# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/741 "2013-02-25T14:18:54Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Also did I mention that a gun worked great for me when my home was invaded? How was the intruder able to get into your house? Did he have to defeat any alarms or get past a dog? Or did he slip in unnoticed and startle you as you were sleeping? What would you have done if the intruder was armed and pointing his gun at you when you first noticed him? Just because something worked doesn’t mean it’s a good solution. There are other solutions which work better and don’t introduce the same risk of lethal accident when the grandkids come over to visit. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/742 "2013-02-25T16:13:28Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Says who? How many home defenses with a gun result in killing, disabling or apprehending an assailant, as opposed to just scaring him away like a dog or an alarm? Oh, that’s right, we are not permitted to collect data on gun violence. Of course we’re allowed to collect data on gun violence. The government does it all the time. The CDC is the only outfit that isn’t allowed to conduct research on it because some people don’t like how they conduct and present their research. I don’t have any problems with the CDC doing research or funding research but I understand why people were annoyed with the CDC “public health” approach to gun violence rather than the FBI “criminologist” approach to gun violence. My understanding is that the public health approach focused on banning guns as an effective method of reducing gun deaths, but the prevented gun deaths were almost entirely suicides. They also presumed that these suicides would be replaced by the typical “attempted” but unsuccessful suicides rather than other equally lethal methods of suicide. The CDC also doesn’t place very much weight on the increase in crime victimizatiojn that might occur in a disarmed citizenry with armed criminals unless people will die as a result. So if the CDC starts looking at this from more of a criminologist’s perspective, I don’t see why anyone could reasonably object but the suspicion is that these people aren’t built to look at these problems in that way. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/743 "2013-02-25T18:02:15Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > What did I say earlier? About what? > [@Kable](#): > > Nothing really at all except it looks more “assault like” than a normal pistol. I figured you wouldn’t like it because of cosmetics, and sure enough you didn’t. You assumed I would, then you couldn’t name the difference between that and a normal pistol. Its not my fault you’re redundantly naming off the same thing, if they are the same > [@Kable](#): > > I love it when you gun grabbers use the words “a good start.” It proves the slippery slope is the real strategy rather than a than a logical fallacy. Its a good strategy. People should have their guns limited, licensed, and registered, and they should be trained to handle it > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Reducing firearms only among law abiding citizens is a HORRIBLE start. > > Its like saying, “nuclear weapons are bad, we should get rid of them. First things we should do is decommission the US nuclear arsenal, I’m sure the whole North Korea and Iran thing will work itself out” > > WHO has the guns makes a difference. Its reducing it for everyone and drying up the supply ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/744 "2013-02-25T18:44:06Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > The numbers of crimes stopped without making the news is much more. Maybe in the hundreds of thousands to millions. There are studies on that BTW, and you are permitted to collect any data you want. It is clear you do not know the difference between data and anecdotes. You are expressing your opinion only, not facts on which others can base an informed decision about gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/745 "2013-02-25T19:17:38Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Its reducing it for everyone and drying up the supply Tell me how your law works so that it won’t end up reducing firearms among law abiding citizens without having much if any impact on firearms owned by criminals? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/746 "2013-02-25T19:32:27Z")
Is firearm ownership by anyone a value we are obliged to protect and promote? Clearly, we would prefer that criminals did not have weapons. But does that mean we have some obligation to encourage “law abiding citizens” to arm themselves? Isn’t that why we have armed policemen in the first place? We defer our right to self-defense to a group of trained professionals, don’t we? In a similar manner, we place the responsibility for national defense on trained soldiers, and supply them with the weapons appropriate to their duty. Is there some reason that similar weapons should be available to civilians? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/747 "2013-02-25T19:35:08Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It is clear you do not know the difference between data and anecdotes. You are expressing your opinion only, not facts on which others can base an informed decision about gun control. He is referring to studies by McDowall and Kleck which pin the number of times that guns are used in self defense at 65,000/year and 2,500,000/year respectively. These two numbers are the bookends of estimates and the real number is probably somewhere in between. A DOJ survey estimates the number at over a million per year. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/748 "2013-02-25T19:57:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Is firearm ownership by anyone a value we are obliged to protect and promote? Protect? Yes. Promote, probably not anymore but there was a time when it was required by law. > [@](#): > > Clearly, we would prefer that criminals did not have weapons. But does that mean we have some obligation to encourage “law abiding citizens” to arm themselves? Isn’t that why we have armed policemen in the first place? Policemen are armed more to protect them than us. > [@](#): > > We defer our right to self-defense to a group of trained professionals, don’t we? Maybe you do, I don’t. > [@](#): > > In a similar manner, we place the responsibility for national defense on trained soldiers, and supply them with the weapons appropriate to their duty. Is there some reason that similar weapons should be available to civilians? Yeah, because there is a constitutional right of the people to bear arms. If that isn’t good enough for you (and I would ask WHY thats not good enough for you), then the natural right to self defense. If that isn’t enough for you then because we cannot depend on the police to be there when crime is occurring, only to try and catch the criminal after it has occurred. Heck, I have seen cops drive right by (heck they were parked and they drove away from) criminals in the middle of the commission of a crime on their way to protect people in wealthier neighborhoods. I don’t blame them but I don’t think I can depend on them either. When seconds count the police are only a few minutes away. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/749 "2013-02-25T20:01:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Tell me how your law works so that it won’t end up reducing firearms among law abiding citizens without having much if any impact on firearms owned by criminals? That’s not the goal. The goal is to reduce it for everybody. Of course the ones who comply will be hit first, but that’s ok, there are other guns available that allows them to defend themselves just fine. The fallacy is assuming that only these guys allow the law-abiding to defend themselves fully. It would not be a loophole if 100% of law-abiding citizens cannot own these while making a marginal impact on the criminal. You guys still have handguns and shotguns, good enough for self-defense. You don’t need an illegal weapon just because criminals have it. You may as well ask why the law-abiding can’t own rocket propelled grenades because how are you going to defend yourself from criminals with RPGs? The answer is that you use a different gun and we dry up the supply for assault weapons as much as possible ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/750 "2013-02-25T20:45:20Z")
How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research Read more: [How the NRA Kills Gun Violence Research - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2LwbhlCSs) And another: [Blackout: How the NRA suppressed gun violence research](http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/14/blackout-how-the-nra-suppressed-gun-violence-research/) > [@](#): > > That pushback from gun-rights supporters sent a not-so-subtle message to the CDC—as well as any other government agency thinking of funding gun violence research, Kellerman said: “You toucha this topic, I breaka your face.” > The result: Nearly two decades later, with Washington mulling gun-violence prevention measures in the wake of last month’s Newtown, Conn. shooting, policymakers find themselves hampered by a lack of objective, scientific information on one of the country’s major public health threats—one which costs the country 31,000 lives and an estimated $100 billion per year. That has left today’s policymakers flying virtually blind. > > “We said, there’s two injuries that are the leading cause of death in the U.S. right now: cars and guns,” recalled Mark Rosenberg, who helped establish the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), in part to study gun violence. “We spend hundreds of millions on cars, we spend nothing on guns.” > > The message appears to have been received. As the researchers’ letter to Biden noted, over the last 40 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has provided 486 research awards to study cholera, diphtheria, polio, or rabies, and just three to study gun violence, even though during that period, there have been more than four million gun-violence injuries—almost 2000 times more than the number of documented cases of those diseases. It’s science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It’s all part of the War on Science. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/751 "2013-02-25T21:07:20Z")
It’s simply incorrect to say that “you can collect any data you want.” There are scientific, ethical, regulatory and pragmatic concerns that dictate what and how data can be used in answering research questions. Of course, the people saying this sort of thing are just being flippant and don’t actually care about the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/752 "2013-02-25T21:10:44Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > It’s science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It’s all part of the War on Science. It has happened for centuries; When knowledge contradicts pre-conceived belief, then knowledge must be crushed. After all, if actual scientific studies were done, then how on earth could folks like **Kable** continue to post tripe along the lines of “guns are good, because here’s a story about a granny that scared a bad man away.” ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/753 "2013-02-25T23:18:09Z")
Have you ever noticed that when people debate car safety, or pool safety, or ladder safety … no one ever bring the, “yeah, but what about guns?” side of the argument to the table? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/754 "2013-02-25T23:53:46Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Have you ever noticed that when people debate car safety, or pool safety, or ladder safety … no one ever bring the, “yeah, but what about guns?” side of the argument to the table? You kidding me? I see it all the time, most recently in the “Should Everclear be banned?” discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/755 "2013-02-26T01:39:03Z")
And you earnestly believe **Kable** is simply arguing in favor of responsible drinking in that thread? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/756 "2013-02-26T01:46:13Z")
I think he’s arguing that we should apply the same rules to guns that we do to drinking, just as people keep trying to say that we should apply the same rules to guns that we do to cars, even though they’re completely different products. I think the gun rights advocates are starting to get concerned that there might be enough of a ground-swell of interest in lowering the body count a little that the power of the NRA may not be enough to maintain the status quo, and he’s trying to deflect as much attention and energy as he can. That, and, he’s a thread-shitting troll. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/757 "2013-02-26T09:51:59Z")
I’d be interested in determining whether gun owning women are less likely to be raped ([this article](http://voices.yahoo.com/gun-control-america-debate-thats-not-worth-8518085.html?cat=17) reports such a study, but doesn’t cite it). I know most rapes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, but there are still a considerable number of rapes committed by strangers. Of course, we couldn’t determine causation, but surely the gun proponents would be interested in knowing? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/758 "2013-02-26T12:13:48Z")
A light-hearted look at a gun rights rally: [Idaho Gun Fondlers Bravely Resist Tyrant Hussein Obama’s Imaginary Gun Confiscation Orders](http://wonkette.com/502851/idaho-gun-fondlers-bravely-resist-tyrant-hussein-obamas-imaginary-gun-confiscation-orders) WARNING: contains barrelfuls of snark, but is actually relatively kind to the subject matter considering the website. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/759 "2013-02-26T12:51:01Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > How was the intruder able to get into your house? Did he have to defeat any alarms or get past a dog? Or did he slip in unnoticed and startle you as you were sleeping? What would you have done if the intruder was armed and pointing his gun at you when you first noticed him? My intruder broke down my front door, awakening me in the process. I keep all my doors and windows locked so there is no way I can think of for him to “slip in.” If I saw him pointing a gun at me, I would have shot him also. I keep a surefire weapon light on my home defense gun now to make identifying threats easier. > [@](#): > > Just because something worked doesn’t mean it’s a good solution. There are other solutions which work better and don’t introduce the same risk of lethal accident when the grandkids come over to visit. In my case I don’t have grandkids and I do have a safe. I think alarms and dogs are both great ideas, but I would not trade my gun for either or both. Ideal for some might be all 3, and now that alarms act by cellular technology I’m considering getting one. I do think that people should be able to assess their particular situation and take whatever security precautions they see fit, how about you? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/760 "2013-02-26T12:58:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > About what? Jesus, you are a dumb fuck. > [@](#): > > You assumed I would, then you couldn’t name the difference between that and a normal pistol. Its not my fault you’re redundantly naming off the same thing, if they are the same I assumed correctly, and the uzi pistol is the same as a normal pistol. You thought it should be outlawed because it looked “military” but was just a handgun. > [@](#): > > Its a good strategy. People should have their guns limited, licensed, and registered, and they should be trained to handle it I think gun safety is an important issue and think they should teach it to all children in public school. How do you like that idea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=39)