all imply anything about taking human life.

The usual discussion about guns for self defense.

The main point of a gun is that it scares criminals away.

So you think it's rational to assume you won't have to FIRE the gun you wave around to protect yourself? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

It's people who are unprepared for the horror the gun represents who are most likely to do some serious damage with the things.

It also can be used simply as a noise maker that is going to quickly draw a crowd, in order to deal with a problem.

You sound really dangerous with a gun. I hope you haven't been able to get one.

When the Founders wrote of a government by, of, and for the people, they meant that literally.

No they didn't. They excluded women and black people. ANd non-landowners.

 

[hadit]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

When politicians and rich celebrities stop having armed guards surround them wherever they go, I'll start to believe them when they say things like that.

 

[hadit]

Then why do gun nuts say they "need" a gun for self defence. So leave them at home locked up

They don't.

 

[Canon Shooter]

California also has nearly, if not the, most draconian anti-gun laws in the USA.

I got the fuck outta' there years ago...

 

[2aguy]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

The 18 studies by both private and government researchers say David Hemingway is a hack…..

 

[westwall]

The 18 studies by both private and government researchers say David Hemingway is a hack…..

Not just a hack, but a fraud. Isn't he a barrista now?

 

[2aguy]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

David Hemenway....the author of the study?

guns aren't used in self defense...cause I say so....

That is his argument....

Meanwhile....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

 

[2aguy]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

And this study?

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.

“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.

Ignoring these realities, gun control advocates have cited England, as the cradle of our liberties, as “a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns,” write Kates and Mauser. “The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.”

Read more at Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

 

[2aguy]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

On previous Hemenway research...

Hemenway fails to note that the people he surveyed only had to mention “firearms” in their research. They didn’t have to actually conduct empirical work on guns. There were also problems in the recording of his responses. For instance, I was supposedly one of the researchers surveyed. Yet, my responses weren’t recorded. When I emailed Hemenway about this technical problem, my emails were ignored.

Survey in gun column was incomplete -- John R. Lott, Jr.

David Hemenway’s guest column last Sunday, "Scientists reach consensus on guns," claimed a consensus on gun research based on a survey he conducted. But he conveniently fails to mention that

madison.com

 

[2aguy]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

Yeah.....this is crap.......they used left wing judges to tell them that the thugs in their courtrooms used guns for crime.....awesome research......

 

[2aguy]

Sadly this self-image many of the gun advocates have of themselves as "the man who shot Liberty Valence" is a big part of their personalities.

The ones who come out of the military may very well be prepared to take a human life. But I always wonder about the "gravy seal" types who amass guns because they are attempting to build out their John Wayne fantasy. In some ways I fear that is part of the corrosion at the core of the gun debate. When questioning the validity of having so many guns in our society invariably these folks will suffer some degree of feelings of "persecution".

People who want fewer guns in society are a threat to them because so much of who and what they are (especially when it comes to their gender and sex-roles) requires these things.

Guns are great for self-defense. But if you systematically arm a society to its teeth and then amp up the fear of "The Other" it's going to go to a dark place pretty fast.

I can see, if you live in abject terror of everyone around you, and you lack any sort of means to have an impact on the greater society that guns might appear to be a salvation.

Except 27 years of actual increasing gun ownership...you know, real world experience...shows you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, and your "feelz," about the issue doesn't have any bearing on the truth....

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

What changed in 2015?

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.