American Gun myth no 1. Guns for home/self defence

Myth 1. Guns are needed for self defence/home defence

More here
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/researc...n-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

I am not about banning guns - but I would like to see these unfounded and illogical myths upturned and some real logic re-inserted into gun arguments. You want to own a gun, fine YOU DO NOT NEED TO RATIONALISE THAT TO ANYONE!! But, and this is a big but please stop spreading this elephant excreta all over the internet that somehow guns are magical safety shields

 

this study by harvard is pure bull****


too many holes in it


And it's NO myth.

 

Want to outline that a little more completely? I am sure Harvard would be delighted with a well written rebuttal - they do like a good argument in academia!!

 

You're correct, owning a firearm does not guarantee your safety. Several things can happen which might make the ownership of a defensive weapon pointless. For example, you might not be afforded the chance to draw and fire your weapon in a situation where you need to, your weapon might be taken and used against you, you might get into a shootout and ultimately lose.

But the simple fact that some are able to defend themselves with a firearm, whereas they wouldn't have a chance otherwise, justifies the private ownership of firearms.

[video=youtube;39_c27nwyKI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_c27nwyKI[/video]

BTW, I think you have a reasonable stance on firearms, seeing how you don't propose banning them, though I'm curious about what you think of assault style weapons, high cap magazines, and handguns.

 

I am both a nurse and an Aussie - that means I personally think fewer guns of any kind are better and I do travel around Northern Australia often by myself without a gun - even in Croc country (although I do NOT take silly chances)

But I will not force that choice on anyone

What I do want to do is try to root out the myths that have become so embedded they are memes

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) that would be intense.

 

Guns....or "arms"....was mostly intended to keep an over bearing government in check. Knowing that its citizens could rise up against their tyranical rule should stop politicians from over taxing, overspending, or disreguarding the voices of their BOSSES. But as you can see, the private citizen is no longer close to being able to match the fire power of the government with the restrictions of so many "arms" to private citizens, the government has grown vastly as the divide of fire power has grown. When the uberwealthy are able to purchase nukes, thats when you will see the US government release the boot off the throats of the producers of jobs in this country again.

 

I do not think the video of the older gentleman in the casino is a good example for having an armed populace. He could have easily killed someone, one lady almost walks in front of him while he is shooting. Had the robbers had any bit a balls the situation could have ended with many patrons killed in the crossfire.

 

This is presented as a good argument?

We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable

"Appear to be socially undesirable" Criminal misuse of guns appears to be undesiaable?

Ok all criminal use is socially undesirable. News of the obvious there. Non defense use of a gun to frighten is a crime, terroristic threat / assault.

This is just about criminal use, not defensive use.

Most uses of a gun for defense do not involve firing the weapon.


I've I had had a gun with me when i was attacked, the way i do now, i dont think anyone would have needed to get hurt.

It would have been their choice, to go the other way or walk into a .38 calibre bullet.

As it is, i was badly injured and three kids are in jail, two families lives ruined, not to mention what it did for me and my family.

 

That is gun myth 3 - patience we will get there and discuss that one as a separate thread, and in fact it is my favourite because it is soooooo illogical!

 

To find out what they really mean by "Socially undesirable" you need to look to the entire research paper this is quoted from - in fact it is part of the abstract of the paper

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2000/00000015/00000003/art00003

Unfortunately I do not have access to the full research paper but there are other research papers out there notably by people like Gary Kleck

AS for your own experience - do not dwell of what might have been - that way lies sleepless nights

 

To be fair the government owns very advances weaponry and technology enough to easily blow up whole towns without losing a single man. A lot of people with their basic firearms would do little against that kind of force (assuming it even happened) I'm all for guns but saying that people owning them keeps the government in check doesn't really hold well when they have enough weapons to wipe out whole towns with a press of a button.

 

Thanks and good points but save this one till thread 3 when we REALLY tackle this idiotic myth about guns = freedoms

 

That is of course,your own biased opinion...

 

This is true, and there are cases where someone, intending to defend themselves or others, inadvertently shoots someone who's not a threat. Even the police do it. Fortunately, in the case of the old guy in the video, this is not what happened. Instead, the old man was able to defend himself and everyone in the place, when it would have been nearly impossible otherwise. It's quite a beautiful sight to behold.

Even though there is collateral damage, it still beats the alternative IMO. The alternative is a society that's been awash in firearms from the beginning, suddenly being full of armed criminals because they're the only ones who do not care about a ban on firearms, or specific firearms. It's far too late for a gun ban here, there are too many weapons in circulation, and responsible gun owners won't tolerate their constitutional right to bear, to be taken away. The best course of action is to find better ways of keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

 

I do believe citizens could ultimately defeat our own military and overthrow the government... provided that their fight was righteous. The private ownership of firearms is but one element to this.

First, you're not going to find many U.S. military personnel who'd be willing to turn their weapons on fellow citizens. In fact, the military would have to fight defection from within. Secondly, insurgents in the Middle East have done quite a good job against the worlds most powerful militaries. Afghanistan is known as the 'Graveyard of Empires' for a reason. There is no reason to think that we could not have similar success by adopting similar tactics. Plus, it's hard to say what nations might have an interest in supporting an uprising amongst U.S. citizens against the government... sort of like we've been doing across the Middle East.

I think the above is more than enough of a deterrent against the powers that be.

 

Thats a foolish arguement and ignores reality. Its not that easy to totally destroy a town unless you use nuclear weapons. You dont just push a button and unleash a volley of weapons that destroys a town. WW2 Stalingrad is a great example of a city that was bombed and shelled for weeks and still successfully resisted.

The govt doesnt want to rule over dead bodies and destroyed towns. The govt needs people and resources and infrastructure. The govt isnt going to come in and play scorched earth. There are political ramifications as well.

And as usual when this arguement is made you ignore the many examples of lightly armed "peasants" defeating modern fully equiped military forces. Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc all you have to do is a little reading to find examples.

 

You keep throwing out the same old arguements that have been debunked.

I read your link, not much there other than conclusions, but it seems to be a regurgitation of the same "research" that anti-gun crowd always uses.

 

You keep throwing out the same old arguements that have been debunked.

I read your link, not much there other than conclusions, but it seems to be a regurgitation of the same "research" that anti-gun crowd always uses.

Read the John Lott book "More Guns Less Crime". It goes into detail and provides all the raw data. In fact,if you ask for it he will give you his entire data base. Anti-gun nits have asked for it, received it, and are not heard from again.

 

I am not against legal gun ownership, concealed carry, etc. I recall watching the video posted some time ago and just think it is a horrible example for the pro-gun side. If the gentleman had ended up killing one of the robbers he would have faced murder charges as he continued to shoot at them after they fled. I am not familiar with the details of the event but I would bet that the robber with the gun either had no bullets or had a fake gun, but perhaps being shot just scared the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of him and he lost his nerve. Point being had the robber returned fire the event could have ended terribly for a lot of people. The guy didn't save anybody's life just the casinos wallet.

Not really sure how to go about keeping guns out of criminal hands. Its one of those things that will always be an issue, all you can do is try your best to minimize it.

 

I was talking mainly to the point that gun regulations are what's stopping us from matching the military. This is not the case as it would do very little against it, though Afghanistan is different as groups are spread out and spending millions to kill a few people generally isn't that good. The main deterrent to a government is that without people they run nothing, we are government without us there is nothing so it's better to work with peoples interests, guns do little to deter them especially when one side has drones and the other has a shotgun. Take a guess who'll win that fight.

 

I never said anything against this, I was responding to someone that said that guns are what deters people in government from trying to create a dictatorship. Don't get me wrong they are afraid of that because it wouldn't work but not inherently because people are armed, that's why you don't see dictatorships in all places without guns. Though I was mainly pointing out that guns vs a drone wouldn't do much if they truly wanted to kill us they would have it pretty easier, though I was mainly talking about the hypothetical situation that the government used the military against the people as that would be the only way you could create a tyrannical government, if you don't have the military on your side you don't have any force.

 

That's exactly what the seeder said. STOP LYING. Oh, pardon me, I forgot for a moment this is America.

 

Oh! What? You mean the one I am entitled to have even though I live in a country with strong gun laws??