Hey Gun Nuts and "MORE GUNS IS THE ANSWER" crowd, chew on these stats:

Sorry for all the extra underlining. Read this version if it is easier on the eyes-

The below quote is from a fairly balanced article that actually states that both sides of the gun debate are unrealistic in their solutions to tragedies like the one that occured the other day. BUT.... take a look at these stats gun nuts. So many of you came on here saying that guns often work to defend people and stop violent crime, and thus more guns owned by more citizens would be better. Well, in reality, guns VERY RARELY do stop crime. Easy access to guns increases crime for sure, but RARELY stops crime. THOSE are the facts. There are milions of guns in this country, and way more are used FOR crimes than to stop crimes. Read below-

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/04/19/edbookman0419.html

"Others have taken the opposite approach, claiming that a campus ban on firearms prevented Tech students from pulling out their own weapons and taking Cho down before he killed so many. Apparently, these people harbor some ego-stroking adolescent fantasy in which they heroically step forward with weapon in hand to save the day, just like the guys in the movies do, and they bridle at any law that might block their fantasy from coming true.

In real life, it rarely works like that. In 2005, 8,890 people were murdered with firearms, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Firearms were also involved in 142,471 cases of robbery and 151,118 cases of aggravated assault.

In contrast to those 300,000 cases of firearm-related crime, the FBI reported just 143 cases of justifiable homicide by civilians with a firearm. In a nation of 300 million, that means the odds of making a personal Rambo fantasy come true are roughly one in 2 million. They literally have a better chance of being hit by lightning. "

So think about: THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND times in one year, guns were used to commit serious crimes in this country. And evey tough guy on here says that if someone tried to shoot them, or rob them, or assualt them, or home invade them, or carjack them with a gun, they would pull out their own piece and shoot the bastard. Right? Isn't that what you say? And millions of people certainly own guns in this country, so the return firepower is out there. But only 143 times did someone actually pull their piece and shoot and kill a bastard that was trying to harm them. Oh sure, there were probably were several 100 more times that someone shot at an intruder and injured them, or scared them off, but c'mon: 300,000 gun CRIMES vs several 100 (maybe) times when guns STOPPED A VIOLENT CRIME.

Do the math folks: guns are great for commiting crimes, committing suicide, accidentally shooting a friend or family member, grabbing when you've lost your temper and doing something you regret, etc. Oh, and great for feeling tough. But rarely do they actually stop a crime.

But you'll deny it, you'll always deny reality. Good luck in your fantasy world.

Hey, I didn't even read a single word of that, but hey, fu\ck you!

Logic doesn't work on the radical right. Those numbers won't help.

It's probably true that the "ideal" situation of a citizen with a concealed weapon shooting the psycho on a shooting rampage rarely ever happens.

However, it is not just a question of whether private access to handguns causes more shooting deaths each year or not. Just because we have the right to purchase a handgun, does not mean our streets are crawling with people carrying concealed weapons. I do not personally own a handgun, but I do appreciate that it is my RIGHT to purchase one if I so choose.

Let's imagine a scenario where handguns are flat out banned in America. Do fewer people then own a handgun? Certainly. However, the die hards will certainly acquire or keep their handguns anyway. Also, the criminals will acquire a gun if they want to as well. Look at how easy it is to get marijuana. Getting an illegal handgun would be easy. For one thing, you could probably just order one over the internet from overseas and have it delivered to your door. Anyone with the desire to kill a bunch of people would certainly have the willpower and industry to come up with a gun, even if they were banned.

So, in this scenario we've now got a LAW that affects every one of us, in that we now no longer have a right to purchase a handgun. However, does it achieve the desired result of stopping all these mass shootings? Personally, I think not. It might cut down on a very small percentage of gun killings, but I don't think it would diminish gun (or violence to a major extent, and may in fact have some detrimental effects like emboldening burglars and creating crime related to the black market gun trade.

You are afraid of guns, according to Freud, because you are impotent and unable to come to grips with it. (No pun intended) Look who's talking about fantasy.

I'm going for a run now, just to get this thread on topic.

Maybe that (partially) means that people who own guns aren't being chosen as victims as frequently as people who don't own guns. Know how a predator will attack the weakest animal in a herd ? Kind of works the same way with bullies and thugs.

Lets say I'm a criminal, am I going to try to rob Billy Bob with his gun rack in the window of his pickup, or am I going to keep going, looking for easier "prey" ??

No, I'm not dumb enough to think that people with weapons don't get attacked (apparently at least 143 of them last year), but sometimes stats can be misleading.

If I launched into a detailed discussion about what is wrong with your argument, and pointed at that the Atlanta Journal is a biased paper, it would probably fuddle your liberal head.

So I will ask a simple question:

Hypothetically, you are a rapist or a burglar.

Option 1: Would you break into a house in a city where all guns were banned?

Option 2: Or would you rather break into a house where there was the possibility that you would find yourself staring down a shotgun?

It's a simple question. Anything other than a simple answer is just going to be typical leftist issue dodging.

These are the people who want to ban guns. Simpletons:

http://www.deletedyoutube.ftvteen.com/?v=ospNRk2uM3U

More gun control now than in the history of the country. That's done a whole lot to stop gun crimes too, eh?

"Lott and Landes of the University of Chicago law school examined multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack," Dr. Lott said."

guns rule wrote:

More gun control now than in the history of the country. That's done a whole lot to stop gun crimes too, eh?

the "arguments" on this thread are so unbelievably bad. the OP puts up a stat about the number of times a gun was used to kill an attacked. how relevant is that? it's moronic. the relevant stat would be the number of times that a gun deterred a crime. the hypothetical deterrence factor of a victim potentially having a gun is pretty much impossible to measure, so i understand excluding that. but excluding shots that hit but didn't kill an assailant and deterrence via showing a weapon is just stupid.

and the one i've quoted here is even worse. yeah, let's compare gun crime in 1840 to gun crime in 2007. i don't think you need me to tell you why that's a worthless argument.

Perhaps you ignorant americans should pull the head out of your asses and look at the rest of the developed world (yes, there IS a world outside the US!). Practically all developed countries have stricter gun laws, and a lot less shootings per capita.

xlr wrote:

Perhaps you ignorant americans should pull the head out of your asses and look at the rest of the developed world (yes, there IS a world outside the US!). Practically all developed countries have stricter gun laws, and a lot less shootings per capita.

Using cross-sectional data (different countries) is problematic because you have to account for many other variables. The ethnic homogeneity of the country plays a large role in a lot of social issues like gun violence. Time series data is much better. I haven’t studied the issue, but something like the academic study, which takes into account other variables, by the U Chicago profs seems more reputable.

Hey, NRA, I read your post, and came to this glorious conclusion: Thanks to our founding fathers, who came to the conclusion that the second most important right we have after our freedom of speech, is the right to own a gun. Thanks to this decision, normal everyday citizens were effective in eliminating 143 scumbags from the gene pool.

Stand by, there's another shooting coming tomorrow and the day after, and the day after. With all those W. Bush clones around, they're bound to wimp out and take it out on others. Columbine, Oklahoma City, Atlanta Olympic Games, Virgina Tech, the list goes on and on. It might be your campus or workplace next week ;-)

Rush Limbaugh supports the NRA - he is a viagra user

Bob Dole supports the NRA - he is a viagra user

Dobson supports the NRA - he is a..............

The list goes on and on...........

Obviously, contrary to what the ultra-right believes, carrying a concealed gun does not make you a man. In fact, it seems to be a substitute for being a real man.

Why are all liberal men so feminized? Edwards, Reid, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Gore and just about every other leftist liberal is just so ..well metrosexual at best, feminine(girly) at worst. What's up with you guys.

"Personal Rambo fantasy" is not a phrase that would be used in a "fairly balanced article".

Your source also states tougher gun control wouldn't have helped, but I see you snipped that portion out.

kaitainen wrote:

and the one i've quoted here is even worse. yeah, let's compare gun crime in 1840 to gun crime in 2007. i don't think you need me to tell you why that's a worthless argument.

The one you've quoted here says nothing about gun crime in 1840. That was your creation. More gun control now than in 1940 and the same trend occurs. More gun control now than in 1960 and STILL the same trend occurs. Etc, etc.

The number of times a gun stops a crime is far larger than 100.

The AJC is a lefty paper through and through.