FAQ - Gun Myths

[Old Grump]

Be specific, prove what and what crap? 

[RomanA]

To Old Grump: Disprove the fact that apparently somehow carrying a weapon to defend yourself makes you more liable to be a victim of violent crime. To me it makes no sense but we need solid contradictory figure to that.

Well i rember in Kansas they introduced concealed carry laws, and overal violent crime dropped, hehe thats a good example. Or when in UK back in early 20th centuary you were allowed to carry any firearms for self defense, eyt again violent crime was it its lowest.
I just partly answered my own question here. 

Ranting Roman

[Old Grump]

There is no solid figures proving carrying a gun makes you more liable to be a victim because the stat was made up by Brady and company.  It was a lie from the get go and its a little hard to prove a lie which is exactly what you just asked me to do. 

Chicago where gun carry is not allowed
Aggravated assault rate, 610.4 per 100,000 people
http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Jacksonville Florida which used to be terrible but now carry is permitted   
Aggravated assault rate 543 per 100,000 people, still nearly double the national rate but in spite of the illegals and the drug trafficking is lower than it used to be. 
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/jacksonville/crime/

Fort Worth Texas, the wild and wooly west where gun play is expected by anybody not from this country
Aggravated assault 388.9 per 100,000 people
http://fortworth.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Beginning to see a pattern here? 

[Oscar Hotel Bravo]

Why a short barrelled shotgun is more deadly than one with a long barrel is beyond me!

My guess is because a sawn-off shotgun is easier to conceal than a full length shotgun with a stock.

According to the UK's media, that means that a tool of destruction with extremely questionable morality turns into an evil high capacity assault baby killing plastic x-ray invisible terrorist gun.

[RomanA]

According to the UK's media, that means that a tool of destruction with extremely questionable morality turns into an evil high capacity assault baby killing plastic x-ray invisible terrorist gun.

Absolute nonsense.

[Old Grump]

When dopes and goons couldn't get handguns they could always get a shot gun.  Chopping it short made it concealable and that made it dangerous even though the chopping made it less effective as a weapon.  In our case it goes back to the early prohibition days as a favorite of gangsters who were doing the booze running and bank robbers. 

I think your turn came in the 60's according to Wiki but it was the same low life type that caused the problem.  To bad they blamed the gun instead of the bad guy but so it goes.  I have shot some sawed off shotguns and they aren't much fun to shoot. On the other hand they are really handy for a car gun or a house gun if you need something a bit more than a handgun.  Which would you rather have in your hand, a 9MM pistol or a 18" barreled 12 gauge if you got out of your car and was faced with a 100 pound mad dog or a pair of them or a pack of them?   

[Spike]

 

Wow! Powerful stuff, indeed.

Thank you.

Spike.

[RomanA]

"In the United States, guns are used around 2,500,000 times each year in self-defence."
According to this article:
http://rush_awards.tripod.com/truthaboutguns.html


It says the following for that figure:

"This is a classic case of disinformation by the NRA. First of all, the NRA's claim of 2.5 million cases of self defense a year is a misrepresentation of Kleck's own results. Kleck had extrapolated from his survey that guns were used in self-defense between 800,000 and 2.45 million times a year. That's quite a huge margin of error there. So naturally the NRA takes the high end of that range and rounds up from that.

Secondly, it is important to note that other criminologists have found serious flaws with this survey. The biggest problem is that Kleck let the respondents of his telephone survey determine whether their use of a gun was a legitimate act of self-defense. In other words if someone took out a gun and threatened a neighbor during an otherwise non-violent argument, and that person thinks this is a justified use of a gun, then Kleck would count that as a legitimate case of self-defense.

Think about it. Any time anyone uses or threatens someone else with a gun, that person brandishing the weapon will ALWAYS consider their use of a gun to be justified. Even a criminal who shoots someone while committing a crime thinks that they are justified. According to the Census Bureau's annual National Crime Victimization Survey there are about 80,000 times a year that firearms are used in self-defense - a mere fraction of the number that Kleck's survey claims. Unlike Kleck's survey, the Census Bureau's survey is not just a single phone call. It involves trained interviewers who follow up with seven interviews with the same household over a 3 year period in order to verify the accuracy of the data. A good source of information about Gary Kleck and his survey is the Aug. 15, 1994 issue of U.S. News and World Report. The article lists other flaws that have been found in Kleck's survey results. "

[SamtheLion]

  We have a ton of information regarding weapon ownership and violent crime. The facts are written largely in blood. Washington DC and Chicago, IL had the most draconian possession laws in the country AND the highest crime and murder rate. Concealed weapons permits in the US has risen greatly and crime in the corresponding areas have fallen equally if not more. Think about it, if you were a criminal and you did not know that your potential victim was armed, would you give it a go?
http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Here is how friendly we are.
Aussies need to get on the bandwagon as well.
_________________________________

Take my gun? When I'm dead.

[Ashhow]

Can't believe I've only just found this thread just now.
Some really good content here, going to make sure I remember as much as possible. Already found two people on my course, all two of which we argued about gun control 
Need to find Dave-303 so I can agree for once.
The data for Texas CHL is really good stuff.

[Chris]

We have a ton of information regarding weapon ownership and violent crime. The facts are written largely in blood. Washington DC and Chicago, IL had the most draconian possession laws in the country AND the highest crime and murder rate. Concealed weapons permits in the US has risen greatly and crime in the corresponding areas have fallen equally if not more. Think about it, if you were a criminal and you did not know that your potential victim was armed, would you give it a go?
http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Here is how friendly we are.
Aussies need to get on the bandwagon as well.
_________________________________

Take my gun? When I'm dead.

http://www.shootersparty.org.au

[SamtheLion]

How much do you need to know? Read this.
In 1988 Britain had a violent crime rate of 420 per 100,000 people, far lower than the US rate of 620 per 100,000 people.

However, since then all that has changed, and not for the better.

In 2006, the US crime rate stood at 473 per 100,000, a decrease of 37% since 1988.

During those 17 years, the UK violent crime rate rose by more than 800% to a rate of over 4000 victims per 100,000 people.

Britain had 2.5 million violent crimes in 2006. The United States, with a population 5 times that of the UK, had only 1.4 million violent crimes during the same period.

This means that Britain has a crime rate that is between 5 and 10 times that of the United States.

The reason is for this is that in the U.S. concealed handguns deter criminals from committing crimes. In the UK, there is nothing to deter criminals at all.

Get off your butt and do something or STFU. It is only in your hands to take control of your life. I am not the pot calling the kettle black, we have our own problems to solve here across the pond and , GOD willing, we will. We have enough of the loony left that loudly proclaims their omnicience, but, also we grow weary of their hollow nuisances. and Goerge Soros is in need of a horrible, debilitating accident that leaves him to be a turnip for the rest of his life. Don't get me wrong, I would never wish anything bad on another person.

[AL Ranger]

Here is a link to story you may enjoy. The story is from February of this year. My apologizes if you have already read it or heard about it.

Open Carry Deters Armed Robbery

[3070dan]

Good story, thanks for that one Al.

[gun touting lefty]

Yes but old grump, i meant can you counter this stasticaly wise, and show how that effects the chances  Where did they get all that crap from 

because there's a corrolation between people carrying knives and those people geting stabbed.

[RomanA]

because there's a corrolation between people carrying knives and those people geting stabbed.

I.e the people getting stabbed who dont carry anything by the people WHO CARRY KNIVES.

[Old Grump]

Go any place you want, I get most of my numbers from The FBI?s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  They collate data sent into them by every police department in the country.  In spite of the weeping Willies and the Wailing Wilma's gun ownership is up, violent crime like assaults on people in their homes are down, rapes are down, murders are down, accidental gun shot injuries are down.  No blood running in the street from minor accidents turning into a gun fight.  Concealed Carriers have a lower rate of crime than uniformed police officers do. 

Where people who used to stand up to any challenge to their manhood would get in a fight that same person carrying a gun will do anything and everything to avoid having to draw it.  They know they are top dog in this fight and don't have to prove it.  Note to bad guys, if a man doesn't act scared and tries to walk away let him go, He knows something you don't. 
 

[Ali3nat0r]

Yes but old grump, i meant can you counter this stasticaly wise, and show how that effects the chances  Where did they get all that crap from 

because there's a corrolation between people carrying knives and those people geting stabbed.

Yeah. Gang violence is what they are basing it on. Kids who get involved in gangs are more likely to carry knives as part of their gang career. And more likely to get stabbed, not because they have a knife, but because of their gang career.

[triple-sod]

That is the standard line used by those poor paranoids who are afraid of guns.  They know they are incapable of using one to defend themselves, family or friends and that the boogerman can take it away from him and use it on his cowardly hide. 

That?s a very interesting point.

I?ve often pondered why anyone one could agree with not being allowed to defend their own families. One idea I hit upon is that your average limp wristed ?new man? is terrified of having the responsibility to do so. He knows he would falter and be jugged a coward by society, so being able to fall back on oppressive laws is an handy get out clause. 

[Colonel Allan]

That is the standard line used by those poor paranoids who are afraid of guns.  They know they are incapable of using one to defend themselves, family or friends and that the boogerman can take it away from him and use it on his cowardly hide. 

I always always point these people to the opening of Terminator 2, where Ahnuld takes everyone's guns. Just to show them how fictional that is. I agree that fear of guns is the driving force behind them creating these fictional nightmare scenarios. Sorry to but in, new member. Peace.

[stefano]

That is the standard line used by those poor paranoids who are afraid of guns.  They know they are incapable of using one to defend themselves, family or friends and that the boogerman can take it away from him and use it on his cowardly hide. 

I always always point these people to the opening of Terminator 2, where Ahnuld takes everyone's guns. Just to show them how fictional that is. I agree that fear of guns is the driving force behind them creating these fictional nightmare scenarios. Sorry to but in, new member. Peace.

Agreed, peoples perceptions of firearms is admittedly driven by hollywood with a good dose of news to tell them how evil they are.

BTW Welcome to arm-britain allan! 

[Colonel Allan]

Cheers for the warm welcome friend. It seems the shooting community has been unfairly demonized more than ever in the last decade, and there is no shortage of idiots who don't know what they are talking about who help. I do enjoy tearing into the universal anti-gun rationale, probably more than is healthy.    I'm going to have a good read on here in a minute. Good to be aboard.

[Crimefree]

Is the more guns less crime approach the best to use or even valid?  Who decided it was and why?

The most basic element, the right to armed defence is being denied, obscured and in fact relegated to insignificance by people who don't think.  Wars were fought over this fact and the foolish unappreciative who inherited the spilt blood and suffering of others want to give it away or ignore it.

Nobody looks at the big picture or they are incapable of examining their own failing.  Who asks why and gets the reason for firearm organisations universal failure to succeed against gun control.   And lets not be stupid and deny that fact, no country in the world has less strict firearm laws than it did fifty  years ago. 

What is the reason gun control spends all its time, expertise and money on public education?  What message does gun control promote and what it the impact on the public?  If it is important no vital to gun control why do firearm owners ignore it and universally follow the false advice of organisations that have failed to make any impact on gun control or restrictive laws?

Is it not just common sense that when you fail you examine why and don't repeat the mistake?  Or will it work next time?

Public education.  Public safety.  Gun control spends all its time and money on instilling fear and hate by connecting peoples safety.  Do you take a person who fears snakes to a snake petting zoo to help them?

[Old Grump]

Is the more guns less crime approach the best to use or even valid?  Who decided it was and why?

The most basic element, the right to armed defence is being denied, obscured and in fact relegated to insignificance by people who don't think.  Wars were fought over this fact and the foolish unappreciative who inherited the spilt blood and suffering of others want to give it away or ignore it.

Nobody looks at the big picture or they are incapable of examining their own failing.  Who asks why and gets the reason for firearm organisations universal failure to succeed against gun control.   And lets not be stupid and deny that fact, no country in the world has less strict firearm laws than it did fifty  years ago. 

What is the reason gun control spends all its time, expertise and money on public education?  What message does gun control promote and what it the impact on the public?  If it is important no vital to gun control why do firearm owners ignore it and universally follow the false advice of organisations that have failed to make any impact on gun control or restrictive laws?

Is it not just common sense that when you fail you examine why and don't repeat the mistake?  Or will it work next time?

Public education.  Public safety.  Gun control spends all its time and money on instilling fear and hate by connecting peoples safety.  Do you take a person who fears snakes to a snake petting zoo to help them?

A citizen in a free country has the right to decide whether or not he needs or wants a gun and if he gets one than he has the responsibility to learn to use it in a competent safe manner. 

If a citizen does not like guns and does not want one he has the right to abstain from ownership or the practice of marksmanship.  The problem lies in to many people not paying attention to what goes on when the law makers work and they end up losing their gun rights because the anti-gun [people say nobody can have them so I can walk the streets without being afraid of my neighbor. 

Law makers and anti-gun activists refuse to recognize the difference between outlaws and law abiding citizens.  Every big city government is liberal and anti-gun and it has cost us a lot of grief on our side of the pond, we are slowly getting our rights back but it was a lot easier to lose them than it was to regain them. 

You HAVE to get politically active and know where your representatives stand on the issue.  You have to take that into account when you write them and when you go to the polls.  It is imperative that us gun people stay polite, stay calm and let the loonies make fools out of themselves with their wild assertions which are easily disproved. 

[duns]

Is the more guns less crime approach the best to use or even valid?  Who decided it was and why?

The most basic element, the right to armed defence is being denied, obscured and in fact relegated to insignificance by people who don't think. 

Some thought provoking points in your message. I'll pick up on one of them.

The "more guns, less crime" argument pioneered by John Lott, whose book I read very carefully and critically, goes down well with me.  I see this as the sociological, or statistical line of argument, based on minimizing the number of deaths (or other measure of harm).

The right to armed defense, I see as the ethical argument or principle. If something is ethically right, then it could be accepted even if it results in increased deaths (or whatever the measure of harm).

Neither the statistical/sociologic or ethical arguments is a sure way of making converts. The opposition have an ethical principle that no one should have weapons (because perfectly reasonably they don't want to live in that kind of world) and they argue strongly against the validity of the statistical argument (usually saying they just don't believe it). And there have been few good statistical studies. The John Lott study I believe was good but it was limited to demonstrating that allowing concealed carry of handguns in the USA had a positive societal/statistical effect.

What really matters is the number of people who are pro or anti gun at election time. At present, a small majority is pro-gun in the USA, where guns are a traditional accoutrement, putting food on the table and protecting against aggressors. Probably a large majority is anti-gun in the UK simply because the UK has had little opportunity to own guns for a couple of generations now and most of the population is understandably brainwashed into believing that the status quo must be for the best.

We need to use both the statistical/sociologic and ethical arguments and be content to make one convert at a time. Some people will never be persuaded on either argument because they just hate and fear weapons and refuse to recognize their utility. This is such an emotional subject that one should not expect logical arguments to automically prevail.