Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Why People Fear Guns (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/40468-why-people-fear-guns.html)

Why People Fear Guns

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html

Quote:

People fear guns. Yet, while guns make it easier for bad things to happen, they also make it easier for people to protect themselves.

With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses (search) each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.

The print media was almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.

Just take some of the 18 defensive gun uses that I found covered by newspapers around the country during the first 10 days of December:

-- Little Rock, Ark: After the assailant attacked him and his son-in-law with a poker, a 64-year-old minister shot a man dead on church grounds. The attacker had engaged in a string of assaults in an apparent drug-induced frenzy.

-- Corpus Christi, Texas: A woman shot to death her ex-husband, who had broken into her house. The woman had a restraining order against the ex-husband.

-- Tampa Bay, Fla.: A 71-year-old man, Melvin Spaulding, shot 20-year-old James Moore in the arm as Moore and two friends were beating up his neighbor, 63-year-old George Lowe. Spaulding had a concealed weapons permit.

--Bellevue, Wash.: A man shot a pit bull that lunged to within a foot of him and his family. Police said the man's family had been repeatedly menaced in the past by the dog.

-- Jonesboro, Ga.: A father out walking with his 11-year-old daughter was attacked by an armed robber. The police say the father shot the attacker in self-defense and will not face charges.

-- Houston, Texas: Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her plumbing business on the afternoon of Dec. 1.

-- Philadelphia, Pa: A pharmacy manager fatally shot one robber and wounded another after the robbers threatened to kill workers at the store. The wounded robber escaped.

Part of the reason defensive gun use isn't covered in the media may be simple news judgment. If a news editor faces two stories, one with a dead body on the ground and another where a woman brandished a gun and the attacker ran away, no shots fired, almost anyone would pick the first story as more newsworthy. In 2002, some 90 percent of the time when people used guns defensively, they stopped the criminals simply by brandishing the gun.

But that doesn't explain all the disparity in coverage. It doesn't, for example, explain why, in some heavily covered public middle and high school shootings, the media mentioned in only 1 percent or fewer of their stories that the attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop the attacks.

The unbalanced reporting is probably greatest in cases where children die from accidental gunshots fired by another child. Most people have seen the public-service ads showing the voices or pictures of children between the ages of four and eight, never over the age of eight, and the impression is that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths involving small children. The exaggerated media attention given these particularly tragic deaths makes these claims believable.

The debate over laws requiring that people lock up their guns in their home usually concentrates on the deaths of these younger children. The trigger and barrel locks mandated by these laws are often only considered reliable for preventing the access to guns by children under age 7.

The truth is that in 1999, for children whose ages correspond with the public service ads, 31 children under the age of 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Between 1995 and 1999, only five to nine cases a year involved a child wounding or killing another child with a gun. For children under 15, there were a total of 81 accidental gun deaths of all types in 1999. Any death is tragic, but it should be noted that more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets than from guns.

The gun deaths are covered extensively as well as prominently, with individual cases getting up to 88 separate news stories. In contrast, when children use guns to save lives, the event might at most get one brief mention in a small local paper. Yet these events do occur.

--In February, 2002, the South Bend, Indiana Tribune reported the story of an 11-year-old boy who shot and killed a man holding a box cutter to his grandmother's neck. Trained to use a firearm, the boy killed the assailant in one shot, even though the man was using his grandmother as a shield.

--In May, 2001 in Louisianna, a 12-year-old girl shot and killed her mother's abusive ex-boyfriend after he broke into their home and began choking her mother. The story appeared in the New Orleans Advocate.

--In January, 2001, in Angie, Louisianna, a 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing the family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three. The four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound terminal cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication.

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

John R. Lott, Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).

I could have done with a few more sources my self, but agree with his argument. There are WAY more documented cases of guns preventing murders, rapes, assauts, etc.. then there are gun crimes.

It only has to happen to you once to make you a true believer.

You have no reason to ever fear a gun - the only thing to fear is the person with the gun. Or, knife or tire tool or wrench or rock or......

"it's better to have a gun and not need one,
than to need a gun and not have one"

-<b>True Romance</b>

I've lived with guns all my life.
I hunt, shoot for the fun of it, and have trained my daughters to do the same.
I am not afraid of guns.
What I am afraid of is assholes with guns.
Morons who think shooting a gun in the air is a great way to celebrate New Years.
Ask the kid who had his face destroyed by a stray round how much fun that is.
Or the twit who shoots his wife because he thought she was a burgler.
Or the pastor who shoots two guys in the back because they were "sneaking around" his yard.
I have been to shooting ranges where people have used rifles to point at things.
So while I believe that guns are great tools, I think there are too damn many of them in the hands of jerk-offs who could kill me.

I am more affraid of the people that try to pass poor information inorder to prove that my gun is a danger, but the criminal is just misunderstopd.

I'm not afraid of firearms just some of the idiots that miss-use them. I own several and like to shoot them, but I'm glad I live in a society that has very few out on the streets. I don't buy the "an armed society is a safe society" thing. I wouldn't trade feeling safe in my city for the right of some paranoid guy wanting to carry a handgun.

Firing a gun into the air isn't necessarily dangerous. Terminal velocity for a bullet isn't really enough to do any damage to a human, so I'm guessing these guys fired at an angle which let the bullet retain some energy.

It's still not exactly safe and shouldn't be done though.

So you're saying that if someone brakes into your house, you'd rather see them dead than let them walk away with your precious 200$ DVD-player?

Is some pain meds really worth letting a 13 year old kid have murder on his conscience? And does the criminal deserve to die for illegaly entering someones home?

I would never kill a man unless I'm 100% sure that he's going to kill or rape me or my loved ones. But you can never be sure.

Edit: .. Suggestion: Get pepperspray instead :)

Quote:

Originally posted by shrubbery
So you're saying that if someone brakes into your house, you'd rather see them dead than let them walk away with your precious 200$ DVD-player?

Is some pain meds really worth letting a 13 year old kid have murder on his conscience? And does the criminal deserve to die for illegaly entering someones home?

I would never kill a man unless I'm 100% sure that he's going to kill or rape me or my loved ones. But you can never be sure.

It's a good thing most burglars sit down and have a discussion about their intensions with each home owner before they act!! Do pigs fly and does money actually grow on trees in your world too?? If so, I want to join you!!

If someone breaks into my home, I am not going to interview them as per their intentions. The fact that they are criminal enough to break into a home is reason enough to assume that they don't have regard for normal human courtesy.
How do you know they just want your DVD player?

Crime is a risky game. If you are willing to play it, then dont cry about getting shot.

If you break into my home, I am going to shoot you, not wait and see how far you are willing to go.

Too many people get murdered/raped/beaten within an inch of their lives during a break-in to risk not protecting yourself. Burglars are often armed themselves in some shape or fashion, and a measurable proportion of the population is immune to the effects of pepperspray.

If someone breaks into and crosses the threshold into my home where my wife and children are sleeping, they will get one warning of "get the fuck out!"; if they have not made significant progress out of the house one second later, I will shoot them without hesitating.

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Firing a gun into the air isn't necessarily dangerous. Terminal velocity for a bullet isn't really enough to do any damage to a human, so I'm guessing these guys fired at an angle which let the bullet retain some energy.

I'm not sure whether or not this is completely accurate. Last year, a 7-year-old girl in the next town over from mine was killed by a bullet that was fired almost straight up.

I fear guns because I would not want to live in a society where people are fairly prone to having a gun pulled on them and getting shot is relatively common. You have to go to Afganistan, Colombia, Iraq and such places to find anyplace less safe than here.

I fear guns for pretty much the same reason. Guns kill people.

Guns dont kill people, bullets do. But sending that bullet out of said gun takes human action, so the fault of injury is upon the person firing the gun, not the gun nor the bullet.

People will kill each other reguardless of what weapons are available, if you take my gun and someone still breaks into my house, they will get something much more painful than a bullet. People have been killing each other since man figured out how to swing a stick. You wont change human nature by taking away one of the many tools available to kill someone with (by your reason of logic, martial arts, swords, fighting/throwing knives, maces, bows/arrows, and anything else that can/has been used in battle should be taken away).

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I fear guns for pretty much the same reason. Guns kill people.

I fear communists, they killed 125 million in less than a century.

i held my first gun only a few months ago, and i was physically scared of it, so i think there's something to be said for the psychological fear instilled in us about the gun itself

I'm not afraid of guns, just all of the idiots and poor people holding them.

People are afraid because of ignorance.

For example, I've taught people how to use fire extinguishers, and almost without fail, there is some trepidation even among the men because they are mysterious things that are associated with dangerous situations.

After some education and some practice, they lose their mystique.

I've found the same to be true with guns.

While someone may retain their dislike of them, with education and practice, the fear departs.

A whole lot of people have never seen a gun in person that wasn't strapped to the hip of a police officer. Fear of the unknown is one of the strongest fears there is.

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
I fear communists, they killed 125 million in less than a century.

Please keep it on topic.

As for crimes that are committed using guns there is a larger amount committed with knifes. Also more people are killed annually with knifes than guns. This tells me that it is people that kill people, and the item used is just a tool. Guns should be respected, not feared.

I'm scared of those who are so vehemently opposed to even basic discussion about whether guns do or do not provide more security to the population. No topic has ever revealed to me more blind visciousness than this one.

SLM3

P.S. A gun fired straight up will return to Earth with more than enough force to kill someone.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kllr Wolf
As for crimes that are committed using guns there is a larger amount committed with knifes. Also more people are killed annually with knifes than guns. This tells me that it is people that kill people, and the item used is just a tool. Guns should be respected, not feared.

You mean in Great Britian?

Quote:

Knives. KNIVES, for the love of GOD. That's basic god damn English you're incapable of there.
Further, from here(Stats are 2001 US): http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/o...ptions_10.html
11,000 DEATHS with guns. 2,000 with "cut/pierce." Hell, only 9,000 non-firearm homocides. So maybe there are more attacks with knives/axes/etc, but the gun attacks are, unsurprisingly, more fatal. That is all.

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
I'm scared of those who are so vehemently opposed to even basic discussion about whether guns do or do not provide more security to the population. No topic has ever revealed to me more blind visciousness than this one.

SLM3

P.S. A gun fired straight up will return to Earth with more than enough force to kill someone.

Only people I've met who are afraid to ask this question are the ones trying to pass the gun control laws.

edit: nevermind, delete this if you don't mind....

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
I fear communists, they killed 125 million in less than a century.

Such a poor attempt at a threadjack, bad endymon, bad.

Quote:

Strangely enough, I agree with this statement.

What is frustrating however is that logical discussion is usually beyond those who wish to ban guns.

Take the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 for example.

This POS law is nothing but a feel good law that has no logic behind it, yet it is trumpeted by some as a panacea (sp?) for gun control, pandering to those who think that uzi's and AK47's are being used to kill school children and that this law prevents that.

If anything kills, it's ignorance.

Or the woman that ran and won for NY state congress on Assualt weapons ban as her man plateform. Her husband was murdered by that monster Colin Fergueson ( a man I took a class with!!!!). She played the sympathy card that her husband was killed due to poor laws and won. SHe enacted an assault rifle ban in NY.
The problem was, her husband was killed by a revolver pistol. Why did she ban Assualt Rifles? The answer? It was an emotional ban aid that made her and others feel good, but as anti gun proposals are, it was poorly researched and did nothing to solve the problem.

I respect guns. I fear idiots who don't. I don't particularly like them, though. While they are fine for hunting and warfare, my feeling is that, if I am mad enough to kill someone, I want to be close enough to get bloody. That's one of the things that keeps me from getting that angry, because that's all or nothing.

Guns? They have no consequences for the shooter. They are nothing but for the shot.

Still they are a ton of power, and like any powerful, dangerous tool (a chainsaw, f'rinstance) they deserve my respect.

Incidentally, I own one gun, a 22 target rifle, that I haven't fired in upwards of 15 years. I was a lousy shot (right handed, left eyed) then, and I am sure I remain a lousy shot now. I do know how to handle one though, and how to not kill myself or anyone else with one. That's plenty for me.

However, the 2nd ammendment is every bit as much the law as the rest of them, so as long as no one messes with the first or the 3rd and up, I have no problem with it.

Quote:

Let's make a difference between MURDER and KILL. The 13 y/o did not MURDER the burglar, he killed him. You kill in war, not murder.

Both of these following definitions were the FIRST chosen by dictionary.com
Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice
Kill - To put to death

For my quote, I will use kill instead of murder for the simple reason that it sounds better:
Guns don't kill people, stupid motherfuckers with guns kill people.

Porn doesn't kill people, people kill people........guns don't kill people, people kill people. I do not own guns and i really have never been in a situation where i would need one to defend my life. I do not like guns, so i avoid them. i don't hunt, but i don't think that hunters should not be able to have guns. But WHY WHY WHY in the world do we need hand guns, automatic weapons, available to the public and why in the world since we do have them, should they be concealed......

mr b

Like 'redravin40', said im also really concerned about the number of guns out there. I think that the average citizen doesnt need them. There are too many nuts out there who arnt the responsible gunowners that alot of people are. I also think that hunting is a pretty cruel sport. I guess i wouldnt mind it so much if the people doing it wernt using firearms. I think its important that the average person knows where their food comes from, i worked in a slaughterhouse for a little while- and can tell you that it is an eyeopener.

mrbuck brought up a couple points that I cannot let slide. First automatic weapons have been restricted since 1934. They are not readily availabe to the public. It takes the better part of a year for the paperwork and taxes to go through. When you say automatic weapons I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you misunderstand the term "assault weapon". (It really means absolutely fuck all, but it sounds scary doesn't it?) That term applies to semi-automatic rifle patterned after military rifle. It bans rifles based on cosmetic characteristics. The rifles in question are for the most part some of the least powerful and inefficient ever devised. When you hear the anti (I use the term because I can think of nothing lless crude and vulgar) crowd claiming firearms manufacturers use "loopholes" to produce military rifles, they are flat out lying. Because they are banned based on cosmetic features, all that is needed is to eliminate or reduce said features to make them within the law. Flat out there is no loophole. For the record, I own one of those "assualt weapons." They are the easiest to use, and least complicated rifles on the market.

Secondly, handguns have many uses. (I use the word uses because firearms are a tool) Self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting being probably among the best known. Self-defense I will leave for last, so let's begin with hunting.

People use handguns for hunting for a myriad of reasons. Be it the challenge, (most shots are restricted to less than 50 yards) or simply because someone prefers a lighter weight tool, handguns are a versatile and powerful weapon.

Sport shooting with pistols is not my thing. (yet...) However, many people enjoy many different versions of the sport. From bulls-eye to silhouette, or perhaps you want something more challenging, there is always IDPA or IPSC (sp?) defense/self-defense competitions. Like any other hobby/proffesion/club people want to have competitions and get togethers with like minded people. Most of all, sport shooting is thriving because the participants enjoy it.

Now for the last and perhaps most important use of handguns: self-defense. Handguns are popular for self-defense for one reason, they carry a lot of firepower in a small package. They are easy to maneuver in tight spaces where a long gun (rifle, shotgun) would be cumbersome. Handguns are easy to conceal as well.

Mrbuck, you were wondering why people wish to carry concealed weapons on their person. The reason is two-fold. First, no one, and I mean no-one likes having a potential badguy knowing they are armed. Surprise is the key. It also acts as a deterent. In an area where any one can be armed, badguys must try harder kto spot someone they think will be unarmed. More often than not, said badguy will find some other area where there is less/no doubt.

The second reason for concealed carry (and I really hate to say this, no offense intended) is you people. What is your first reaction going to be when you see someone walking down the street wearing a handgun on his/her hip? Chances are you will call the police. Here in South Dakota, it is legal to carry a pistol so long as it is plainly visible. Most firearm owners are responsible and sensible enough to take other people fellings into consideration and will not jeopardize our Second ammendment rights or the good will with most uninformed americans.

[/end rant]

I've gone on long enough. If anyone wishes clarification or further debate don't be shy (not that any one will any way). I have tried to be a clear and concise (not to mention civil) as possible. I apologize for the long read.

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
I fear communists, they killed 125 million in less than a century.

lol. Hey, you should fear the nihilists more dude. I mean say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism but at least its an ethos.

Rude comment removed.

Never mind that Communism and National Socialism are completely different things.

Quote:

Originally posted by almostaugust
lol. Hey, you should fear the nihilists more dude. I mean say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism but at least its an ethos.

:lol:

Guns are something to be feared because they make it easier to kill. They aren't bad in and of themselves, but they can be, and often are, used for bad just as frequently as they are used for good. They aren't necessary and there is no reason to make it easier for humans to kill for any reason.