My understanding was that there was a correlation between cities/states with the strongest gun laws having higher crime rates. i.e. evidence that 'an armed society is a polite society'.

 

I'm therefore somewhat surprised with the link below which suggests that some of the states with the strongest gun laws have the fewest gun-deaths per capita etc and that NJ has some of the fewest gun deaths (per capita).

 

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/08/hundreds-of-millions-of-guns-in-america/

 

Apart from specific queries on the statistics being quoted, I'm also posting the article for another reason.

• The Brady Campaign has < 28,000 members and a budget (2010) < $4M.
  
• The NRA has 4.3 million members and a budget (2004) > $205M
  
• The SAF has > 650,000 members and an unknown budget
  
• We also have the actual firearm manufacturers themselves whose revenues will be large.
  

 

*note - the above numbers are taken from Wikipedia.

 

Yet it seems that the anti-gun community is able to be more effective in pulling statistics together in an easy to view format that support their cause. From a quick glance the Lawyers.com presents an interesting anti-gun stance. I'm not entirely sure whether it is the way they are interpreting the stats, or the 'per capita' aspect or something else that is supporting their message.

 

The Pro-Gun community is not going to be successful in 'converting' the anti-gun community (and vice versa), therefore our goals should be:

1. Objectively refute the stats/claims made by the pro-gun. E.g. post in the media/web the attached 'guns in america' with the 'correct' interpretation and the errors - plus a pro-gun objective version.

2. Focus on the 'neutral' middle grounders on gun-ownership to ensure they don't become antis due to the media or the low number of mass shootings that occur which become headline news.

 

With the predominantly anti-gun media our options may be limited, however it does feel to me that the anti-gun community is better at getting into the news, quoting statistics (correct or not) etc.

 

I may have overlooked something, but I do find it difficult to easily find a one page overview of stats that really supports pro-gun that is able to be shared with the neutral crowd.

 

TheWombat

Two thoughts.

 

1) the stat they're clinging to is "gun deaths" . I suspect they are including justifiable sHootings by police, suicides, etc. even if most of those stats are criminal, its deliberately myopic to just focus on gun deaths. If their case is that guns make everyone less safe, they should be able to evidence corrolation with all violent crime.

 

2) the reason it's hard to put a statistical response in a similar format is because the idea that just taking away guns will cure everything is an inherently simplistic and stupid idea. It takes much less time to express a stupid idea than to thoroughly debunk it. Picture someone claiming that we could fix every issue with the economy by implementing a silver standard for our currency. That is such a dumb idea that you could write for hours and still have only skimmed the surface of all the reasons that it wouldn't work.

 

With the predominantly anti-gun media our options may be limited, however it does feel to me that the anti-gun community is better at getting into the news, quoting statistics (correct or not) etc.

 

 

I think this is one of the biggest problems. The Anti's are way better at getting their message into the media. Im not sure why, but it seems all reporters are anti-gun. Maybe it is some secret vow they have to take to become a reporter. And it is always the Anti-Gun politicians like Lautenberg on the news, rarely ever see Pro-Guners on TV.

 

We need more pro-gun reporters and media sources out there.

I think this is one of the biggest problems. The Anti's are way better at getting their message into the media. Im not sure why, but it seems all reporters are anti-gun. Maybe it is some secret vow they have to take to become a reporter. And it is always the Anti-Gun politicians like Lautenberg on the news, rarely ever see Pro-Guners on TV.

 

We need more pro-gun reporters and media sources out there.

 

It's called liberal bias and it's real!

I've said it before, trying to justify 2A civil rights and our inalienable right to self defense with effective tools with statistics shouldn't even be a discussion.

 

Everything in life has risks, and anyone can pull together statistics on how a particular item, policy, or process is involved with people getting hurt.

• Freedom of Religion - A pretty basic right, ehe? Well, it is a proven fact that religion is one of the top causes for death in the world. There is a good argument to ban it.
  
• Freedom of Speech - Top civil right. There are many documented cases where people saying stuff, whether it be a cult leader, or high school snot calling someone names has resulted in people getting hurt and killed. Seems we need to start the ban hammer up in here also.
  
• 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure - Many obvious bad guys have been let go on "technicalities" over how evidence was gathered. Lets just get ride of these rights to make us all safer.
  

So what metrics could be reported on that are pro-gun or to refute anti-gun

 

1. The number of shootings with illegally owned guns vs legally owned guns ( use stats from the police/FBI)

2. The number of times a legally owned firearm has been used to protect an innocent (use stats from the police/FBI)

3. The number/percentage of legal firearm owners who carry each day/week without doing anything illegal

4. The number of times a 3rd party CCW carrier has stepped in to an altercation and saved lives

5. Comparison stats of the numb of innocent civilians killed through firearms vs killed in vehicle accidents, drunk drivers, etc

Etc

 

Thoughts?

 

TheWombat

 

The ariticle on lawyer.com is so skewed, Looks at his sources (in the faintest grey highlight as possible). Most of his data comes from Wikipedia and other anti gun articles. Hardly representative sampling. In the meantime, here's a link from the DOJ that's interesting:

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

The ariticle on lawyer.com is so skewed, Looks at his sources (in the faintest grey highlight as possible). Most of his data comes from Wikipedia and other anti gun articles. Hardly representative sampling. In the meantime, here's a link from the DOJ that's interesting:

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj...ontent/guns.cfm

 

While it would make much more sense to focus on HOMICIDE rates over, say the last 2 decades, and compare that way, that would Not in fact show what they want to show... NYC, Newark, Camden, DC, Chicago, LA, ..look at their place in the homicide stats over the years and it'll tell the actual story.

Take the total number of people killed by a person with a gun. - Establishes starting point

Subtract out the number killed by an non-eligible users. - Criminals don't follow laws so nothing you do will stop this.

Subtract out the number of justifiable cases. - Proper use of a firearm to defend yourself or others

 

What's left is the part that is really meaningful when it comes for improper use causing a death.

Wombat, IMHO you're allowing yourself to be needlessly sucked into a statistical duel, which then becomes a matter of who can best manipulate the numbers to support their cause.

 

How about: We have a Constitutionally guaranteed right in this country to be able to have and use firearms to defend ourselves against sociopathic predators, who will always be armed, whether we are or not. If the antis want to change that, they would need to pass a Constitutional amendment, and I certainly don't see that happening.

When they say "gun deaths" they mean that it's perfectly acceptable to have hundreds of people killed with knives, bats, fists, and piano wire if it means they reduce the number of people killed with a gun by one.

 

Apparently you aren't as dead if you are killed with something other than a firearm. Anyone who uses "gun death" is dishonest about their argument.

When they say "gun deaths" they mean that it's perfectly acceptable to have hundreds of people killed with knives, bats, fists, and piano wire if it means they reduce the number of people killed with a gun by one.

Apparently you aren't as dead if you are killed with something other than a firearm. Anyone who uses "gun death" is dishonest about their argument.

Lets not forget automobile deaths 30+ THOUSAND a year but no one yelling and screaming about banning cars or mandatory followup training or screening.