TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

kimrees wrote: Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically).

Really? Let see, there are some 200-300 Million firearms in the U.S., yet according to your site, in 2010 (for a full year) there were 9595 firearms deaths. Assuming that each was with a different gun (worst case), that means that less than a whopping 0.005% of the firearms in this nation were used as "instruments of killing".

Seems that the vast majority of gun owners are misusing their "instruments of killing", otherwise a lot more people would be dead.

This is a fundamental assumption of an anti. That is, the only way a gun can be used is if it kills someone.

They totally ignore incidents where a gun was successfully used to stop an assault without the gun ever even being fired.
Not to mention all the times that a gun is fired, nobody is killed, and the threat is stopped.

And, as the saying goes, if guns were designed to kill people, all mine are defective.

ShepherdTX wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

kimrees wrote: Also, a gun is an instrument of killing. Cars are not (typically).

Really? Let see, there are some 200-300 Million firearms in the U.S., yet according to your site, in 2010 (for a full year) there were 9595 firearms deaths. Assuming that each was with a different gun (worst case), that means that less than a whopping 0.005% of the firearms in this nation were used as "instruments of killing".

Seems that the vast majority of gun owners are misusing their "instruments of killing", otherwise a lot more people would be dead.

This is a fundamental assumption of an anti. That is, the only way a gun can be used is if it kills someone.

They totally ignore incidents where a gun was successfully used to stop an assault without the gun ever even being fired.
Not to mention all the times that a gun is fired, nobody is killed, and the threat is stopped.

And, as the saying goes, if guns were designed to kill people, all mine are defective.

And you've totally ignored all the times that firearms are fired at non-living targets, like pictures of zombies, clay pigeons, etc. I don't have the statics, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of lead has been expended against paper.

Darn guys, you are taking all my thunder. I hope that Kim didn't just post once and won't come back. I am truly interested in some adult debate about the statistics. I did pretty well in my college stats class (thanks to TBM and all her help ) and I know too well that you can slice and dice full data to show a point. Heck, I am a consultant after all and that is what I do for a living.

I am interested in what user on here let her know about this thread because she didn't just happen across it. And, what was the point of showing it to her anyways?

RX8er wrote:Darn guys, you are taking all my thunder. I hope that Kim didn't just post once and won't come back. I am truly interested in some adult debate about the statistics. I did pretty well in my college stats class (thanks to TBM and all her help ) and I know too well that you can slice and dice full data to show a point. Heck, I am a consultant after all and that is what I do for a living.

I am interested in what user on here let her know about this thread because she didn't just happen across it. And, what was the point of showing it to her anyways?

Well, when an anti posts to a gun forum, she should expect a little blowback. If she can't take the heat, she should stay out of the kitchen.

kimrees wrote: Does that mean we should say guns are safe and everyone who passes a background check should have them? Personally, I don't think so. That's just my opinion.

Kim, I am still working on my email response to you but hope that you continue to frequent here and will debate with us.

I disagree with you 100% on the above. Guns are safe. You hear about more accidents from unsafe hammers than you do unsafe guns. Now, what you equate to being unsafe is when someone intentionally pulls the trigger and the gun does EXACTLY what it was designed to do, it fires the ammunition. This does not make a gun unsafe it makes it possibly used in the wrong manner. And, you agree with me that not many people die from the accidents.

And, if you pass a background check and can answer the 4473 truthful, why should you not be able to posses a handgun?

There is a huge difference between statistics and truth.

Anygunanywhere

Comparing gun deaths to vehicle deaths.

Just did a quick comparison. Apparently there are 254 million passenger vehicles in the U.S. That is within the estimate of the number of guns in the U.S.

in 2010 there were 32,367 vehicle deaths.

In 2010 there were 19,392 suicides and 14,078 homicides using guns for a total of 33,470.

So it would appear to me that vehicles are as much an "instrument of death" as guns.

sjfcontrol wrote:Comparing gun deaths to vehicle deaths.

Just did a quick comparison. Apparently there are 254 million passenger vehicles in the U.S. That is within the estimate of the number of guns in the U.S.

in 2010 there were 32,367 vehicle deaths.

In 2010 there were 19,392 suicides and 14,078 homicides using guns for a total of 33,470.

So it would appear to me that vehicles are as much an "instrument of death" as guns.

How many vehicle deaths are suicide and homicide? That would be a more accurate comparison of the two.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Comparing gun deaths to vehicle deaths.

Just did a quick comparison. Apparently there are 254 million passenger vehicles in the U.S. That is within the estimate of the number of guns in the U.S.

in 2010 there were 32,367 vehicle deaths.

In 2010 there were 19,392 suicides and 14,078 homicides using guns for a total of 33,470.

So it would appear to me that vehicles are as much an "instrument of death" as guns.

How many vehicle deaths are suicide and homicide? That would be a more accurate comparison of the two.

Anygunanywhere

Why? I was just comparing the odds of being killed with a car v.s. being killed with a gun. Or, more accurately, the percentage of cars used to kill someone is roughly the same as the percentage of guns that will be used to kill. I wasn't trying to classify suicide/homicide/accident.

Plotting lost years to abortion would trump any other potential use of this visualization. . . and - unlike the current version with muddy gun data - would actually be statistically meaningful.

I still would LOVE to see that same little "graphic" with all the gang-related deaths pulled out. And when I say gang, I mean any organized criminal gang: Bloods, MS-13, Aryan Brotherhood, etc. Pull all those out, and see what it looks like then. Because I feel that number would decrease dramatically if all those deaths were pulled. Additionally, I would also like to see it with all the deaths in Democrat-controlled major urban areas pulled out...once again, I'd imagine the numbers would be substantially smaller. Its not a gun problem, its a CRIME problem and those who are at the heart of pushing gun control only help the criminals with their efforts, no matter about the emotion surrounding this thing.

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Comparing gun deaths to vehicle deaths.

Just did a quick comparison. Apparently there are 254 million passenger vehicles in the U.S. That is within the estimate of the number of guns in the U.S.

in 2010 there were 32,367 vehicle deaths.

In 2010 there were 19,392 suicides and 14,078 homicides using guns for a total of 33,470.

So it would appear to me that vehicles are as much an "instrument of death" as guns.

How many vehicle deaths are suicide and homicide? That would be a more accurate comparison of the two.

Anygunanywhere

Why? I was just comparing the odds of being killed with a car v.s. being killed with a gun. Or, more accurately, the percentage of cars used to kill someone is roughly the same as the percentage of guns that will be used to kill. I wasn't trying to classify suicide/homicide/accident.

I totally understand your comparison. Although I have my own opinion of auto accidents and their cause, seldom are auto accidents classified as murder, or the intentional death of another human, as opposed to murder by firearm. In both instances people, mostly innocent victims die.

Anygunanywhere

How about death from legal guns. They just throw our legal guns in with illegal guns. I bet the numbers would dramatically change. Gun is legally owned and operated in compliance with the law.

After all the laws proposed only affect legally owned and operated guns.

The argument that guns are an "Implement of death" has always been a red herring to me. It boils down to this:

Tools are inanimate objects with no intrinsic morality.
A tool can be used for a variety of purposes from evil to good.
Guns are tools.
They are tools with the purpose of shooting bullets.
The bullets have the capability to wound and kill living things.
Guns are more effective at wounding and killing things than tools not made for that purpose.
Guns have no intrinsic morality but can be used for a variety of purposes.

I am not a bad nor evil person but I acknowledge that bad and evil people exist in this world and they wish to do the innocent people harm. Therefore, I possess tools that best equip me to defend myself and my loved ones against evil. Some of the best tools available to achieve this goal are guns. With a gun I have a greater capability to wound or kill an evil person intent on doing me harm. Thanks to this capability and the knowledge of what a gun can do to a person, there is a good chance that the mere sight, sound or threat of a gun will repel an attacker so that they no longer wish to do me harm. If they still wish to do me harm, I have the means to ensure that they are no longer physically able to do so.

It's not the most PR friendly position and it doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker but I think it is true at its core.