In response to the bubling discussion over arms control perhaps this article will add a different perspective. Do read the article in full.
I don't agree with the title of this article but I agree with most of the content. It's the first time I've read an article that answers a few questions I've had and mentions recent reports that has information I've had a hard time getting my hands on.
The most interesting finding was that a prevalence of gun ownership does not only increase the rate of gun homicide in that state/county but that the overall rate of homicide also goes up. The idea that a murderer will murder anyway and will find some other way does not necessarily follow.
The second argument worth noting is that owning guns in general do not make you more safe and can make you less safe. An argument that I have heard repeated ad nauseum in the literature I've so far read.Must states and countries start to control arms more strictly? That's up to them. Should the debate focus more on stronger and clearer arguments with a grounded understanding of the benefits and dangers? Yes. Should we pay far more attention to statistics and empirical research. No brainer.
"who would get their noses shoved in dog shit at the schoolyard and go home and rub their guns down with an oily rag, fantasizing about fragging that asshole."
Sounds like the approiate response...Let that be a lesson to you schoolyard bullies.
Note: Fragging is normally done with grenades not guns.
Now...if everyone in the restaurant had a gun...this kind of thing wouldn't have happened! When will they learn? (best comment)
Thank you for trotting out an irrelevant refutation. The "good guy with a gun" thing refers to situations where a good guy with a gun might have made a difference. This was a shootout between biker gangs who, BTW, would have been able to arm themselves even under a total gun ban. Why? Because they don't give a f*ck about the law.
Yeah...good guy with a gun doesn't count when we are talking about people shooting others who don't care about the law...as opposed to...you know...people murdering others with weapons who...do care about the law? LOL
I wonder if the terrorist on the train this weekend was emboldened by being able to assume that he was the only person on the train with a gun.
@The Un one:
"I wonder if the terrorist on the train this weekend was emboldened by being able to assume that he was the only person on the train with a gun."
Isn't it interesting how the three guys that stopped him were unarmed, boy those French are sure brave...OOPS...they were three Americas. I hope they broke a few of his bones.
Unseen could have have picked a worse example ever? Seriously? Think about it. We have a terrorist situation that was resolved without anyone else having guns. Gasp...I know it sounds impossible to believe that any result other than everyone else having guns could work...but it did.
Now...let's throw in some untrained idiot wannabe cowboys with a gun on that train. What could possibly go wrong?
There are way less shootings or successful terrorist shootings in Europe than in the US which is utterly flooded with instruments of death. So no...clearly the terrorists are not emboldened by the lack of others having guns in Europe.
Bad example and terrible argument.
Here's 11 more.
It's enough to demonstrate that "Good Guy with A Gun" isn't a myth.
Now, if you want to have a slightly different discussion, about whether the "Good Guys with Guns" are worth whatever cost you might believe they impose on society, then by all means let's do that. Or we could discuss the ethics of attempting to deny responsible adults something, on the grounds that a small percentage of adults are irresponsible enough to abuse that same item.
But first we have to get past the notion, suggested in your title, that Good Guys With Guns don't exist.
I'm sure gun fanatics will pick apart every single word and statistic and reject these claims before they are even made...but here is someone who has done the work and found a meaningful correlation between gun-ownership rates and mass shootings.
I'm not a gun fanatic. Don't have one or want one. Don't feel real comfortable with guns around. My position is that the gun ban thing (a) is largely unconstitutional and (b) will leave guns in the hands of the worst examples of humanity.
The study does make a point I often make when people compare gun deaths between the US and some other country, which is that Americans are different from Brits and from the French and from Canadians and you-name-the-country. American culture is part of the explanation.
Before anyone reads all four of those articles, be advised that they are all based on the same facts, interpretations, and assertions. Reading just one of them is probably all you need to do to "get" the researcher's points.
The comments to the Wired article summed up the problems with the study pretty well:
I really want this to make scientific sense but it doesn't.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, and the American Dream bit is pure speculation.
It's also clear there's been no attempt to normalize this data, as it has been taken from two widely differing sources and time periods.
A for effort
F for disrespecting proper science
Missing is Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia. Notorious places for common mass shootings.
Also, because there is a correlation does not mean there is a causation, classic mistake per all Univ courses in statistics.
In addition, minds bent on destruction will always get their hands on guns. Witness countries with extremely restrictive gun laws that still have had mass spree shootings, such as the India hotel incident, Kenya mall, etc.
Australia is an abberation and using it as one singular anecdote to make gross generalizations is also a fallacy.
Rather poor study there Mr. Prof. Adam Lankford, and your anti-gun bias slip is showing.
I have several guns and carry one everyday, but don't expect me the shoot the guy beating in your head with a baseball bat (another tool used to commit murder). If guns are the cause of murder then why are murders committed with other weapons and common items like fists and feet?
Because people commit murder not things.
I am 4 square behind people who don't want a gun not having one, good luck when the fiat money system collapses, you can try and call a cop but alas the electrical grid will be down as well. Besides I like thinking of myself as Gregg the Warlord. When Empires collapse the defenseless are simply something to be used. And I plan on using the defenseless for my own purposes not theirs.
:D It's Good to be King!
Ugh. The looniness never stops.
More people having tools of murder from a distance = more people being murdered by tools of murder from a distance.
The excuse: We need an instruiment of mass murder from distance because others have instruiments of mass murder from a distance and the apocalypse might happen tomorrow so like...MORE TOOLS OF MURDER FROM A DISTANCE FOR ALL. The opposite of course is simply unthinkable.
It's this surreal crazy talk that comes from otherwise extremely rational people.
Why not flame throwers? Others have them. SO SHOULD WE! ARRRRRRRG.