Discussion:
Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Between Being Safe and Imminent Slaughter By Other Murderous Americans Carrying Guns
(too old to reply)
Sniper: Shoot To Kill
2019-02-08 23:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Guns are for killing the other guy with the gun! Killing Americans on
American soil. Something only gun owners accomplish with regularity!

Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle Association says
The insistence that guns protect people from rape and violence is not
rooted in scientific reality

"The one thing a violent rapist deserves is to face is a good woman with a
gun!" That was Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle
Association, the standard bearers for America's gun lobby, making the case
that personal firearms prevent rape.

The assertion that guns offer protection is a mantra the NRA has repeated
often. In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, LaPierre opined: "The
only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun",
insisting that schools should have armed guards.

Academics such as John Lott and Gary Kleck have long claimed that more
firearms reduce crime. But is this really the case? Stripped of machismo
bluster, this is at heart a testable claim that merely requires sturdy
epidemiological analysis. And this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas
and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009
paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They
compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with
684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The
researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found
that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than
those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.


Which issue do you want US election candidates to discuss?
Read more
The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely
empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise
tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines,
individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun
assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally
avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-
free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them."

This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard
school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in
this area and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact.
While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and
very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning
and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a
finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including
several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the
contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for
individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds
of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an
individual not carrying.

The problem goes deeper than this, however. There's good evidence that the
very act of being in possession of a weapon has an unfortunate effect of
making us suspect others have one too. This was shown in a 2012 paper by
psychologists Prof Jessica Witt and Dr James Brockmole, where subjects were
given either a replica gun or a neutral object and asked to identify the
objects other people were holding.

Subjects in possession of a replica firearm were much more likely to
identify a neutral object as a firearm. The erroneous assumption that
someone else is armed can and does often end in tragedy.

Indeed, the evidence suggests the very act of being armed changes one's
perception of others to a decidedly more paranoid one. Other studies have
shown an element of racial priming too, where a black subject is more
likely to be assumed to be carrying a weapon. Guns have a curious
psychological effect beyond this: a 2006 study by Dr Jennifer Klinesmith
and colleagues showed men exposed to firearms before an experiment had much
higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in
aggressive behaviour relative to the subjects not primed with a weapon.

LaPierre's proclamation bears the hallmarks of a litany of misconceptions.
Gun aficionados often frame the debate in terms of protection, but it is
vital to realise that the vast majority of rape and murder victims are not
harmed by nefarious strangers, but by people they know, and often love –
friends, family members, lovers. Far from protecting people and keeping
families safe, the sad truth is that firearms are often used in episodes of
domestic violence. The John Hopkins centre for gun policy research has some
sobering facts on this; women living in a home with one or more guns were
three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by
their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner
owned a gun.

Nor did guns make the women safer; women who purchased guns were 50% more
likely to be killed by an intimate partner. So LaPierre's "good woman with
a gun" is actually, it seems, putting herself in danger.

Viewed in this light, the NRA's insistence that rapes can be prevented with
firearms or that teachers should be armed appear even more stupid than they
already seemed. It is worth remembering that just as America leads the
world in gun ownership, so too does it lead the world in gun homicide, with
11,000 to 12,000 murders committed by firearms each year. The tired old
rationalisation that guns protect people is frankly contradicted by the
evidence. The inescapable conclusion is that gun ownership makes everyone
less safe. The logic the NRA espouses is perverse and transparently self-
serving – the solution to gun crimes is not more guns, and no amount of
rhetorical dexterity can surmount this fact. If the US is to have a truly
honest discussion about its gun culture, it needs to be rooted in fact
rather than fantasy, and the sound and fury from the NRA should be
dismissed with the contempt it deserves.
slate_leeper
2019-02-09 13:10:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:24:54 +0000 (UTC), "Sniper: Shoot To Kill"
Post by Sniper: Shoot To Kill
. They
compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with
684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The
researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found
that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than
those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.
How many of those were gang members or involved in drugs?


Why do you set responses to NOT go to the talk.politics.guns group?
--
Someone who thinks logically provides
a nice contrast to the real world.
(Anonymous)
a425couple
2019-02-10 16:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle Association says
The insistence that guns protect people from rape and violence is not
rooted in scientific reality
"The one thing a violent rapist deserves is to face is a good woman with a
gun!" That was Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle
Association, the standard bearers for America's gun lobby, making the case
that personal firearms prevent rape.
------
The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely
empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise
tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines,
individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun
assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally
avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-
free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them."
-----
Nor did guns make the women safer; women who purchased guns were 50% more
likely to be killed by an intimate partner. So LaPierre's "good woman with
a gun" is actually, it seems, putting herself in danger.
Hmmm. Having a gun and knowing how to use it,
seems to have worked out well for this lady.


https://abc7chicago.com/man-fatally-shot-by-woman-in-fernwood-previously-accused-of-attacking-cops/5045750/

(No recidivism for him!)

Thursday, January 10, 2019 08:20AM
CHICAGO (WLS) -- The man shot and killed by a woman he was trying to rob
at a Chicago bus stop in the Fernwood neighborhood had a criminal history.

The incident in the 500-block of West 103rd Street Tuesday morning was
captured on surveillance video.
RELATED: Woman with concealed carry license fatally shoots would-be
robber in Fernwood, police say

A woman with a concealed carry license fatally shot a man who was trying
to rob her in Chicago's Fernwood neighborhood, Chicago police said.

Investigators said 19-year-old LaAvion Goings approached the 25-year-old
woman, pulled out a gun and announced a robbery. The woman then shot and
killed him with her gun. The woman has a concealed carry license.

Police said Goings, who has a history of arrests. Last summer, he
allegedly attacked a sergeant and officer during a drug raid.

Man fatally shot by woman with concealed carry license in Fernwood
previously accused of attacking cops
Ad Duration00:05
PLAYPLAY
Current time00:00
Seek
00:00
Duration00:34
TOGGLE MUTE
Volume

SETTINGSTOGGLE FULLSCREEN
EMBED </>MORE VIDEOS
slate_leeper
2019-02-11 13:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sniper: Shoot To Kill
Nor did guns make the women safer; women who purchased guns were 50% more
likely to be killed by an intimate partner. So LaPierre's "good woman with
a gun" is actually, it seems, putting herself in danger.
Once again a very misleading statement. Actually, the percent of women
killed via firearm by an "intimate partner" is of a much lower
percentage than those killed via firearm NOT by an "intimate partner."
See graphic at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/investigations/domestic-violence-murders
--
Someone who thinks logically provides
a nice contrast to the real world.
(Anonymous)
Loading...