More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[BIGUN 1,393]

17 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

The 2nd Amendment people are going to love this mod: 

Now imagine if they used the right magazines:

https://youtu.be/pOCuegVxrpc?t=116

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

23 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Now imagine if they used the right magazines:

https://youtu.be/pOCuegVxrpc?t=116

 

I knew what that was before i clicked on it. Yeah lots of fun. There is a video on You-tube where they run drum after drum through a G17 until the front end starts to melt the frame...er slide.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Phil1111

[BIGUN 1,393]

6 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Yeah lots of fun.

Perhaps my sarcasm wasn't dripping enough. 100 Round magazine goes waaaay outside the personal defense argument. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Perhaps my sarcasm wasn't dripping enough. 100 Round magazine goes waaaay outside the personal defense argument. 

If you're not an accurate shooter. If its full auto. Perhaps belt fed for self defense!

[kallend 2,099]

15 hours ago, gowlerk said:

If Paul Pelosi had a pistol handy maybe he wouldn’t be in the hospital today.

Data indicate that the gun most likely to kill you is a gun you own.

[gowlerk 2,241]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Data indicate that the gun most likely to kill you is a gun you own.

And the hammer you own is the one most likely to be used for fracturing your skull it seems.

[murps2000 86]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

And the hammer you own is the one most likely to be used for fracturing your skull it seems.

How are you so sure who owned the hammer? I have trouble picturing Mr. Pelosi as any sort of carpenter. Hammers are useful for breaking windows in doors, however.

[billeisele 130]

22 hours ago, kallend said:

Data indicate that the gun most likely to kill you is a gun you own.

Unbiased citation is needed to back that up otherwise it's a baseless opinion.

[BIGUN 1,393]

32 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Unbiased citation is needed to back that up otherwise it's a baseless opinion.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html

Quote

 

Unintentional shootings happen to children of all ages. In homes with guns, the likelihood of accidental death by shooting is four times higher.

Between 2015 and 2020, there were at least 2,070 unintentional shootings by children that resulted in 765 deaths and 1,366 nonfatal gun injuries. In 2020 alone, at least 125 toddlers and children age 5 and under shot themselves or someone else. The COVID-19 pandemic hasn't helped. From March to December 2020, unintended shooting deaths by kids went up more than 30% compared to the same time period in 2019.

Suicide

Kids and adolescents are at an increased risk for suicide when there is a gun in the home, too. Suicide rates in this population are four times higher than for kids who live in homes without guns. In the past decade, 40% of the suicides committed by kids and teens involved guns. Nine out of 10 of these suicides were with guns that the victims accessed at their own homes or from a relative's home.

Homicide

The risk of homicide is three times higher when there are guns in the home. Not only that, but 58% of shooting deaths in children and teens are homicides.

~American Academy of Pediatrics

Need more citations? Google is filled with them. Or you could call BillyVance's family for their opinion.

Edited October 30, 2022 by BIGUN
Snarky Comment

[kallend 2,099]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

[billeisele 130]

Guardian. "...for every 100,000 people in that situation, 12 will be shot to death by someone else over five years. In comparison, eight out of 100,000 who live in gun-free homes will be killed that way over the same time span." So a 50% increase, 4 out of 100,000 increase, in risk. The article further states, "....it did not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger." That claim is absolutely false and there's plenty of evidence. 

PubMed. 626 shootings, 54 unintentional, 118 suicide, 438 assault/homicides. 13 legal or self-defense (there's the proof that the Guardian statement is false). For every legal shooting there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 assaults/homicides (these are violence between known parties). Yes, the data supports the position that a gun in the house increases the risk of being shot. 

Stanford study shows the same results. A gun in the home increases the risk of being shot by your friend, spouse or roommate.

Time. 18 million adults in CA. It showed that a gun in the home doubled the risk of death. What was not stated was how many times a gun was used for self-defense.

Pew Research. In 2020 45,222 gun deaths. Suicide 54% - 24,292, 43% murder - 19,384. Mass murder 38 deaths, with 513 people shot. 59% were handguns, 3% assault weapon, 1% shotgun, the remaining 36% were not stated. FBI stats are voluntary reports and don't include all shootings. Reporting should be required. It seems that comprehensive data is needed to make good policy decisions.

No doubt that the presence of a gun in a house increases the risk of being shot. It appears that it's a 50-100% increase in risk, or possibly higher. What is not known is how often the presence of a gun prevents violence or provides an individual a viable means of self-defense. 

Suicide is a difficult topic. The studies say that some % would just use another method to die and some would not commit suicide. One could logically conclude that not having that instant solution would allow time to reconsider and not do it or seek help. That seems reasonable to me. What is not known is how many suicides would not have been completed if a gun weren't present. IMO, to make sense out of this data suicide should be excluded. But only to get a clear pic of what is occurring with accidental shootings, self-defense and homicides. 

Clearly there is a mental health issue that must be addressed. 

I've made prior statements and these studies continue to support them. The headlines make a big show about "mass" killings and child deaths, yet those incidences are a tiny fraction of the problem, less than 1% (38/19384). One point I continue to make is that only focusing on mass murder will have almost no impact. Yes, additional measures need to be taken to reduce gun violence. Handguns are the predominant type of weapon used to commit violence. That includes all types of violence. 

So the basic question remains.

What actionable/effective steps can be taken to reduce gun violence and allow people the right of self-protection? We know that criminals don't obey the law and that some people want to retain the right of self-defense.

I've offered a list of ideas that might work and Joe has provided others. IMO, until the politics gets out of the way nothing effective will be done. There are some steps that can be effective but it will take a bipartisan effort to get anything passed. And the courts need to come to the table and back up law enforcement efforts. And it sure would help if the talking heads and politicians understood firearms and used the correct terminology otherwise that sound like ignorant gun haters.

[winsor 236]

30 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Guardian. "...for every 100,000 people in that situation, 12 will be shot to death by someone else over five years. In comparison, eight out of 100,000 who live in gun-free homes will be killed that way over the same time span." So a 50% increase, 4 out of 100,000 increase, in risk. The article further states, "....it did not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger." That claim is absolutely false and there's plenty of evidence. 

PubMed. 626 shootings, 54 unintentional, 118 suicide, 438 assault/homicides. 13 legal or self-defense (there's the proof that the Guardian statement is false). For every legal shooting there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 assaults/homicides (these are violence between known parties). Yes, the data supports the position that a gun in the house increases the risk of being shot. 

Stanford study shows the same results. A gun in the home increases the risk of being shot by your friend, spouse or roommate.

Time. 18 million adults in CA. It showed that a gun in the home doubled the risk of death. What was not stated was how many times a gun was used for self-defense.

Pew Research. In 2020 45,222 gun deaths. Suicide 54% - 24,292, 43% murder - 19,384. Mass murder 38 deaths, with 513 people shot. 59% were handguns, 3% assault weapon, 1% shotgun, the remaining 36% were not stated. FBI stats are voluntary reports and don't include all shootings. Reporting should be required. It seems that comprehensive data is needed to make good policy decisions.

No doubt that the presence of a gun in a house increases the risk of being shot. It appears that it's a 50-100% increase in risk, or possibly higher. What is not known is how often the presence of a gun prevents violence or provides an individual a viable means of self-defense. 

Suicide is a difficult topic. The studies say that some % would just use another method to die and some would not commit suicide. One could logically conclude that not having that instant solution would allow time to reconsider and not do it or seek help. That seems reasonable to me. What is not known is how many suicides would not have been completed if a gun weren't present. IMO, to make sense out of this data suicide should be excluded. But only to get a clear pic of what is occurring with accidental shootings, self-defense and homicides. 

Clearly there is a mental health issue that must be addressed. 

I've made prior statements and these studies continue to support them. The headlines make a big show about "mass" killings and child deaths, yet those incidences are a tiny fraction of the problem, less than 1% (38/19384). One point I continue to make is that only focusing on mass murder will have almost no impact. Yes, additional measures need to be taken to reduce gun violence. Handguns are the predominant type of weapon used to commit violence. That includes all types of violence. 

So the basic question remains.

What actionable/effective steps can be taken to reduce gun violence and allow people the right of self-protection? We know that criminals don't obey the law and that some people want to retain the right of self-defense.

I've offered a list of ideas that might work and Joe has provided others. IMO, until the politics gets out of the way nothing effective will be done. There are some steps that can be effective but it will take a bipartisan effort to get anything passed. And the courts need to come to the table and back up law enforcement efforts. And it sure would help if the talking heads and politicians understood firearms and used the correct terminology otherwise that sound like ignorant gun haters.

IIRC, Freakonomics reviewed the correlation between mindless violence and abortion.  The bottom line was that the correlation between unwanted children and active viciousness is inescapable.

We are given to to perseverating on symptoms when the cause is a third rail.  "Climate Change!" is a shining example.

 

BSBD,

Winsor 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Guardian. "...for every 100,000 people in that situation, 12 will be shot to death by someone else over five years. In comparison, eight out of 100,000 who live in gun-free homes will be killed that way over the same time span." So a 50% increase, 4 out of 100,000 increase, in risk. The article further states, "....it did not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger." That claim is absolutely false and there's plenty of evidence. 

PubMed. 626 shootings, 54 unintentional, 118 suicide, 438 assault/homicides. 13 legal or self-defense (there's the proof that the Guardian statement is false). For every legal shooting there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 assaults/homicides (these are violence between known parties). Yes, the data supports the position that a gun in the house increases the risk of being shot. 

Stanford study shows the same results. A gun in the home increases the risk of being shot by your friend, spouse or roommate.

Time. 18 million adults in CA. It showed that a gun in the home doubled the risk of death. What was not stated was how many times a gun was used for self-defense.

Pew Research. In 2020 45,222 gun deaths. Suicide 54% - 24,292, 43% murder - 19,384. Mass murder 38 deaths, with 513 people shot. 59% were handguns, 3% assault weapon, 1% shotgun, the remaining 36% were not stated. FBI stats are voluntary reports and don't include all shootings. Reporting should be required. It seems that comprehensive data is needed to make good policy decisions.

No doubt that the presence of a gun in a house increases the risk of being shot. It appears that it's a 50-100% increase in risk, or possibly higher. What is not known is how often the presence of a gun prevents violence or provides an individual a viable means of self-defense. 

Suicide is a difficult topic. The studies say that some % would just use another method to die and some would not commit suicide. One could logically conclude that not having that instant solution would allow time to reconsider and not do it or seek help. That seems reasonable to me. What is not known is how many suicides would not have been completed if a gun weren't present. IMO, to make sense out of this data suicide should be excluded. But only to get a clear pic of what is occurring with accidental shootings, self-defense and homicides. 

Clearly there is a mental health issue that must be addressed. 

I've made prior statements and these studies continue to support them. The headlines make a big show about "mass" killings and child deaths, yet those incidences are a tiny fraction of the problem, less than 1% (38/19384). One point I continue to make is that only focusing on mass murder will have almost no impact. Yes, additional measures need to be taken to reduce gun violence. Handguns are the predominant type of weapon used to commit violence. That includes all types of violence. 

So the basic question remains.

What actionable/effective steps can be taken to reduce gun violence and allow people the right of self-protection? We know that criminals don't obey the law and that some people want to retain the right of self-defense.

I've offered a list of ideas that might work and Joe has provided others. IMO, until the politics gets out of the way nothing effective will be done. There are some steps that can be effective but it will take a bipartisan effort to get anything passed. And the courts need to come to the table and back up law enforcement efforts. And it sure would help if the talking heads and politicians understood firearms and used the correct terminology otherwise that sound like ignorant gun haters.

Hi Bill,

We are going to do it here in Oregon; all, without any politicians:  Gun-Control Measure Will Be on Oregon's Fall Ballot (usnews.com)

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I voted for it.  

[jakee 1,556]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Time. 18 million adults in CA. It showed that a gun in the home doubled the risk of death. What was not stated was how many times a gun was used for self-defense.

Well, obviously. First that's not the point of the study and second, so what? Double the risk of death is double the risk of death no matter who kills you. Here's a paragraph that's quite pertinent to the question you asked;

People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.

Why aren't you addressing that instead of just pivoting onto the next talking point? If it was important enough for you to demand proof in the first place then it's important enough to take the time to acknowledge it, no?

The case of Billy Vance was mentioned above - bought guns for the first time ever to protect his family, within a year had killed them all and himself. Does it matter that their vanishingly small chance of being hurt in a home invasion was just a little bit smaller in those few months?

[billeisele 130]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

We are going to do it here in Oregon; all, without any politicians:  Gun-Control Measure Will Be on Oregon's Fall Ballot (usnews.com)

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I voted for it.  

Jerry - It appears that it will take citizen activism to get things done. Good stuff. Hopefully it will pass and there will be a great test environment to see how it works. 

Will the current CHL or CCW requirements change? The reason I ask is that they are, IMO, way too easy/simple.

I've mentioned this in prior posts. This is an item that will need to be addressed in all States. The requirements to get and keep a permit are to easy.

[billeisele 130]

15 hours ago, jakee said:

Well, obviously. First that's not the point of the study and second, so what? Double the risk of death is double the risk of death no matter who kills you. Here's a paragraph that's quite pertinent to the question you asked;

People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.

Why aren't you addressing that instead of just pivoting onto the next talking point? If it was important enough for you to demand proof in the first place then it's important enough to take the time to acknowledge it, no?

The case of Billy Vance was mentioned above - bought guns for the first time ever to protect his family, within a year had killed them all and himself. Does it matter that their vanishingly small chance of being hurt in a home invasion was just a little bit smaller in those few months?

Yep, it was not the point of the study but it seems that the data would have been there. Why not report it? Did that specific data indicate that guns were used for self-defense and thus a good thing, or not? All I'm saying is more information provides a full picture of what's occurring. The country keeps talking about legislation. It would be good if there was unbiased comprehensive data upon which to base decisions.

I clearly acknowledged that the death rate is higher in a gun home vs. a non-gun home by saying, "No doubt that the presence of a gun in a house increases the risk of being shot. It appears that it's a 50-100% increase in risk, or possibly higher." That's the reason why only focusing on "mass murder" is fallacy. Violence within the home among people that know it each other is a much bigger problem.

I knew Billy and we occasionally talked. Not enough for me to have any sense of how or why that could have occurred. Certainly many knew him more than I. A tragedy for sure. 

Jerry posted that OR has proposed a Gun Control Measure. Billy's tragedy is a concern. Would Billy have obtained the required permit under that law? If the current OR permit rules are used then most likely he would have. If so, the new law may have little impact. Hopefully the proposal will pass, and the permit requirements will be firm.

 

[jakee 1,556]

36 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Yep, it was not the point of the study but it seems that the data would have been there. Why not report it?

Because not every study studies every thing. That would simply result in the same obfuscation and distraction that you're currently attempting.

Quote

Did that specific data indicate that guns were used for self-defense and thus a good thing, or not?

You already have the overview. If it is as simple as being killed is a bad thing and being saved is a good thing then having a gun in the home is a bad thing. Unless there's a qualitative difference between being killed by someone you know vs someone you don't.

[billvon 3,058]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yep, it was not the point of the study but it seems that the data would have been there.

?? Just because someone does a study on what sort of newspapers people buy does not mean that they also collect data on what books they read.  I mean, sure, they are both made of paper - but studies try to learn specific things, not everything.

Quote

What is not known is how often the presence of a gun prevents violence or provides an individual a viable means of self-defense. 

All we know at this point is that it does not happen often enough to make having a gun a good idea if your goal is protection of yourself or your family.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 10/29/2022 at 5:39 AM, BIGUN said:

Now imagine if they used the right magazines:

https://youtu.be/pOCuegVxrpc?t=116

 

Those barrels are going to suffer a bit lol

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yep, it was not the point of the study but it seems that the data would have been there. Why not report it? Did that specific data indicate that guns were used for self-defense and thus a good thing, or not?

From the data it would appear it is not a positive data point. Or people with guns in the house wouldn't be at a higher risk of death than people without guns in the house.

[kallend 2,099]

Well, it is pretty consistent whether you look at it at the level of the home, or the state level:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

or the national level for wealthy nations:

https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

there is a very strong positive correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates.  Gun for self-defense is clearly  phooey!

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Well, it is pretty consistent whether you look at it at the level of the home, or the state level:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

or the national level for wealthy nations:

https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

there is a very strong positive correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates.  Gun for self-defense is clearly  phooey!

Hi John,

I am 82 yrs old.  I have travelled in Asia, South America, Europe [ including some eastern European countries ], Mexico, Canada & 44 of the US states.  I have never needed a gun, or any other type of weapon, to protect myself.

It is clearly phooey! for anyone that looks into it.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 3,058]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

there is a very strong positive correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates.  Gun for self-defense is clearly  phooey!

Well, that's not phooey.  Guns do indeed work for self-defense.  They just also result in more deaths in the home overall.

So if your goal is to shoot you some bad guys in the name of self defense, without regard for your own safety (or the safety of anyone else in the house) then a gun is essential.

If your goal is protection of yourself or your family, then it's a bad idea.

[jakee 1,556]

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, that's not phooey.  Guns do indeed work for self-defense.  They just also result in more deaths in the home overall.

So if your goal is to shoot you some bad guys in the name of self defense, without regard for your own safety (or the safety of anyone else in the house) then a gun is essential.

If your goal is protection of yourself or your family, then it's a bad idea.

Unless it's mostly selection bias and it's the type of people who want to keep a guns at home who are more likely to be dangerous. Maybe you end up with a Catch 22 kinda situation where you should be allowed to buy a gun but only as a gift for someone who doesn't want it.

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

Hi folks,

Here's one to talk about:  Why Tho? Readers weigh in on how they’d deal with guest bringing a gun to a party - oregonlive.com

Thoughts if it were your home?

If it were my home, they would be told to leave.

Jerry Baumchen