Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Home Protection
    #1113145 -

If you're thinking of buying a gun for home protection let me give you a few statistics. A member of your family is 22 times more likely to die from gunfire if you have a gun in the house than if you don't.

The idea that having a gun is the only way to ensure "home protection" is a myth. Fewer than 1 in 4 violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home. Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

If you are truly concerned about home protection - get a dog.

- Micheal Moore


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115077 -

this article is the latest results of this kind of research - US States with More Gun Owners Have More Murders
methinks the good researcher, dr miller of harvard, will be getting a visit from the nra shortly. never fear you can get great carbon fiber kneecaps these days.
Wed Dec 4,11:10 AM

By Charnicia E. Huggins

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Homicides in the United States are more common in states where more households own guns, according to researchers.



The study findings imply "that guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans," lead study author Dr. Matthew Miller of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health.


"This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often adduced, notion that guns are a public good," he added.


Miller and his team investigated the association between homicide and rates of household firearm ownership using 1988-1997 data collected from the nine US census regions and the 50 states.


They found that household gun ownership was linked to homicide rates throughout the nine census regions. At the state level, the link between rates of gun ownership and murder existed for all homicide victims older than age 5, according to the report in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health.


In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides, nearly three times as many as the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey.


Further, people who lived in one of the six "high gun states" were nearly three times as likely to die from any homicide and more than four times as likely to die from gun-related homicide than those who lived in "low gun states," the report indicates. Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.


On average, about half of households in high gun states had firearms, according to data reported by three of the six states, in comparison to 13% of households in low-gun states.


Although homicide rates were higher in poor areas and in states with higher rates of non-lethal violent crime and urbanization, the association between household firearm ownership and homicide remained true when the researchers took these and other factors into consideration.


Still, Miller's team notes that it is not clear whether the higher rates of household gun ownership caused or resulted from the increased number of homicides.


"It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition," they write.

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:1988-1993.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115183 -

I don't own a gun, but I gots lots of cutlery!  :grin:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115195 -

In reply to:
If you are truly concerned about home protection - get a dog.

This is really good advice for gun owners and non alike. There are two ways to attack this issue.
1) Outlaw guns to save lives
2) Educate gun owners about locking their arms in safes, trigger locks etc.

Number one is flawed because blanket rules play to the least common denomenatordenominatordenominatorsdenominatedenominationdenominateddenominatesdenominationsdenominationaldenominatingdenominativedemonstratordenigratordenominationallydenominativesdemonolatry. I resent blanket rules. 2 is OK. I personally like trigger locks, not because of potential laws but for the peace of mind it brings me. I own several firearms but don't use them for home safety. Hunting/range use is all I do. I respect your opinion on firearms, but don't blame a piece of metal, blame the idiot that misuses it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1115338 -

The whole gun issue is a very thorny one.

Guns do cause problems. Guns are used in many crimes. Do we outlaw them
completely? I don't think we should. They do serve legitimate sporting
and protection purposes.

When people who didn't deserve to be shot, get shot, it is either because
of criminal behavior or negligence. I am not a criminal, and I am not an idiot.
So, I feel as if I should have access to a gun to do whatever I wish to
do(within the boundaries of the law), including protecting my home.


RandalFlagg


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1116461 -

Alex123 writes:

A member of your family is 22 times more likely to die from gunfire if you have a gun in
the house than if you don't.

In which country? Source please.

Fewer than 1 in 4 violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home.

In which country? Source, please.

Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home,
in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time residents
accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

In which country? Source, please.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: mr crisper]
    #1116483 -

mr crisper quotes:

In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership -- Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides...

Note that "homicide" also includes suicide.

Further, people who lived in one of the six "high gun states" were nearly three times as likely
to die from any homicide...

and

Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived
in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.

How is this explained by gun ownership? These statistics alone clearly demonstrate there is more
going on in these states than a simple "cause and effect" phenomenon. A more logical
inference to be drawn is that for whatever reason, inhabitants of these states are more prone to violence than inhabitants of other states.

Note that in Switzerland, where gun ownership is nearly universal, the incidence of homicides
(or ANY crimes) involving guns is virtually zero. Even in Canada, which on a per capita basis has nearly as many households with guns as does the United States, gun-related homicide is a
small fraction of the US rate.

Guns in and of themselves do not create violence.

"This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun
in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often
adduced, notion that guns are a public good,"

How can someone who claims to have produced a study with valid conclusions not be aware of
the studies done by Professor Lott et al which show quite clearly that states which have instituted
"concealed carry" laws have had a corresponding drop in the rate of gun-related crimes than
those which haven't?

Drawing valid conclusions from raw statistical data involves more than compiling isolated strings of
numbers and jumping to conclusions.

pinky





--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1116690 -

In which country? Source please.

The source is at the bottom of the post.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1116825 -

Ah. So the source is a sensationalist movie director notorious for playing fast and loose with facts and who has freely admitted he exaggerates in order to "pound home the point more effectively".

Treating Michael Moore's proclamations as factual is as senseless as treating Rush Limbaugh's proclamations as factual. I presume you cut and pasted from some website? Perhaps you could provide a link to it -- there is a slender chance that Moore might have mentioned where he got those numbers.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1117188 -

Guns in and of themselves do not create violence.

Source please.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1117470 -


Guns in and of themselves do not create violence.


Source please.


You don't need a source to prove this. Guns don't pick themselves up and
shoot people. People do this. Don't blame the instrument, blame the person
who perpetuated the action. And, don't infringe upon responsible and law-
abiding owners of this instrument, just because others happen to misuse it.

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1117556 -

Shit, speaking of the gun control debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=gun_control_debate


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1118639 -

dr miller certainly seems to have an agenda, hence my kneecap comment.
personally i dislike guns, especially when other people are pointing them at my head. but if i lived in the usa and had a family, i would own a gun for protection, so many violent assholes to contend with. :grin: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1119020 -

yes but the fact the guns exist themselves causes opportunity for violence. I doubt anyone would die nearly as much because of melee weapons if guns weren't around, cuz guns are so easy to kill someone with. And then we got some milk and eggs in the dairy section. "Are you kids shopping?" Samson asked. Oui?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1119080 -

You don't need a source to prove this.

I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this. How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle? The rifle created the opportunity for him to kill 13 people. If he'd been trying to do it without a rifle it would have been far more difficult.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1119417 -

I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this.

Reading comprehension, Alex, reading comprehension.

Try to grasp the fundamental principle here. Tools do not kill humans. HUMANS kill humans. Some use poison to kill others, some use edged weapons, some drown others, some use bludgeons, some use swords, or arrows, or darts, some use ligatures, some use firearms, some use bombs, some run others over with a vehicle, many use no weapons at all other than their hands and feet.

How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle?

That's hard to say. How many was Tim MacVeigh able to kill without a rifle? Or Ted Bundy? Would the Washington sniper have exceeded their score if he had chosen to kill with bombs or strangulation rather than a firearm? We'll never know.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1119436 -

What????? You mean those darn guns don't leap up by themselves and just kill people?

Well who would have thought!

And what's this about hands, knives, poison, etc? Your saying that bullets aren't the only way to kill others? Does everyone know about this?

Next thing I know you'll be saying people should take responsibility for their own actions.

:laugh: :grin: :laugh: :grin: :laugh: :grin: :laugh: :grin: :laugh:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
    #1119577 -

Try to grasp the fundamental principle here. Tools do not kill humans. HUMANS kill humans.

Please try and understand. Would you be glad to see everyone in america given a nuclear bomb? If not, why not?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Grav]
    #1119588 -


guns exist themselves causes opportunity for violence. I doubt anyone would die nearly as much because of melee weapons if guns weren't around, cuz guns are so easy to kill someone with.


Anything that can be used to kill a human being, WILL be used to kill a human
being, because there are people out there who will kill people. Whether you
were a caveman with only rocks and stick at your disposals, or a modern day
man with an assault rifle at his disposal, the one fact remains, some people
habitually act violently and irresponsibly. We need to punish those people.
We however should not punish people who have had nothing to do with any
crime. If anybody tries to take my gun away because of other people's actions,
I will fight tooth and nail.

From my cold dead hands.

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
    #1119594 -


You don't need a source to prove this.


I'm afraid you do. In fact you would need many, many sources to prove something as outlandish as this. How many people would the washington sniper have killed without having a rifle? The rifle created the opportunity for him to kill 13 people. If he'd been trying to do it without a rifle it would have been far more difficult.


You have yet to answer my question; when a person commits a heinous act with
a tool(a tool which has legitimate uses when in the hands of law-abiding citizens),
should we infringe upon the rights of law-abiding people and ban that tool, or should we punish the actions of the perpetrator of the crime?

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War Northernsoul 1,189 12 03/18/03 09:34 AM
by angryshroom
* nuclear disarmament wilshire 731 10 11/19/05 09:02 PM
by kilgore_trout
* I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Poid 7,557 172 11/28/09 09:40 PM
by Poid
* The disarming facts Xlea321 333 0 10/02/03 11:36 PM
by Xlea321
* Series on Protecting Your Privacy Online Lana 3,776 2 12/09/02 09:01 AM
by isam
* White House declares itself immune from federal whistleblower protection laws Andy21 1,209 7 09/12/06 06:50 PM
by Konnrade
* Protecting free trade not about protecting big business.
( 1 2 3 all )		 z@z.com 4,733 48 01/14/05 02:57 PM
by Anonymous
* Senate Will Vote on Bill Protecting 2 Million Acres of American Wilderness.
( 1 2 all )		 Pandeist 1,235 21 01/16/09 04:46 PM
by TGRR

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,966 topic views. 1 members, 161 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.