Ever wonder why the scientific literature on gun violence wasn’t deeper? It’s because the NRA douchbags have actively worked against it.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
For instance, they got CDC funds taken away after it had the temerity to examine the issue.
Why would they actively try to silence researchers if they really believed their bullshit?
Yeah, my memory failed me. I was thinking of England, maybe. Thanks for the correction.
Because they’d rather pretend that John Lott is a reliable source and the only one to be listened to on the subject.
Are any of these sources reliable?
So, I took the first one. “2.5 million protective uses of guns” features prominently. Googled that, see where it took me. Here, the lefty pinko David Frum opines on the sources of that line. An excerpt:
Indeed.
It does seem a bit low, even given that:
• Just seeing that the potential victim is armed will discourage most with criminal intent.
• Even if the gun is fired, most shots will miss.
• Not all hits are fatal.
In my personal experience, I’ve heard first-hand about a dozen stories where the gun owner, when faced with potential crime, displayed the gun without firing, and only one where the gunowner fired (he missed.) I don’t know anyone personally who actually shot and killed an attacker.
Interesting comment, nonetheless. Could you provide your expert and unbiased analyses of the remaining points?
Before answering that, let me ask you a question.
When you declared your source for your silly assertions to be John Lott and More Guns: Less Crime were you aware that he and his book had been thoroughly discredited and weren’t you?
Were you ignorant of how his credibility had been ripped to shreds when you used him as your source or were you just hoping we were all ignorant of that?
Thanks.
Heavily armed in England, are they? I do acknowledge that England and Wyoming are easy to confuse. Heck, they almost speak the same language. If you’ll recall, I was responding to this:
The point is: England has a high violent crime rate, despite very strict gun control laws. Higher than the United States, according to the article. Which makes sense to me, as they’re pretty much all unarmed.
Not very interesting. About the only thing intriguing about this was Goodling that phrase : *2.5 million defensive gun uses *. Amazing how many places that one phrase shows up! How many times this (apparently) bogus “research” is called upon. An example of a metastasizing meme, its spread all over the place. Ah, the wonders of modern progress!
Quite convenient, the ability to dismiss facts offhand with which one does not agree.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
Does it now? Well, we will have to look at the country vs country data, but the trend within England is very much downward:
How are these defenseless lambs experiencing lower rates of violent crime? Are they secretly arming themselves?
And oops, but wikipedia suggests that the US has a homicide rate of 4.2, vs. A UK rate of 1.2.
Ruh roh, is John Lott lying again?
Violent crime rates, brother. You need remedial reading classes?
From the article:
“In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people…The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents…”
I am aware that Lott has some shady business associated with his research. Much like the “climategate” scientists, a few indescretions do not undermine the validity of the work as a whole.
Can I ask you one simple question? It’s a “yes” or a “no” question, not designed as entrapment, or an attempt to humiliate you using junior high-level debate class methods:
Do you believe that I, personally, would be safer right now if I disposed of my guns?
Thanks.
Someone needs to very, very gently educate the Wyomingites out of this sad delusion that they have anything worth stealing or shooting anyway.
OK, maybe not so gently.
Where’s that “Your tone is becoming inappropriate for this forum” guy now?
Apparently, some inappropriate tones are more equal than others.
And.exactly what is a violent crime? Do the US and UK measure them the same?
Why is the UK rate declining if they have no guns to defend themselves?
Perhaps most crucially, if the UK rate of violent crime was actually so much higher than the US, why do we have four times the homicide rate? What one factor, do you think, might explain why an overall more violent people end up killing each other less often? Hmmm…
Perhaps it rhymes with birearms?
This is truly rich for you to cry foul. Didn’t you just say that I needed remedial reading classes?
The United States’ violent crime rate has been declining as well, despite relaxing of gun laws and the spread of “shall issue” concealed carry laws.
Here’s list of homicide rates by country. Looks like the United States is the middle of that list. Can you name the countries that have higher homicide rate that the U.S, that have less strict gun control laws? I can name a lot of them with higher homicide rates and stricter gun control laws.
Sometimes, I don’t even know why I try…