What's new
By:

Gun Control

Stoked said:
It is the first link that came up of many. Go google it and choose your source.
Click to expand...

Google what? That when you make gun laws more lax, and have gun ownership declared an individual right, than gun prosecutions will decrease? Again, how could they do otherwise? My issue with the editorial was not this obvious relationship, but that they declined to state this obvious relationship and insert the smokescreen of "enforcing the laws better", which is classic denialism (weaken the laws, then say the fewer prosecutions are due to prosecutors unwillingness to enforce).
 
One Brow said:
Google what? That when you make gun laws more lax, and have gun ownership declared an individual right, than gun prosecutions will decrease? Again, how could they do otherwise? My issue with the editorial was not this obvious relationship, but that they declined to state this obvious relationship and insert the smokescreen of "enforcing the laws better", which is classic denialism (weaken the laws, then say the fewer prosecutions are due to prosecutors unwillingness to enforce).
Click to expand...

Many of the laws are still in effect and have not been weakened. The government simply cannot prosecute those who are practicing a consitutional right anymore.

I did "Obama gun crime prosecution" or something like that.
 
Every time I see PW post I cringe at the damage he is doing. I am sure some of you more liberal people feel the same when you see a Thriller post.
 
One Brow said:
New study that carrying a gun means you are more likely to be shot during a crime:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Click to expand...

Crtl + f = gang. 1 result: 31. "Wolfgang M. A tribute to a view I have opposed. J Crim Law Criminol 1995;86(1):188–192."
Crtl + f = gang related. O results.


Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Strike through red, replace with "criminals should reconsider their daily activities".
 
franklin said:
Crtl + f = gang. 1 result: 31. "Wolfgang M. A tribute to a view I have opposed. J Crim Law Criminol 1995;86(1):188–192."
Crtl + f = gang related. O results.


Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Strike through red, replace with "criminals should reconsider their daily activities".
Click to expand...

So, every civilian carrying a in an urban area is a criminal?

Also, why is footnote 31 particularly relevant? It's primary use in the study seems to come as source for a variable to be considered:

Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street).30–33
Click to expand...
 
My favorite part of the "study" is where it says that everyone in Philly has an equal chance at being shot at any given time or location, because guns are mobile and bullets go through stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top