"Just the facts"

[jaymce]

I do not know if this is the best place for this but let's give it a try.

We all hear the figures thrown around on both sides of the gun rights issue. So post your favorite stat./stats and back your facts with the source.

What I hope to achieve is a list of the common stats we all hear with the info to back it up, I feel there are many like myself (shame on me) who could quote a few pro-gun stats but would fail miserably if asked to back it with a study. Likewise on the anti- 2nd A side debunk the argument.

For example an anti says it is more likely that a firearm in the home will harm the occupants than an intruder. I do not belive this to be true but could not debunk it easily either.

So in the words of Joe Friday "Just the facts" back your statement and not with a "I read that somewhere." Hopefully we can all learn something.

No I am not lazy just very busy and find myself, like most with very little free time. LOL

 

[raimius]

www.guncite.org
http://hematite.com/dragon/gunintro.html#Safety2
Both sites have a LOT of documented statistics, quotes, and analyses.

 

[dipper]

For example an anti says it is more likely that a firearm in the home will harm the occupants than an intruder. I do not belive this to be true but could not debunk it easily either.

Believe it or not, I had just this conversation with a Obama delegate that called our home the night before the NC primary---no kidding.
After some good natured ribbing about how(being originally from PA) she probably picked the wrong guy to talk to since I was one of those " bitter PA residents that cling to religion and guns" we talked about firearms issues.

This may not be a scientific response, but it is the one I gave her and have posted here before.
I grew up with firearms, all my friends and relatives grew up with firearms, every family I knew had at LEAST a few firearms in the home, most everyone I grew up with hunted---even the girls, my grandfather had firearms all over and he had many grandchildren at his home every Sunday.
I used to sit and watch TV on a winter nights and rub linseed oil into the stocks on the families rifles.
Yet, no one I knew ever was injured or killed with a firearm in the home---ever.
I know of a few hunting accidents over the years but no injuries or fatalities in the home.
That is my answer---so I asked her, where did she get her statistics and why my life's experience didn't match her stats?
Didn't get a very good answer.
I guess alot has to do with WHERE you take your poll and WHO you are polling.
So, considering ALL the families I knew/know, you would think that if those stats held true, that ONE of my family members or relatives or friends should have been killed by a firearm in the home.
None were and I am over 50 years old.
So, that's how I debunk that old anti chestnut.
Course, if I'm in a hurry a quick "BS" is the short answer.

Dipper

 

[astromanluca]

I think a big problem is that nearly all anti-gun people know very little or nothing about guns, other than what they see in the movies (they go bang and kill people).

What ends up happening is that a few anti-gun activists will find various figures and present them out of context, and their followers (who know nothing about guns) will simply take them at face value because they don't know enough about guns to be able to say, "Hey, that doesn't sound right..."

I told one of my friends that I was thinking about getting a gun a few months ago (I didn't have one at that point, and in fact I still don't own one, but I will before too long). Mainly to make me feel a little safer at home and for the sport of it. She said that it wouldn't be a smart choice because I'm more likely to have it "turned against me" as she put it. Now, I've heard this one before. I can't imagine a hypothetical home intruder actually taking a gun from my hands and shooting me with it, and I doubt this happens much. What I think this statistic comes from is by looking at all suicides and intrafamily homicides committed with a gun owned by a family member, and comparing it to the number of intruders that are killed by guns owned by homeowners. It's a BS statistic, no matter how you slice it (saying someone will disarm you is preposterous unless you have no clue how to use a gun), but a lot of these people don't know any better.

Statistics can be twisted however you like to support any position, with very few exceptions. I think the best way to counteract people who don't know what they're talking about is to pay attention to their arguments and look them up later, so you can respond to them the next time you hear them. That may be better even than coming up with your own counter-statistics.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Go to this link and download the .pdf file. Pretty good place for actual gun facts. Also has some cool quotes at the end, both pro and anti.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

 

[jaymce]

Well, I must say I am relieved to see the responses here. When I posted this on a more regional forum I was linked to the site suggested by Kreyzhorse. It is a great site and along the lines I was thinking.

Sadly, many of the posters had little to say, I was attacked for my question being some kind of plant by the DNC to undermine gun rights, told my question was stupid and the thread deteriorated into a 2A debate. Which lacked any credible arguments.

Link: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=43057

My point being if we are armed with accurate facts, which we can source for authentication, the argument for any rights are made stronger. On the flip side if you can debunk the anti argument with facts they are left with the weak and flimsy arguments which should not win but are in some states.

If we go on the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 premis that being 1/3 of folks are for the 2A and gun rights, that 1/3 are agianst those rights, the folks we need to swing are the 1/3 reasonable individuals in the middle who are indifferent. As astromanluca points out.
Right now none of us has should have any doubt that a Democrate house and executive branch will attempt to trample 2A rights. To that end 1/3 of the folks are all for it, and as much as 1/3 are indifferent or are willing to vote along with the antis. This puts us at a significant disadvantage. If the antis say guns kill people! But if we are not prepared to argue that although guns can and due kill people, the guns that kill are not weilded by law abiding rational citizens. If we do not make are case effectivly we will loose in the long run. Proven by the slow errosion of our rights already.

The anti-gun movement has already figured out that by picking small groups of us off and making temorary deals with those groups they will win in the end through "reasonable compromises" :barf:



raimius, I will check those links as well thanks.

 

[dipper]

I never let the "facts" get in the way of what I have personally experienced in life.
I know how I grew up, I know what my town and family and friends were/are like.
I raised my children around guns and so did/do many of my friends and relatives.
And, the argument in the OP does not hold water for me.
Maybe if you go to east LA and gather stats on the gang bangers and dope dealers they would but, I still don't think they are representative of average middle America.
I have talked with a few anti's and when I tell them what I have shared here, I usually get a blank stare and no answer.
I ask if there counting when gang bangers do a drive by and shoot into a house that has a firearm---does that count in the stats??
Sometimes, when you ask questions like that, instead of just throwing numbers around, you show your opponent that you are at least thinking reasoning person that has some experience behind them---and not just a robot spitting out the same old tired numbers.

Dipper

 

[raimius]

Dipper, your style is a great anecdotal argument, but it will not hold up against more intelligent antis (scary thought right there, but they do exist). Those arguments are impossible to refute, but rely on a small statistical sample and are subject to your own availability biases. They won't hold water against a seasoned debater.

I usually try to go for a straight logical debate. It has worked to win "fencesitters," but that style doesn't win most antis (who often use emotional arguments and reject statistics, unless they support their own views).

...now if you mix those anecdotal arguments with sound statistics, you get a very strong argument. All but the most seasoned debaters and researchers will have a tough time refuting a "combined arms" style debate.

 

[nate45]

This is good and perfect for liberals.

Penn and Teller: Gun Control is BS

 

[FireMax]

I think a big problem is that nearly all anti-gun people know very little or nothing about guns

That, and the fact that almost everyone of them is comfortable with a powerful federal government which actively controls our lives. Thus, it follows that, in order to have a strong federal government, you must have a citizenry that is easily controlled. The underlings may not realize this in detail, but you can be sure that those at the top do. And they feed their underlings the lies and the distortions about guns so that they will "do their bidding".

 

[dipper]

Hi Raimius,
Hey, I never claimed to be a masterdebater ...well um anyway...

Thing is, I have never gotten a good answer from an anti when I share my experience.
Often times, anti's, like most people throw around numbers and "facts" that they read somewhere-- but they can't answer the simple question:
" of the hundreds of people I know/knew and the many homes I know/knew that had numerous firearms in them, why don't I personally know anyone that has been killed or injured in the home with a firearm?"
It's simple, if the stats are accurate, I SHOULD know ( thank God I don't) SOMEONE personally that was killed in their home.
I have talked to many people that are anti firearm and anti hunting.
It didn't seem so at the time, but the most fun I ever had as a WCO was when a bunch of antis showed up on state game land and was following hunters around the woods blowing whistles and generally screwing with legal hunters.
What a circus---I really believed someone was going to get shot.
Once we got them corralled out on the hard road, wouldn't you know it that here come some hunters dragging their deer AND they saved some entrails which they then threw on the antis with great flair.
I was angry on the outside but splitting a gut on the inside---should have seen it!! Wish I had pictures,
Anyway, I have talked to a few and sometimes a simple question shuts them up---especially if you wait for an answer and don't let them rattle on.
So, you are probably right--- a anecdotal argument along with cold hard statistics is probably best.
Still can't get over the fact that even in the small town I grew up in and lived in for 22 years with a population of about 7,000 most of which hunted and every home had a firearm or 12, why I don't know ANYONE that was killed in the home.

Dipper

 

[jaymce]

The problem is this article would tend to prove the oppisite: (this is the first article I pulled and use it as an example only. I searched "firearm injurys in the home")

HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES


Violent death among children clearly linked to home firearms:
Children in 'high-gun' states at far higher risk of harming selves, others
A new study from the School of Public Health (SPH) has found that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide, and gun accidents. The differences in rates of violent death to children across states are large. The higher death rates in "high-gun" states are due to differences in deaths from firearms. This elevated rate of violent death to children in high gun states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization.

The article "Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds" is published in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma (http://www.jtrauma.com), and a table from the study appears on the journal cover.

Matthew Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at SPH and lead author of the study, said, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in gun accidents. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children."

This study focused on children aged 5 to 14, and compared data across all 50 states over a 10-year period (1988-97). In one table, the authors compare the five states with the highest gun ownership levels with the five states with the lowest levels. While these states have equal numbers of children, they have very different rates of violent death. In the 10-year period, 253 children died from firearm accidents in the "high-gun" states, compared with 15 in the "low-gun" states. While the numbers of nongun suicides were similar, 153 children killed themselves with guns in the five "high-gun" states, compared with 22 who committed suicide in the five "low-gun" states.

Children in the high-gun states were also at much higher risk of being murdered with a firearm. During this 10-year period, 298 children aged 5 to 14 were murdered with guns in the "high-gun" states, compared with 86 in the "low-gun" states. The nongun homicide rates were fairly similar (a little more than 100 nongun homicides in both sets of states).

Miller emphasized that, while no study that is a snapshot of the United States over a short period of time can prove causation, the strong and robust association between gun ownership and children's violent death is compelling.

These results are also consistent with international comparisons. The U.S. level of private firearm ownership is much higher than in other developed nations and U.S. children aged 5 to 14 are far more likely to be murdered, commit suicide, and die from gun accidents than children in other developed countries. Indeed, for children aged 5 to 14 in the United States, death from firearms is the third leading cause of mortality, following only motor vehicle crashes and cancer.

The I see the problems with the article as:
1) they group all firearms related deaths into one group. This does not help our case.
2)Also they took the highest gun owner ship states and compared them to the lower ownership states. All states should have been compared for an avrage.
3) Its Harvard
4) sampeling age

Now if you look a little deeper then the article itself you can brake down the agument, Homocides while larger in the high gun ownership states, Is about 1/3 higher than homicides in the same state using other means. Cirtianly in large citys the homocide rate is higher and we all know that removal of firearms will not change this. The states with lower gun ownership (by the authors own admission) have equal homicide rates when comparing guns and non-gun homocides. Suicide rates were equal.

Since homocides and suicides are not accedents they have no place in a debate about the safe handeling of firearms by law abiding citizens. Thus the figures are scewed. As raimius points out knowing the stats and making sure they are accurate will help to reinforce our argument.

 

[raimius]

I'm going to try to poke some holes in that study.

1. For 29 states, they based their "firearm ownership rate" on the ratio between firearm-related suicides and non-firearm related suicides...seems like an odd metric...I have a sneaking suspicion that this method influenced the study to look at the states with the least firearms related deaths, rather than the states with the least ownership. If true, that would throw the entire study off.

2. Using CDC reports and this source for firearm ownership rates (http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1003599 unknown reliability...sorry and the 2001 BRFSS survey as reported in the Washington Post) I calculated 189 firearms related deaths amoung the top 5 "firearms" states, and 118 amoung the 5 states with the lowest rates. Unless the ownership rates amoung the states has dramatically changed between 1997 and when the data I used was recorded (or if my data on ownership rates is deeply flawed), the results don't match with what the CDC says. {edit} ODDLY enough, the 5 states with the least deaths were the ones the study used for the 5 states with the lowest ownership rates...although the Washington Post (using the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey of over 200k people) only lists 2 of the 5 as being in the bottom 5 for ownership...

3. The report concludes that victimization is higher in states with higher rates of firearm ownership. To place any assumption of causation between firearm ownership and criminal victimization is a deeply flawed conclusion. (that is not what the study states, but the article seems to imply such)