Alright, here's the deal. I am trying to wade through the sea of misinformation (on both sides) about guns and their effect on society and crime. I am interested in finding solid, credible information and statistics on how and if concealed carry affects crime stats as well as general info. And I'd like to find it from sources that my anti gun friends can't summarily dismiss as biased. (For example, off of the NRA website etc.) I did find one very interesting piece done by John Stossel from NBC and it presents some great info that even the most staunch anti gunner isn't going to be able to easily dismiss. See here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606 Anyone have other good sources for this purpose?
Where to find pro gun stats even anti gunners would believe?
- Thread starter acfemf
- Start date
Here's the link you want. It will take you to the Gun Facts site. The document prints out to about 80 pages, and there is an information source list for each fact at the bottom of every page. The anti's don't like this document at all. Ask me how I know...........
http://www.gunfacts.info/
http://www.gunfacts.info/
You can go to the FBI Uniform Crime reports and get the numbers to blow all the anti gunner numbers out of the water. The Red Cross has a accident site with numbers....
I can save you a lot of work by telling you that the numbers will only do good for the few on the fence. If they are avid anti gunners they rely on thier "feelings" not true numbers
I once compiled all these numbers for another board I was on. Gave the antigunners all the links and did the numbers....
Quite a few folks were smart enough to realize the stuff they were being spoonfed was false and shut up.
The rest was "guns are made to kill people so the should be banned"
so save yourself time and frustration... avid anti gunners refuse to acknowledge reality...and only deal in feelings.
I can save you a lot of work by telling you that the numbers will only do good for the few on the fence. If they are avid anti gunners they rely on thier "feelings" not true numbers
I once compiled all these numbers for another board I was on. Gave the antigunners all the links and did the numbers....
Quite a few folks were smart enough to realize the stuff they were being spoonfed was false and shut up.
The rest was "guns are made to kill people so the should be banned"
so save yourself time and frustration... avid anti gunners refuse to acknowledge reality...and only deal in feelings.
Nowhere!
You will never find facts that an anti will concede to. They will doubt them all.
"Lott is a hack."
"Street cops agree with the FOP."
"FBI numbers are cooked by the right wing."
All of these and more are what you will hear. GunFacts is a great source for working on those in the middle but for those who are anti's no amount of information will help. They will only believe what they want to believe. Perhaps if they get attacked their thoughts will change...
You will never find facts that an anti will concede to. They will doubt them all.
"Lott is a hack."
"Street cops agree with the FOP."
"FBI numbers are cooked by the right wing."
All of these and more are what you will hear. GunFacts is a great source for working on those in the middle but for those who are anti's no amount of information will help. They will only believe what they want to believe. Perhaps if they get attacked their thoughts will change...
Silver Bullet
New member
The anti-gunners have a socialist agenda that wants to take our guns to increase government power. It has nothing to do with statistics.
amen
You can challenge them to get numbers and all they do is go to the Hinkley site and regurgitate... when you show em thay are wrong again...they just say guns should still be banned
More kids are killed by plastic 5 gal buckets than firearms.....
Not to mention that the rates of death by firearm are decreasing as firearm sales are increasing.
but they dont want to even hear it.
You can challenge them to get numbers and all they do is go to the Hinkley site and regurgitate... when you show em thay are wrong again...they just say guns should still be banned
More kids are killed by plastic 5 gal buckets than firearms.....
Not to mention that the rates of death by firearm are decreasing as firearm sales are increasing.
but they dont want to even hear it.
And the operative word is...?
What Ms Brady was is still in question... NOW she is a full blown LIBERAL and is more emotionally motivated.
Even if HE spoke directly to them, they would find a way to ignore HIM!
They'd probably tell HIM to respect their beliefs...
like in the separation of church and state.
FBI and law enforcement statistics from either the state or the feds are the most acceptable to those who do not want to believe.
However, many will not accept any agencies statistics, and so it is pointless to continue the conservation with those who disbelieve in the face of the truth.
They won't believe because they do not want to believe.
Jerry
However, many will not accept any agencies statistics, and so it is pointless to continue the conservation with those who disbelieve in the face of the truth.
They won't believe because they do not want to believe.
Jerry
Gun Stats/Arguments
I put together what I felt to be a fairly well balanced research on the matter for an Ethics professor of mine in college.
First off, forget about "guns save lives". It is very difficult to prove this conclusively. "Guns save lives" is about as illogical as the argument that "guns take lives" firearms are lifeless, inanimate tools, incapable of distinguishing between criminal and upstanding citizen. People who refuse to be victims save lives. Resting the crux of your argument on this idea is a poor decision, and forces you to argue from a position of weakness; you will always be on the defensive.
The argument that is easiest to prove, and has the most evidence for it:
Gun control does NOT save lives. [\b]
The case for gun control not reducing crime is *almost* as strong.
There are many, many facts that can be made for arguing this position, the best is contained in Wright and Rossi's research. They began their study expecting to be able to prove that gun control saved lives. They believed (probably correctly) that if they could prove this, that gun control would be *much* easier to pass in America. They failed to do so, and unlike many other researchers, were ethical enough to change their opinions on the matter as a result of their research.
The only other study you *really* need is the more recent CDC study of all gun control laws which concluded that there was not enough evidence to conclude that *any* gun control helped save lives. Basically underscoring the same point Wright and Rossi made some 20 years earlier.
When you argue that "gun control doesn't work" you put *them* on the defensive, and force them to provide evidence that complicated, unenforceable edicts are going to deprive motivated criminals of the mean with which they can do harm.
-Morgan
I put together what I felt to be a fairly well balanced research on the matter for an Ethics professor of mine in college.
First off, forget about "guns save lives". It is very difficult to prove this conclusively. "Guns save lives" is about as illogical as the argument that "guns take lives" firearms are lifeless, inanimate tools, incapable of distinguishing between criminal and upstanding citizen. People who refuse to be victims save lives. Resting the crux of your argument on this idea is a poor decision, and forces you to argue from a position of weakness; you will always be on the defensive.
The argument that is easiest to prove, and has the most evidence for it:
Gun control does NOT save lives. [\b]
The case for gun control not reducing crime is *almost* as strong.
There are many, many facts that can be made for arguing this position, the best is contained in Wright and Rossi's research. They began their study expecting to be able to prove that gun control saved lives. They believed (probably correctly) that if they could prove this, that gun control would be *much* easier to pass in America. They failed to do so, and unlike many other researchers, were ethical enough to change their opinions on the matter as a result of their research.
The only other study you *really* need is the more recent CDC study of all gun control laws which concluded that there was not enough evidence to conclude that *any* gun control helped save lives. Basically underscoring the same point Wright and Rossi made some 20 years earlier.
When you argue that "gun control doesn't work" you put *them* on the defensive, and force them to provide evidence that complicated, unenforceable edicts are going to deprive motivated criminals of the mean with which they can do harm.
-Morgan