January Gun Sales Set Yet Another Record

iguanaman said:

If those aren't "famous last words" I don't know what is. Please tell me that you don't have children or teenagers that can access your guns without your knowledge. I will feel much better and you won't become part of another statistic.

Click to expand...

I did and they did and they are not. Just like millions of other families. Tell you what though, just lost a kid at my son's college (UF) who fell over a guard rail on the 6th floor of his apartment building due to alcohol....under legal drinking age as well. I am far more concerned with that than suicide. BTW, how many suicides with a firearm or any other means, are preceeded by consuming enough liquid courage to do the deed? I personally know of 2. How many suicides occur among alcoholics? Hint,....a lot. Maybe you have that weak gene that would cause you to kill yourself iguana? Perhaps you should question if you really want to risk having beer in the house. Especially if you have kids.

jaeger19 said:

My children can access their guns without my knowledge. I could as a teenager access my firearms without my fathers knowledge as well.

Click to expand...

The anti-gun people do not associate a urban family's hunting rifles leaning on the wall by the kitchen door as being sane. They see irresponsible blood thirty savages handing guns over to people who want to shoot themselves, or commit mass murders. They associate gun shows with straw purchases. They hold up semi automatic rifles in front of the media telling everyone about how automatic weapons can be bought at gun shows.

Debating the issue is useless.

iguanaman said:

If those aren't "famous last words" I don't know what is. Please tell me that you don't have children or teenagers that can access your guns without your knowledge. I will feel much better and you won't become part of another statistic.

Click to expand...

Did you even answer anyone about the claim that you made that anyone could buy guns on Craigslist and pawn shops without a background check?

jaeger19 said:

Actually the meta analysis does not show a causal link between gun ownership and criminal intentional injuries, accident injuries and suicide.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that it showed a causal link. Just a significant and positive correlation.

jaeger19 said:

Actually the meta analysis DOES NOT disagree with him.

Click to expand...

Well if YOU say so.

RetiredUSN said:

The anti-gun people do not associate a urban family's hunting rifles leaning on the wall by the kitchen door as being sane. They see irresponsible blood thirty savages handing guns over to people who want to shoot themselves, or commit mass murders. They associate gun shows with straw purchases. They hold up semi automatic rifles in front of the media telling everyone about how automatic weapons can be bought at gun shows.

Debating the issue is useless.

Click to expand...

that is because those who lead the anti gun movement only pretend to care about public safety and spew that dishonesty in order to convince the slow witted sheeple to support the Bannite agenda. Bannite leaders are invariably left wing activists who see gun control as a tool to attack conservative voters and the NRA

NonoBadDog said:

Did you even answer anyone about the claim that you made that anyone could buy guns on Craigslist and pawn shops without a background check?

Click to expand...

I doubt it, most of the Bannites have been schooled so many times about that lie that they don't want to deal with the dishonesty directly.

TurtleDude said:

I doubt it, most of the Bannites have been schooled so many times about that lie that they don't want to deal with the dishonesty directly.

Click to expand...

I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this one. He knows that was dishonest and tried to push it through anyway. I know I will never get an answer so I don't expect one but I can keep asking. Maybe he will think about the honesty of this "craigslist" statement before he makes it again.

NonoBadDog said:

I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this one. He knows that was dishonest and tried to push it through anyway. I know I will never get an answer so I don't expect one but I can keep asking. Maybe he will think about the honesty of this "craigslist" statement before he makes it again.

Click to expand...

I doubt you will get an admission of wrong What's worse is they don't even care about the facts since the facts go to their pretend motivation and not their real reason for pushing idiotic gun restrictions.

TurtleDude said:

I doubt you will get an admission of wrong What's worse is they don't even care about the facts since the facts go to their pretend motivation and not their real reason for pushing idiotic gun restrictions.

Click to expand...

:agree

RetiredUSN said:

The anti-gun people do not associate a urban family's hunting rifles leaning on the wall by the kitchen door as being sane. They see irresponsible blood thirty savages handing guns over to people who want to shoot themselves, or commit mass murders. They associate gun shows with straw purchases. They hold up semi automatic rifles in front of the media telling everyone about how automatic weapons can be bought at gun shows.

Debating the issue is useless.

Click to expand...

the reason that I don;t think debating the issue is useless is because there are lots of people out there that are non gun owners.. but not anti gun either. The anti gun people however, have historically been LOUDER than the pro freedom. pro firearm crowd. A good reason for that is the media which is anti gun. That's why I think forums like this are great. Because there are lots of lurkers here that don;t get involved in the conversation but read the posts.

MrT said:

I never claimed that it showed a causal link. Just a significant and positive correlation.

Click to expand...

How? The significant majority never have an issue. How is that a positive correlation?

stonewall50 said:

How? The significant majority never have an issue. How is that a positive correlation?

Click to expand...

You don't understand how correlation works if you think that a positive correlation disappears when it doesn't affect the significant majority of the population.

Let us suppose that the normal population has a 1 in 10,000 chance of death by gunshot and gun owners have a 1 in 3,000 chance of death by gun shot. In that scenario, you only have a 0.03% chance of death by firearm, but it is still three times higher than the normal population. And thus, you get a positive correlation.

MrT said:

You don't understand how correlation works if you think that a positive correlation disappears when it doesn't affect the significant majority of the population.

Let us suppose that the normal population has a 1 in 10,000 chance of death by gunshot and gun owners have a 1 in 3,000 chance of death by gun shot. In that scenario, you only have a 0.03% chance of death by firearm, but it is still three times higher than the normal population. And thus, you get a positive correlation.

Click to expand...

Which ignores that there are several far more significant factors at okay than "owning" the gun. Like being a moron for instance.

MrT said:

I never claimed that it showed a causal link. Just a significant and positive correlation.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So the value of your study is extremely limited or completely invalid. There is a strong and positive correlation between people owning cars.. and being in car accidents as well.

stonewall50 said:

Which ignores that there are several far more significant factors at okay than "owning" the gun. Like being a moron for instance.

Click to expand...

Well.. and it ignores WHY they will own a firearm.

A guy plans on killing himself.. goes out and buys a firearm as part of his plan.. then kills himself. Mr T. wants to infer that the firearm was the causal factor. When it was actually the persons mental illness that was.

A women breaks up with her abusive boyfriend who threatens her. She has multiple restraining orders which he violates with impunity, and the cops never catch him violating it. She borrows a firearm from a friend and keeps it in her bedside table.

The ex follows her into her house one day and kills her well before she can make it to the bedroom. Mr T would prefer that you think that the womans death was the result of her owning a firearm.. rather than that the reason she HAD a firearm was because of the threat from the ex.

jaeger19 said:

Well.. and it ignores WHY they will own a firearm.

A guy plans on killing himself.. goes out and buys a firearm as part of his plan.. then kills himself. Mr T. wants to infer that the firearm was the causal factor. When it was actually the persons mental illness that was.

A women breaks up with her abusive boyfriend who threatens her. She has multiple restraining orders which he violates with impunity, and the cops never catch him violating it. She borrows a firearm from a friend and keeps it in her bedside table.

The ex follows her into her house one day and kills her well before she can make it to the bedroom. Mr T would prefer that you think that the womans death was the result of her owning a firearm.. rather than that the reason she HAD a firearm was because of the threat from the ex.

Click to expand...

In both of your scenarios, I could very easily twist the facts to make the gun the actual cause.

For example, with your suicide story - imagine that Timmy tries to kill himself with a knife instead of a gun, but he cuts himself improperly and does not bleed out in time. Timmy survives, gets counseling, and realizes that suicide was a mistake. If Timmy had used a gun, he would have had a higher chance of succeeding. In that scenario, the gun was the causal factor.

In the abuse story, let's imagine that the reason her abusive boyfriend targeted her home for invasion that night is because he found out that she borrowed a gun. And let's say that he planned his attack so that she wouldn't be able to reach the gun. In that case, the gun played a causative role in her death. Or how about the home invader is just a burglar and chose her place because he wants to steal the firearm. She wakes up, startles him, and then dies to her own gun because gun rights activists want to balk at finger print safety technology.

You see jaegar19 would have you believe that gun can only help in a given situation or be neutral at worst. But in each of those scenarios, the gun was a detriment to the owner. And Jaegar19 wants you to ignore those inconvenient facts because he has inferred (in a circular fashion) that a gun cannot a negative influence on a situation and thus, the scenarios where the gun is a negative influence must not exist.

You see? Two can play this game. Now do me a favor and never make up arguments on my behalf again. I am perfectly capable of telling you what I believe and what I infer from a given situation.

stonewall50 said:

Which ignores that there are several far more significant factors at okay than "owning" the gun. Like being a moron for instance.

Click to expand...

Also a valid point. I am merely educating folks on the risks of owning a firearm. If you accept those risks and are willing to mitigate them through proper storage, then more power to you.

jaeger19 said:

Exactly. So the value of your study is extremely limited or completely invalid. There is a strong and positive correlation between people owning cars.. and being in car accidents as well.

Click to expand...

And between owning pools and drowning!

But here's the issue, the study linked gun ownership and homicide/suicide. Not homicide by gun shot. Not suicide by gun shot. Just homicide in general. Just suicide in general. After controlling for other factors. After being studied by numerous groups independently and then the collection of studies being reviewed again.

If you are willing to accept the risks, and are willing to take the necessary precautions to minimize those risks, then you go for it. Just don't deny that the risk exists.

MrT said:

Also a valid point. I am merely educating folks on the risks of owning a firearm. If you accept those risks and are willing to mitigate them through proper storage, then more power to you.

Click to expand...

The issue is when statistics are misrepresented to a population that does not understand statistics or does not have the desire to look at the actual numbers. What sounds scarier to a layman, "You are 3 times more likely...." or "You have a .03% chance out of 1000" ?

99% of the time, gun Prohibitionists misrepresent the actual risk by using the more dramatic, "You are 3 times more likely..." Using the latter would make most folks realize how goofy and insignificant that argument really is.

So while those numbers reflect sound statistics, they do not reflect the actual real-world risk in any meaningful way.

MrT said:

In both of your scenarios, I could very easily twist the facts to make the gun the actual cause.

For example, with your suicide story - imagine that Timmy tries to kill himself with a knife instead of a gun, but he cuts himself improperly and does not bleed out in time. Timmy survives, gets counseling, and realizes that suicide was a mistake. If Timmy had used a gun, he would have had a higher chance of succeeding. In that scenario, the gun was the causal factor.

In the abuse story, let's imagine that the reason her abusive boyfriend targeted her home for invasion that night is because he found out that she borrowed a gun. And let's say that he planned his attack so that she wouldn't be able to reach the gun. In that case, the gun played a causative role in her death. Or how about the home invader is just a burglar and chose her place because he wants to steal the firearm. She wakes up, startles him, and then dies to her own gun because gun rights activists want to balk at finger print safety technology.

You see jaegar19 would have you believe that gun can only help in a given situation or be neutral at worst. But in each of those scenarios, the gun was a detriment to the owner. And Jaegar19 wants you to ignore those inconvenient facts because he has inferred (in a circular fashion) that a gun cannot a negative influence on a situation and thus, the scenarios where the gun is a negative influence must not exist.

You see? Two can play this game. Now do me a favor and never make up arguments on my behalf again. I am perfectly capable of telling you what I believe and what I infer from a given situation.

Click to expand...

1. Actually if timmy tries to kill himself with a knife.. or he tries to kill himself with a gun.. in neither case is the gun OR the knife the causal factor its Timmy's mental state that is the causal factor.

In fact. If Timmy tried to kill himself with the knife.. but did not succeed.. so then next time Timmy tries with a rope and hangs himself.. would you claim that rope is a "causal factor".. would you call for restrictions on owning rope? Somehow.. I don't think so.. and that's because in ANY OTHER scenario in which Timmy kills himself WITHOUT a firearm.. you would not consider the method used as a causal factor.

2. Except that in the abuse situation.. he has already been abusing her BEFORE she had a gun.. and she had to have a restraining order on him BEFORE she had a gun. Objectively the gun is not a causal factors simply because of that.

3. Okay.. the home invader is a burglar that wants to steal her firearm. Okay.. so how does he know she has a firearm? Right there is a great reason not to have registration or the need for gun licenses or background checks.. because they are now records that could be used by criminals to target gun owners.

And fingerprint technology had nothing to do with her death.

4. You see MR T. would have you believe that the gun was a detriment to the owner.. but the fact is WAS NOT a detriment to the owner.. the real issues was the mental health of the person, the willingness of the criminal to invade a home or murder a person.

See Mr T.. has INFERRED in a circular fashion that a gun WAS a negative influence on a situation.. when the reality is that it is an inanimate object. It has no chemical effect, it cannot influence someones mind.. it does not cause criminality nor mental deficiency.

You see.. two can play this game but only Jaeger19 and anyone with any objectivity will win.

I don;t have to make up arguments on your behalf.. you do it quite well as you just demonstrated.,. in inferring that a firearm somehow "influenced" a situation.. when in no way did it. Anymore than duct tape influences rape, or pools influence drownings, or baseball bats influence beatings, or tight clothes cause sexual molestation.

MrT said:

And between owning pools and drowning!

But here's the issue, the study linked gun ownership and homicide/suicide. Not homicide by gun shot. Not suicide by gun shot. Just homicide in general. Just suicide in general. After controlling for other factors. After being studied by numerous groups independently and then the collection of studies being reviewed again.

If you are willing to accept the risks, and are willing to take the necessary precautions to minimize those risks, then you go for it. Just don't deny that the risk exists.

Click to expand...

Exactly.. but again.. that's because you don;t understand the research.

for example.. people that live in high crime areas or in areas where there is little likelihood of police getting to the scene. (poor neighborhoods, or rural neighborhoods etc).. are more likely to be targeted by criminals. (thus having a high likelihood of being a victim)
And those folks more likely to be targeted by criminals and those that can not rely on police response are also may be more likely to own a firearm for protection.

BretJ said:

The issue is when statistics are misrepresented to a population that does not understand statistics or does not have the desire to look at the actual numbers. What sounds scarier to a layman, "You are 3 times more likely...." or "You have a .03% chance out of 1000" ?

99% of the time, gun Prohibitionists misrepresent the actual risk by using the more dramatic, "You are 3 times more likely..." Using the latter would make most folks realize how goofy and insignificant that argument really is.

So while those numbers reflect sound statistics, they do not reflect the actual real-world risk in any meaningful way.

Click to expand...

I went ahead and gave you an upvote because of the reasonableness of your argument; however, your last statement is contradictory. If the numbers reflect sound statistics, then they do represent actual real-world risk in a meaningful way.

But humans tend to be very risk averse and we have a terrible understanding of how probability works. So it still comes down a personal choice of whether you wish to accept those risks and that recognition will hopefully lead you to take mitigating steps to reduce the amount of risk.

MrT said:

I went ahead and gave you an upvote because of the reasonableness of your argument; however, your last statement is contradictory. If the numbers reflect sound statistics, then they do represent actual real-world risk in a meaningful way.

But humans tend to be very risk averse and we have a terrible understanding of how probability works. So it still comes down a personal choice of whether you wish to accept those risks and that recognition will hopefully lead you to take mitigating steps to reduce the amount of risk.

Click to expand...

There is the rub. When the argument is presented in a way that does not represent the practical risk, one has to question the motive. I could say you are 100 times more likely to die in an aviation accident if you fly than if you drive. That would be logically and statistically sound but it does not represent the practical risk. In the case of the firearms statistics, while your statistics are accurate, they do not represent the "practical" risk or explain the other risk factors associated with those "more likely" canidates. Meaning they only represent the practical/actual experience of less than 1% of approx. 120,000,000 gun owners.