First of all, I don't care about the statistics. If we argue the statistics, at some level, we concede that if the statistics "came out right," then it would be a valid basis to repeal or ignore the 2A. I don't concede that. We're talking about the right to own the weapons necessary to defend my family.
Second, and in light of the above caveat, you've got to read carefully:
motherjones said:
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
Faulty logic: Even if we do outnumber police & military forces by 79 to 1, that doesn't necessarily mean that the antigun folks are not out to take them from us. (Nor does it mean, I might add, that we're interested in shooting it out with police or military.)
motherjones said:
Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates.
From the linked study from whence the 114% came:
. . . . Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of this study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.
In short, firearms ownership may not be the cause of people killing others with firearms, but the guns used to kill people may come from households. File that under "Thank you, Mr. Wizard."
motherjones said:
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
From the study:
BACKGROUND: . . . .Are motorists with guns in the car more or less likely to engage in hostile and aggressive behavior?
METHODS: Data come from a 2004 national random digit dial survey of over 2,400 licensed drivers. Respondents were asked whether, in the past year, they (1) made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist, (2) aggressively followed another vehicle too closely, and (3) were victims of such hostile behaviors.
RESULTS: Seventeen percent admitted making obscene or rude gestures, and 9% had aggressively followed too closely. Forty-six percent reported victimization by each of these behaviors in the past year. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.
CONCLUSION: Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.
I'm not a statistics buy, but 2400 randomly chosen drivers seems statistically insignificant to me.
Now, if I understand this correctly, the highest-probability group for flying the bird at other drivers are young, male, paranoid binge drinkers who have been arrested for offenses other than traffic violations. Why am I suppposed to be surprised by this? I just don't think that the presence of a gun is the cause of the problem here.
Also, note the use of the phrase "those who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun." That does not seem to limit the bad behaviors to drivers, but would include passengers. So if I'm in a car, and my buddy is CCing, and I flip off the guy in the next car, who happens to be riding around with my ex-girlfriend, that counts, right?
motherjones said:
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
Alternate explanation: Non-CCL-holding convicts were likely sentenced for other crimes, like, oh, I dunno . . . "felon in possession," with "threatening with a firearm" likely dismissed as part of a plea bargain.
motherjones said:
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
Technically, a bad guy killed in a self-defense shooting is still a homicide. It's not a murder, but it's a homicide.
motherjones said:
• Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
Hmmm, quoting a 1997 study. Also, consider the sample size by following the links:
Sample: Probability sample of 2,568 noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 and over who are fluent in English or Spanish and live in households with a telephone.
The other problem I have witht his last statistic (the 40%) is the implication that there's something wrong with a private sale that doesn't require a background check.
