Another shooting.

[Divine_God]

677 cases
6% had a firearm "such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle"
677*.06=40

40 people.

Not a very big study, especially for being "the first of its kind"

They left out if the gun owners had the firearms legally. For all we know these could be fucking gang bangers who were going to get shot eventually regardless of them having a gun in their possession or not. The link you provided just had too little information. Criminal history should be included with these cases.

"The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun." - No shit, if you're in a confrontation with someone who has a firearm and you also have a firearm (visible) then you ARE more likely to be shot. You said that people would use the firearms and end up hurting themselves or getting hurt. The study you supplied did not entail use of the firearm only possession.

Also correlation and causation are two different things.

 

[Alma Mater]

677 cases
6% had a firearm "such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle"
677*.06=40

40 people.

Not a very big study, especially for being "the first of its kind"

They left out if the gun owners had the firearms legally. For all we know these could be fucking gang bangers who were going to get shot eventually regardless of them having a gun in their possession or not. The link you provided just had too little information. Criminal history should be included with these cases.

"The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun." - No shit, if you're in a confrontation with someone who has a firearm and you also have a firearm (visible) then you ARE more likely to be shot. You said that people would use the firearms and end up hurting themselves or getting hurt. The study you supplied did not entail use of the firearm only possession.

Also correlation and causation are two different things.

I fail to see your point and where you're getting at from this.

 

[Divine_God]

I fail to see your point and where you're getting at from this.

Your study is too small and biased.

What happens is a shooting happens in one of Philadelphia’s pristine minority communities ( shocking ) and the “study conductors” call around to witnesses and ask if they had possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. SOUNDS CREDIBLE.

It doesn't supply enough information to cross the causation and correlation gap.

ie Having a gun in your car ( out of your possession physically, but not legally ) wouldn't increase your chances of getting shot while checking out at a 7/11 that was being robbed or w/e. This study makes that claim by not supplying information.

Edit; you're only making the claim that this happens when assaults DO take place, how about we look at some statistics of crime prevention due to firearms.

I bet an overwhelming majority of criminals would rather attack someone who does NOT have a gun.

94% of the 677 people who were shot over 3-4 year period did not have a gun when they were shot.

How much more obvious does it have to be that not having a gun in a gunfight is bad?

 

[Sebastian Vael]

These shootings will not stop now, they have existed as long as firearms did, the case is how MANY shootings there are and how many casualties there are, for example if a man got shot in the ass with a gun nothing would be on the media, but as the shooting in the theater it was a MASS shooting and extraordinary, different.

 

[Alma Mater]

Edit; you're only making the claim that this happens when assaults DO take place, how about we look at some statistics of crime prevention due to firearms.

How about you, show some statistics of crime prevention due to firearms instead? And not some wikipedia shit.

How about you look at some statistical facts on violent crime in gun regulated areas then get back to me.

You asked for "statistical facts". I gave you statistical facts.

Provide a source because I know your statement is false.

You wanted me to provide a source. I provided you a creditable source.


I'm done here. Frankly for some reason you seem mad and just want to create an argument for the sake of it, but I'm not going to continue adding fuel to the fire here. Once again good-bye.

 

[-Ryan]

It wasn't a big deal at all actually. I drove by the store a few hours ago and business was running as usual.

 

[kill dank]

Sweet Jesus..

It's the cool thing to do now, basically. All the people who have thought about something like that know they can get famous for it, so what better time than now?

Also, there was some sort of international gun ban treaty or something being talked about where, should the president agree, all civilian guns would be illegal. There are soldiers already training for gun confiscation. I think all these shootings are a set up to get the gun law signed to ban firearms. I mean, there has always been shootings, but now people are talking about them more.

Really guys, don't believe everything you're told. Some things are too coincidental to be a coincidence.

 

[Lame]

Just more news not shocked not sad. nothing. Its normal for this stuff to happen now and again. Its wrong but its normal.

 

[GodGenesis]

Tougher law on gun access would be imposed soon.

Just not soon enough...

 

[kill dank]

Just not soon enough...

I disagree. Just like making drugs illegal doesn't stop abuse, it will be the same way with guns. Ever wonder why there hasn't been any shootings in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and many of the Southern states? BECAUSE EVERYONE CARRIES GUNS. That mother fucker in the movie theater wouldn't have been able to kill more than a couple people because somebody would have shot him first if everyone had guns. Shit, in Louisiana you don't even need to register guns. You can drive down the street with a loaded 12-gauge sawn off shotgun in the front seat of your truck and nothing happens. Not many shooting sprees in those states, huh?

It's self explanatory. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country with the exception of Washington DC and it is also one of the most murderous cities in the country. Why?

I mean, people can lay this shit out in black and white for people but they're still too retarded to change their views.

 

[Alma Mater]

That mother fucker in the movie theater wouldn't have been able to kill more than a couple people because somebody would have shot him first if everyone had guns.

Yuuuuuppp. As soon as he opened the exit door to the movie theater geared in full combat-bulletproof military attire where it was pitch dark, packed with hundreds of people, and everyone had their minds preoccupied on The Dark Night Rises, I would have been the one to shoot and kill him right then and there if only I had owned a gun.

 

[Brendan]

Well, firearms are illegal in the UK, although you can get a special license to have one here. Illegal or not though, it's guaranteed people will illegally own a gun in the UK, especially in the cities and such. Banned or not, you can still get your hands on one if you wanted to.

It's the same here in Australia. Shootings aren't that common over here.

 

[Sebastian Vael]

Not in Macedonia either, but they still have them.

 

[malakadang]

Gun Control makes sense. We should have a violent monopoly (Government) use violence (gun control) to stop violence (murder)! Mindfuck.

 

[SuF]

I dunno, but a mandatory psychological evaluation before having the ability to legally purchase a gun would help weed out those who are obviously mentally ill. Even if it doesn't weed out everyone it is a bit of a start. I am all for owning guns because I shoot for sport personally but I also believe in contolling the gun trade and gun safety.

So before I buy a gun to go hunting I need to undergo a psychological exam? That would take forever and be costly. It would also not help. I can be perfectly sane today and be bat shit under the hose in a month.

 

[SexayMistahBee]

Shootings happen so often in the states that I din't even seen what's the big deal about this one

 

[Jacmob]

Honestly why don't they implement a test in the US you have to take? For example to buy a firearm, you have to get something from a psychologist saying you pass, and you have to pass like an IQ and a psychological test.. it would stop a few at least

 

[Predictable]

In response to this:

Honestly why don't they implement a test in the US you have to take? For example to buy a firearm, you have to get something from a psychologist saying you pass, and you have to pass like an IQ and a psychological test.. it would stop a few at least

I would say something like this:

So before I buy a gun to go hunting I need to undergo a psychological exam? That would take forever and be costly. It would also not help. I can be perfectly sane today and be bat shit under the hose in a month.

I agree with SuF people that are perfectly sane can easily pass these tests and something tick and they just go crazy. Would just cause more issues with gun laws.

 

[FloydZeppelin]

I dunno, but a mandatory psychological evaluation before having the ability to legally purchase a gun would help weed out those who are obviously mentally ill. Even if it doesn't weed out everyone it is a bit of a start. I am all for owning guns because I shoot for sport personally but I also believe in contolling the gun trade and gun safety.

As someone coming from a long line of family crazy-ness, psych evals mean absolutely shit.

Really the bottom line is if someone wants something bad enough, they'll get it... and there's only so much anyone can do about it.

 

[Lame]

I don't see the need in owning a gun for "protection" If you don't feel safe where you live, eat, sleep and shit. You should really relocate.