Member
Originally Posted by Grindelwald
No it wasn't. http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...3&postcount=92
That study concluded:
"We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
A worthless study. Brilliant!!
.
Member
Still can't put two and two together, can you?
The fact is a couple of studies have shown this.
Member
Why are you so two faced? You claim to be against a gun ban but you keep putting nonsense like that BS study on here.
Member
What does this have to do with a gun ban?
You're free to own guns if you want. I'm just saying, studies show its riskier than not owning one. But that doesn't mean I support a gun ban.
Member
Shown what?
You post a study about a gun in the home and a study about carrying a gun?
You need to study your talking points so you know wth you're posting.
.
Member
They are connected and they are similar. Next stupid question please.
Member
Well reconcile that claim with the study you posted where it concludes with:
"We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,"
You are confused.
.
Member
No they're not.
.
Member
Context is everything.The last paragraph is speculation. You know what speculation is, correct? It just raises some questions for future studies. The article itself, actually posts solid numbers relating to the study.While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
And yes, they are absolutely related, quit being a hard-head.
Member
They are only related in the minds of people who believe all guns are bad.
The study is BS because it generalizes from what is the case in Philadelphia to the blanket statement, "Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed".
Philly's murder epidemic
Quote
Yellow crime scene tape, evidence markers and dead bodies wrapped in sheets are constants in some of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods — where families look for ways to escape and many children grow up believing their days are numbered. With the city in the middle of its deadliest year since 2007 — the murder rate is up 23 percent over this time last year — Daily News reporters Morgan Zalot and Phillip Lucas explore the insidious effect that homicides have on families and communities, and detail the police department’s struggle to deal with the root causes of the violence that has claimed a life every 24 hours and 10 minutes, on average, this year.
So your example is a study of gun violence in Philadelphia where people (what kind of people?) who carry guns are likely to get shot and killed.
The only thing I learn from that study is that Philadelphia is a dangerous city.
Question: Is the problem in Philadelphia the gun or is it the kind of people who are carrying guns?
.
Member
All cities are dangerous. Do cities not count then? There are a LOT of people that live in cities, should we just ignore them then? It's highly relevant.
Member
That's right. The criminal types in those environments are what make the cities dangerous.
The criminals are the problem and passing more gun laws will not change that fact.
The criminals don't obey gun laws.
That study is only relevant to you and others with your mindset.
Here, repeat after me, "It's the criminal, stupid."
.
.
Member
It's not about laws. It's about keeping the guns from criminals. It's about reducing the number. This type of insanity you are promoting is exactly what is wrong with this country right now.
Member
Typical LWNJ incoherent nonsense.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Over 20,000 gun laws and the criminal gun violence continues.
.
Member
You're only reducing the number of guns for the law abiding citizen. Criminals don't obey the laws that are already in place so how do you expect them to abide by the new laws? You're punishing 99% (the law abiding citizens) for the actions of the other 1% (the criminals). Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
Member
Gun laws don't affect law abiding citizens!!! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? More like an empty skull.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-co...brick_wall.jpg
And you know for a fact these have no positive effect? Most of them are useless because they concentrate on small areas. And you know that. With 300M firearms in this country and even more people, there is nothing, NOTHING, that will reduce gun violence to 0. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN'T BE REDUCED. More arguing with a brick wall, it seems. Get an education.
Facts and rationality are not on your side.
Last edited by Grindelwald; 02-14-2013 at 10:34 PM.
Member
Law abiding citizens are the practically the only ones affected by gun laws.
157 specific guns (so-called assault weapons) are proposed to be "banned". That's no solution since handguns are the criminals' preferred weapon.
Being proposed are such things as a license to buy a gun (w/fees) and registration (w/fees), requiring insurance (w/costs). How do any of those affect criminals?
"Thick as a brick" is you. Over 20,000 gun laws have not stopped criminal gun violence. The murder rates in cities have hardly, if at all, been affected.
Most gun deaths are suicides. Most gun deaths are from handguns.
.
Member
There it is! The post of the week! Punctuated with three exclamation points, even. Laws do not affect law-abiding citizens.
Tell me, oh brainless one, if laws don't affect the law-abiding, who do they affect?
Member
People keep bringing up “studies” that purport to say that you are more likely to kill a family member than a robber, more likely to shoot yourself than use it to defend against a criminal attack, etc., ad nauseam and openly ridicule people who go armed.
I wonder though, if the flying fickle finger of fate should stop and point at one, and with no way to defend yourself, you wind up being stomped to death or stabbed to death or shot to death, would you in your last moments, laud yourself for holding the moral high ground to die or become a cripple without compromising your ethical principles by not resorting to using a gun?
Or would you regret using a statistical analysis to depend on your safety? Or that statically speaking, if you are that “one” in 1,000,000, would your last thoughts be that your children will grow up without you looking after their needs, financially and personally? Wondering who will look after your aged mother?
Member
I think we all are looking forward to that answer,lol.There it is! The post of the week! Punctuated with three exclamation points, even. Laws do not affect law-abiding citizens.
Tell me, oh brainless one, if laws don't affect the law-abiding, who do they affect?
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote