Is this the most Annoying Anti-Gun Statement?

To me the most annoying anti gun statement is:
"I support the 2A BUT....."

"I support the 2A BUT....."

Click to expand...

I think that is my most hated too.
Although the one in the OP is really annoying too.

I've seen FBI figures somewhere that refute this nonsense but I can't remember where I saw them. Anyone know?

Sgt.Murtaugh said:

I hear it all the time and it makes me wanna slap the person:

"you know you are 43x more likely to use that gun against yourself or a loved one than you are on an intruder or in self-defense"

I've heard variations but it's obviously the same talking point...

It's such a dumb statement I don't even know how to respond.

Click to expand...

Were did they get that figure from? Piers Morgan?

Its like saying you're more likely to drown your self or a loved one if you own a swimming pool...

silicosys4 said:

To me the most annoying anti gun statement is:
"I support the 2A BUT....."

Click to expand...

I find that most annoying as well.

The best response to any of them I saw on an earlier thread, laugh heartily and say " that's a good one" as your walking away.

silicosys4 said:

To me the most annoying anti gun statement is:
"I support the 2A BUT....."

Click to expand...

Agree to that

"you know you are 43x more likely to use that gun against yourself or a loved one than you are on an intruder or in self-defense"

Click to expand...

Several years ago I actually looked at the study that made this claim (the Kellerman study IIRC). It was so filled with holes that it wouldn't have even passed muster as a freshman's undergraduate project. It suffered from multiple issues in methodology and had a good bit of selection bias. Even worse the study kept changing its story so much that even people who were inclined to believe it (on an academic level) had to admit that it wasn't valid. I believe the number was changed 3 or 4 times.

To me the most frustrating thing is gun owners who will throw everyone else under the bus as long as their bolt rifle and shotgun are safe.

My parents used to be like that, they were fine with me owning a shotgun, but couldn't see why I'd want a semi-auto rifle, a pistol, or a CCW and made sure to tell me I was wrong for having them every chance they got. Well, about a year ago during the scare, they came running to me asking what AR they should buy, wanted recommendations on pistols, and then got CCW permits.

Them: "I support the 2A, but you are 43 times more likely to be killed with your own gun than use it against an attacker. Plus, no one needs an AR-47 to hunt deer. They have one purpose, and one purpose only, to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time."

Me: "Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life?"

I had virtually this exact conversation with my BIL years ago. Now he owns some property, several guns, and I don't hear this kind of thing from him any more. He's a smart guy, so he figured it out on his own.

I don't see why I need a 30 round clip of cop-killer bullets to take my five year old son hunting (or something close to it).

Click to expand...

From bloviating Morning Joe Scarborough.

The problem is most of the studies are biased. For example, looking at the number of "kids" killed by firearms usually involves people under 25 and a lot of the stats come from gang territory.

Then again, a lot of pro-gun studies are biased, too, through a combination of selective text and the fact that "NRA Survey" is more likely to be answered by Pro-2A individuals.

I agree with Silicosys: "I support 2A, BUT..." is the most annoying. It's like saying "no offense, but..." and then proceeding to insult the person with immunity because you said "no offense." How about "I support 3A, but I think our soldiers should require quarter in certain times." How about "I support 1A, but not if you're (insert religion of person you are talking to here)." How about "I support 1A, but not if you criticize the government." The amendment either exists in its entirety or we have failed as a people to control our government.

medalguy said:

I've seen FBI figures somewhere that refute this nonsense but I can't remember where I saw them. Anyone know?

Click to expand...

Results showing the same have been published off and on over the years by various organizations, mostly those involved in heath care and medicine.


Here's a link to one just published.....http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/20/study-finds-people-with-guns-more-at-risk-for-suicide-and-homicide.html

"You don't need an assault rifle to yadda yadda yadda..."

FBI stats show that RIFLES in general account for 300-some of the guns used in homicides each year for the last 2 or 3. If ALL of them are "assault rifles", it's still about a half a percent, if I remember correctly. It shows that no one has done any research at all. And that's fine for the hardcore anti's, I know that research isn't even a concern, they just want them gone. But for normal people to sit back and parrot what the MSM is saying, without any attempt at verification, or hell, even the slightest bit of skepticism, it's enraging.

silicosys4 said:

To me the most annoying anti gun statement is:
"I support the 2A BUT....."

Click to expand...

That statement comes from a lot of gun owners if you notice

To me the most annoying anti gun statement is:
"I support the 2A BUT....."

Click to expand...

Bingo. This has become a mantra for practically every anti-gun politician. Who do they think they're fooling? I have more respect for those few who come right out and say we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. But of course that would never happen and they know it.

Meh...

I just keep voting and taking people to the range to shoot.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

Sgt.Murtaugh said:

"you know you are 43x more likely to use that gun against yourself or a loved one than you are on an intruder or in self-defense"

Click to expand...

This comes from misreadings/misunderstandings of several studies that have been conducted on firearms and death rates.

Suicide

The suicide figures frequently quoted suffer from a significant amount of selection bias, because they only look at "successful" suicides. If you look at suicide attempts, things change.

Firearms are not the most popular way of committing suicide, despite what some people would have you believe. Ten times as many people try to poison themselves or OD. Three times as many people use a blade. What firearms do have that other methods do not is a high success rate.

A study performed by the Harvard School of Public Health found that "The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior". Gun owners are not more likely to attempt suicide, but they are more likely to succeed.

Conclusion: Buying a gun will not make you suicidal if you are not already. If you are suicidal, stay away from firearms.


Homicide

Several of the studies frequently quoted (and re-analyzed in the metastudy mentioned in the Beast article linked by a previous poster) have major problems with the methodology.

The Kellerman study, for example, counted all instances of firearm homicide, whether they had been committed with the gun kept in the home or not. It turns out that less that 15% of the firearms homicides being counted fit that description, which significantly lowers the risks.

Other studies ignore many potential confounding factors, such as involvement in crime. One study found that 71% of gunshot victims had been previously arrested and 64% convicted. Another study found that 60% of homicide victims had drug violations on their record. When you control for factors like these—and I assume you're not involved in the drug trade!—the added risk of owning a gun shrinks even more.

Unfortunately, explaining the problems with the studies doesn't easily fit in a soundbite, so you'll exhaust most people's attention span before you convince them.

Just tell them that if they drive an automobile they are 43 times as likely to die in a crash. Just common sense.

PiratePenguin said:

This comes from misreadings/misunderstandings of several studies that have been conducted on firearms and death rates.

Suicide

The suicide figures frequently quoted suffer from a significant amount of selection bias, because they only look at "successful" suicides. If you look at suicide attempts, things change.

Firearms are not the most popular way of committing suicide, despite what some people would have you believe. Ten times as many people try to poison themselves or OD. Three times as many people use a blade. What firearms do have that other methods do not is a high success rate.

A study performed by the Harvard School of Public Health found that "The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior". Gun owners are not more likely to attempt suicide, but they are more likely to succeed.

Conclusion: Buying a gun will not make you suicidal if you are not already. If you are suicidal, stay away from firearms.


Homicide

Several of the studies frequently quoted (and re-analyzed in the metastudy mentioned in the Beast article linked by a previous poster) have major problems with the methodology.

The Kellerman study, for example, counted all instances of firearm homicide, whether they had been committed with the gun kept in the home or not. It turns out that less that 15% of the firearms homicides being counted fit that description, which significantly lowers the risks.

Other studies ignore many potential confounding factors, such as involvement in crime. One study found that 71% of gunshot victims had been previously arrested and 64% convicted. Another study found that 60% of homicide victims had drug violations on their record. When you control for factors like these—and I assume you're not involved in the drug trade!—the added risk of owning a gun shrinks even more.

Unfortunately, explaining the problems with the studies doesn't easily fit in a soundbite, so you'll exhaust most people's attention span before you convince them.

Click to expand...

Guns are not the most popular way of commiting suicide, but if someone really wants to commit suicide, there is no way you can stop him. There are hundreds of ways of killing yourself. If he has a gun he would probably use it to kill himself, but if he hasn't got one, he could jump off a highrise. Or maybe poisoning, or blade.

It's not a case of mere "annoyance", it's a deadly threat to your life and liberty, actually. Whether or not the speaker knows it does not change what it is.

Drail said:

Just tell them that if they drive an automobile they are 43 times as likely to die in a crash. Just common sense.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite a bit more than 43 times more likely.

"Nobody needs [fill in type of gun] to hunt deer"