Lies Gun Grabbers Tell, or, How to Educate Your Progressive Friends on Guns
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Lie 1.) Guns kill people.
Actually, they don't. As proof, tens of thousands of former Communist Bloc guns are imported into the US and sold as surplus each year. These guns have been sitting in cosmoline for decades without killing anyone, and they're commie guns!
So you needn't worry about an evil gun pointing itself at you from a closet, holster, or gun safe and pulling it's own trigger.
Actually, they don't. As proof, tens of thousands of former Communist Bloc guns are imported into the US and sold as surplus each year. These guns have been sitting in cosmoline for decades without killing anyone, and they're commie guns!
So you needn't worry about an evil gun pointing itself at you from a closet, holster, or gun safe and pulling it's own trigger.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Lie 2.) "Silencers" are used to kill in stealth
Here's a fun fact: movies don't portray guns realistically, and "silencers" don't exist.
There is something called a "suppressor" and it serves to reduce the volume of gunfire by roughly 35 decibels. That means the gunfire is still louder than a jet engine, a rock concert, or a jack hammer. Many international gun ranges actually require suppressors for the protection of their staff and customers. The next time you hear someone imply that "silencers" allow killers to sneak from room to room murdering quietly, you'll know they're either ignorant or dishonest.
Further, suppressors are difficult to obtain. Only class 3 firearms dealers can sell them. To make a purchase, you'll have to pay hundreds of dollars for the suppressor itself along with a $200 NFA application fee, and wait several months or a year to pass an enhanced background check.
Here's a fun fact: movies don't portray guns realistically, and "silencers" don't exist.
There is something called a "suppressor" and it serves to reduce the volume of gunfire by roughly 35 decibels. That means the gunfire is still louder than a jet engine, a rock concert, or a jack hammer. Many international gun ranges actually require suppressors for the protection of their staff and customers. The next time you hear someone imply that "silencers" allow killers to sneak from room to room murdering quietly, you'll know they're either ignorant or dishonest.
Further, suppressors are difficult to obtain. Only class 3 firearms dealers can sell them. To make a purchase, you'll have to pay hundreds of dollars for the suppressor itself along with a $200 NFA application fee, and wait several months or a year to pass an enhanced background check.
Last edited:
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Lie 3.) Assault rifles
The guns commonly referred to by gun control advocates and the media (but I repeat myself) as "assault rifles" are actually semi automatic rifles. This means that the gun will fire exactly one bullet with each pull of the trigger. True assault rifles are used by the military and are capable of firing more than one bullet with a pull of the trigger. Civilians actually can obtain equivalent weapons, but they come at great cost, require the same in depth background check described above, are stored in ATF databases, and must be produced on demand at the request of law enforcement.
To review, this is a semi automatic rifle that I used to use to squirrel hunt, when I was 10:
And this is also a semi automatic rifle that fires the same bullet as the rifle above:
The guns commonly referred to by gun control advocates and the media (but I repeat myself) as "assault rifles" are actually semi automatic rifles. This means that the gun will fire exactly one bullet with each pull of the trigger. True assault rifles are used by the military and are capable of firing more than one bullet with a pull of the trigger. Civilians actually can obtain equivalent weapons, but they come at great cost, require the same in depth background check described above, are stored in ATF databases, and must be produced on demand at the request of law enforcement.
To review, this is a semi automatic rifle that I used to use to squirrel hunt, when I was 10:
And this is also a semi automatic rifle that fires the same bullet as the rifle above:
Last edited:
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Lie 4.) Guns do more harm than good
While a reasonable emotional reaction from someone who finds guns scary, data says otherwise. Since Forbes magazine already did some heavy lifting here, I'll quote them quoting studies:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...ked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=72075790299a
In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
Subsequently, I learned of a recent paper by Florida State University professor Gary Kleck, “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?“
Kleck looked at some previously unpublished results from the CDC surveys conducted in the 1990s and concluded:
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.
...
We don’t know why the CDC chose not to publish that data from the 1990s.
Kleck offers some ideas in his original paper. One possible explanation:
Another factor, however, might also have played a role in the decision of CDC personnel to not report the DGU findings. For CDC’s own surveys to generate high estimates of DGU prevalence was clearly not helpful to efforts to enact stricter controls over firearms, since it implies that some such measures might disarm people who otherwise would have been able to use a gun for self-protection.
One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique.
While a reasonable emotional reaction from someone who finds guns scary, data says otherwise. Since Forbes magazine already did some heavy lifting here, I'll quote them quoting studies:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...ked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=72075790299a
In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
Subsequently, I learned of a recent paper by Florida State University professor Gary Kleck, “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?“
Kleck looked at some previously unpublished results from the CDC surveys conducted in the 1990s and concluded:
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.
...
We don’t know why the CDC chose not to publish that data from the 1990s.
Kleck offers some ideas in his original paper. One possible explanation:
Another factor, however, might also have played a role in the decision of CDC personnel to not report the DGU findings. For CDC’s own surveys to generate high estimates of DGU prevalence was clearly not helpful to efforts to enact stricter controls over firearms, since it implies that some such measures might disarm people who otherwise would have been able to use a gun for self-protection.
One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Actually there is a very strong positive correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of gun deaths. Whether the data are looked at from a state level. Or across countries. Of course, I never tire of pointing out that correlation does not prove causation. But in this particular instance, there is likely some causation going from number of guns in circulation to gun deaths.
So I don't think this is a lie.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Lie 3.) Assault rifles
The guns commonly referred to by gun control advocates and the media (but I repeat myself) as "assault rifles" are actually semi automatic rifles. This means that the gun will fire exactly one bullet with each pull of the trigger. True assault rifles are used by the military and are capable of firing more than one bullet with a pull of the trigger. Civilians actually can obtain equivalent weapons, but they come at great cost, require the same in depth background check described above, are stored in ATF databases, and must be produced on demand at the request of lawmakers.
To review, this is a semi automatic rifle that I used to use to squirrel hunt, when I was 10:
And this is also a semi automatic rifle that fires the same bullet as the rifle above:
So which ones were covered under the assault weapons bans that used to be in effect.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Oh boy.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
take guns out of circulation and gun deaths will go down...i have a very high degree of confidence in that propostion...regardless of methods used to reduce guns in circulation
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Barring outside interference, it is impossible for the gun to kill someone. Lightning kills people. Earthquakes kill people. Cancer kills people. Cold weather kills people. Guns....sit on a shelf, in a holster, in a safe, but they don't kill people. If you drop one off a cliff and it hits someone it may kill them. If your home burns down the ammunition in the gun may get hot enough to fire and may flukishly make contact with someone. And someone may, for good purposes or bad, fire the gun at someone. But the gun itself has no power to do anything but sit still.
So it is a lie.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is something he could have stated more precisely. But yeah a gun by its lonesone is pretty harmless. Unfortunately guns live in close proximity to humans. Can't take that out of the equation.
If it makes you feel better to say it's a lie be my guest.
By the way cancer and starvation (in the absence of humans) cause no deaths (to humans).
I guess guns are different cause they require a certain amount of agency. But still there aint much doubt that the combination of guns and humans has been pretty deadly for our country. I won't attempt to parse out how much is due to the guns and how much to the humans. That kind of wisdom I don't lay claim to. But the combination has been a deadly one.
Last edited:
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Hmmm. How patriotic was the Patriot Act?
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
It is a fair point that if all guns simply sat untouched on a shelf, in a holster, or in a safe at all times we would have no gun deaths. I suppose everyone could agree on that.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We are unified.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
It doesn't make me feel any better than saying that yellow and blue make green or 2+2=4. It is a factual statement. We've seen enough recent damage from playing fast and loose with facts and definitions to better suit progressive aspirations.
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
It is a fact that a gun on a shelf cannot kill someone.
It is also a fact that guns in homes are much more frequently used for homicide, suicide, intimidation of a family member, or accidental death than they are for self-defense. Numbers from a 2012 study: 259 justifiable gun-related homicides- killing in self-defense. Compare that to 232,000 gun thefts- 172,000 of them during burglaries. 20,666 suicides with guns. 8,342 criminal homicides with a gun. 548 unintentional deaths from a gun. You can reasonably assume that some of those suicides would have happened anyway, and maybe some homicides as well, but certainly not enough to even out the numbers.
So, can guns stop crime sometimes? Factually, yes. Do more guns lead to more deaths at the end of the day? Also yes.
Obviously, a lot of those numbers could be evened out by restricting who can own a gun (background checks, red flags), providing proper training for those who do, limiting the use of ARs and high capacity mags, etc. without saying that no one can own a pistol or a shotgun for hunting or to protect their family. As with most political questions, there is a lack of nuance here with people thinking it has to be all or nothing.
It is also a fact that guns in homes are much more frequently used for homicide, suicide, intimidation of a family member, or accidental death than they are for self-defense. Numbers from a 2012 study: 259 justifiable gun-related homicides- killing in self-defense. Compare that to 232,000 gun thefts- 172,000 of them during burglaries. 20,666 suicides with guns. 8,342 criminal homicides with a gun. 548 unintentional deaths from a gun. You can reasonably assume that some of those suicides would have happened anyway, and maybe some homicides as well, but certainly not enough to even out the numbers.
So, can guns stop crime sometimes? Factually, yes. Do more guns lead to more deaths at the end of the day? Also yes.
Obviously, a lot of those numbers could be evened out by restricting who can own a gun (background checks, red flags), providing proper training for those who do, limiting the use of ARs and high capacity mags, etc. without saying that no one can own a pistol or a shotgun for hunting or to protect their family. As with most political questions, there is a lack of nuance here with people thinking it has to be all or nothing.
Last edited:
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
How many of those deaths did you say happened without the intervention of a person?
And which study did you reference there? We like to include such things around here. You'd be amazed at how often people quote studies from partisan organizations, like, for example, the Violence Policy Center, and expect the numbers to be taken seriously.
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
No gun deaths occur without human involvement. We've agreed on this and can therefore agree that the safest environment would be to have no human touch a gun. Since that seems unrealistic, I'll simply paste from the same CDC study that you used when discussing a Forbes opinion article from a conservative doctor who apparently is a more reliable source in your eyes.
Protective Effects of Gun Ownership
Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).
Risk Factors Associated with Gun Possession
Certain aspects of suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury may be amenable to public health research. Some studies have concluded that persons who keep a firearm in the home may have a greater risk of suicide and homicide (Kellermann et al., 1993). Homicide by individuals possessing guns illegally is of special interest. The public health burden of interpersonal firearm violence and the interactions of substance use, abuse, and trafficking deserve specific attention.
Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed with firearms (Fox and Zawitz, 2007). In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent (Vigdor and Mercy, 2006). Research on restricted access to firearms in 46 large U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 indicated that restricted access was associated with reduced firearm and total intimate partner homicide (Zeoli and Webster, 2010).
Most firearm-related deaths are suicides. Fifty percent of suicides are by firearm and 60 percent of firearm deaths are suicides (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2013). Research demonstrates that the proportion of suicide by firearm is greater in areas with higher household gun ownership (NRC, 2005). Further, two studies found “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both [studies] also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun” (NRC, 2005, p. 181).
Fatal and nonfatal firearm violence poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of the American public. As discussed in the Introduction, there are legal and responsible uses for firearms, including law enforcement, self-defense, and recreational uses. However, the presence of guns in civil society can also lead to firearm-related violence. Although violent crime rates have declined in recent years (Truman, 2011), the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). In 2010, incidents involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals in the United States.20 A recent estimate suggested that firearm violence cost the United States more than $174 billion in 2010 (Miller, 2010).
To me, it would seem clear that some common-sense gun control (note: not banning all guns) would go a long way towards bringing us in line with the rest of the civilized world when it comes to gun violence.