Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

...what I'd like to know is whether or not the study factored for criminal record. In other words, did that asserted ratio account for the fact that habitual criminals are vastly more likely to carry weapons than the general population? This is critical, as they are also vastly likely to become victims of homicide.

No problem if you don't know...I can search out the actual study easily enough. I work pretty closely to this field.

material and perhaps elaborating on its themes.

Their excuses for needing a gun are laughable.

There are ways of securing a weapon where it is still accessible.

Your #4 isn't that well thought out either, for there are revolvers which shoot calibers capable of defending oneself against most wildlife.

and shoot any rabid wildlife with a bow and arrow or kill it with your bare hands before it bites my pets or livestock.

As long as you are willing to club or axe to death large livestock that may be mauled by predators, rather than make them suffer, I'm good with that.

We are 30 to 40 minutes away from law enforcement arrival. There is no such thing as "animal control."

AS for home defense a lot of people have defended their own homes with guns quite adequately. Remember the young mother whose husband died of cancer whose home was invaded? Remember how she barricaded herself in the bedroom with her infant and killed the evil scum with a shotgun as he broke in her door?

I think blanket statements like yours are understandable; I don't think they are reality.

I do agree we need gun control and we needed it years ago.

I don't have any guns but I think home defense is actually the strongest argument for gun ownership, especially for people out in the sticks.

I think it's silly to say no one can defend their home as there are too many cases where people did just that. However you don't need an assault rifle to do so.

A warning shot, or often just one nice solid pump of the shotgun is enough to send most scum scurrying.

And there are a few scum in the world, like the two who broke in that young mom's house, thinking she was just a vulnerable little thing with a new baby whom they could easily overcome and then ?????

Well, she showed that ass that she wasn't going to be prey.

I think she should have that right. She did it with a shotgun, not an AR or a Bushmaster or a 30 round magazine.

These people are already living on the edge of not being able to eat. I think hunters should be able to have guns. Rifles. Not semi-automatic weapons. Hunters don't use those weapons anyway - it tears up the meat, makes it useless.

Personally I have bow hunted.

I think a bullet is a cleaner, more humane kill.

And people here DO eat everything they hunt. This is Appalachia, and hunting is grocery shopping, the deer are overpopulated, and hunting is DAMN sure far more humane than picking up tortured factory-slaughtered meat at the grocery store.

Most people up here don't have the $$$ for mounted deer heads on the walls.

Same reasons for hunting.

I don't hunt, but "those weapons" are used by hunters all the time. The calibers they use are the same as older weapons.

hunt with semi-automatic weapons. There would be no meat left undamaged!!

The rounds, the 'bullets' used in such weapons are the same as the 'bullets' used in other hunting guns.

There's no more damage to a deer shot with an AR-15 in .223 caliber than there is by a deer shot with a .223 remington bolt-action gun.

hunters are not spraying the forests with bullets.

Semi-auto rifles been used in hunting for over 100 years. They fire one, and only one, shot per trigger pull, just like any other Civilian-legal rifle.

All the below items are legitimate hunting rifles. If you don't think one is, tell me which one and ask questions.

1. http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-700.aspx

2. http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/pump-action-model-7600.aspx

3. http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

4. http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

5. http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

Is a semiautomatic Remington model 740 purchased by my grandfather in 1955. My dad used it after my grandfather's death. I shot my first deer with it in the 1970s. I have used it since my father's death. My son shot his first deer with it in 04. It won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Semiautomatics are the most purchased and owned class of firearms in the US and have been for some time.

And if a lot, what kind of lousy shot needs that many bullets?

the dreaded "assault rifle".

and activism by the same person is a terrible combination.

The vast majority of these semi-auto rifles shoot the 5.56 or .223 cartridge. Most hunters use either a 12 gage shotgun in no rifle states, or high powered rifles in the rest of the states. The media likes to represent the 5.56 as a high powered rifle. well it really isn't. When compared to the cartridges that most hunters use it is actually on the wimp end of the spectrum. Now lets talk about bullets and the damage they do to game. The larger heavier bullet built to mushroom and expand on impact will do a lot more damage than a very light 5.56 bullet. These bigger heavier bullets are almost as fast as the .223 bullet and carry a huge amount of impact energy that far exceeds that of the 5.56/.223. These hunting bullets are designed to transfer as much of their contained energy as possible into the animal. It is not hard to see that the small light .223 bullet would not tear up much meat but the heavier harder hitting bullets from normal hunting rifles will ruin a bunch.
If you want to compare the impact and destruction of a three quarter OZ shotgun slug to the impact energy and destructive ability of the .223. Be my guest. The slug hits like a cannon.

Your hero Che Guevara used them to murder people.

Thanks for not letting me down. Hannity would be so proud of your response.

While hypocritically supporting a man who misused firearms to get his way.

When humans invented guns, animals that were hunted learned how to adapt to that. They learned to sense noises and smells far more than before when bows and arrows were used. You can't sneak up on them now like you used to.

Also, there are many families who rely on hunting for food. When we lived in Montana and made very little money, it was deer meat that got us through the winter. A lot of families are in that position in many areas of the US. A hunting license is far cheaper than the same amount of meat at a grocery store.

And somehow, hunters have figured out new ways to "sneak up" on wildlife.

There are people who still hunt primarily with bow & arrow.

Many hunters are already working two or three jobs. Don't believe me? Come visit rural areas of upstate NY. No hunting, no meat on the table all winter.

I am NOT talking about the hunting for fun crowd who come up from the city every year and shoot each other. I am talking about the locals who are poor, already overworked, and barely making it. Hunting is an important way they feed their families.

They can go much farther at a higher rate of speed.

Animals adapted to the technology.

If you mean they frequently starved to death then yes..

soap, synthetic fabrics and modern medicine any day now, amIright?

I don't have any kids. So I keep my gun loaded and unlocked. My other guns are in a safe.

If I did have kids I would get one of those quick access safes. They're small and have 4 buttons for a combination. The buttons are inside finger grooves so that they can be found in the dark. The door is springloaded and drops down as soon as the correct code is entered. If too many false codes are entered, the safe locks itself until it is reset with a key.

Besides there is no reason to keep a gun unloaded and trigger locked if its already in a safe to begin with.

so yes, Chris Redfield NEEDS to own a gun, and a rocket launcher, and a flamethrower, grenades...

(kidding)

If you're going to start assigning rights based upon what we NEED, you're at the top of a very slippery slope.

You have the right to own a gun. Just like you have the right to own a car, a house, or a four-slice toaster. But that doesn't mean that you hold that right without restriction, and it doesn't mean that the right can't be revoked for poor behavior.

The second amendent refers to a "well-regulated" militia. OK. Let's regulate it.

Everything else you mentioned does not have the primary purpose of killing.

The only purpose for a gun is to kill.

Target shooting harms no one. And hunting (unless you're a member of PETA) is a legitimate use for a gun. And regardless of your opinion on its efficacy (and I have my doubts), self-protection is another reason to own a firearm.

That's not to say that we can't restrict who can own a gun, how it can be obtained, and where and under what circumstances it can be used.

in which case its purpose is to embarrass me.

Obviously all these have exemptions in the gun laws to permit carrying guns to protect themselves.

Obviously people in positions of relative power over the general public think they need guns.

I do know I'm a woman who has never owned or shot a gun and I'm still here. After being robbed at knife-point a few years ago I do carry pepper spray so I can incapacitate but not kill. Kill is final.

The 2nd Amendment mantra makes no sense. This amendment is from 1791 and a completely different USA - and it really addresses arming a militia.

I agree with something I heard this weekend, we need to stigmatize the NRA and gun nuttery like we have cigarettes - they both kill way too many.

1) I could get into my safe, load and chamber a round in about 4 seconds. I personally keep it loaded and secured but that is me. As far as 911 goes I'm sure whoever is in your home will be glad to wait 10 minutes for the police to show up before they proceed about their business.

2) Talk to the Afghani's about this one. I speak from personal experience.

3) This is just silly.

4) If I put a round through the eye of the guy assaulting/raping/killing your mother/sister/wife you might feel differently. Anyone illegally in my home or assaulting me and mine can expect lethal force. The best way to avoid this is to not invade my space or hurt other people.

5) Yes I can. It is explicitly laid out in the founding document for this country.

And in a steel lockbox by my bed that takes a less than 5 seconds to open. I'm the only one that has the combination, so one one but me can access the gun.

wonder why?

but when it comes down to actually discussing...

and it's causes but I say to you, you are way the fuck off base.
You kind of thinking does not belong in the debate because you have no understanding of the issue.
Hunting, target shooting, historical gun collecting and black powder shooting are all recreational sports and have nothing to do with the tragedy of last Friday.

Thank you.

The guns used in the tragedy of last Friday belonged to the mother who used them for recreational sports like target shooting.

Head in the sand?

appreciated!

If I have predators, such as coyotes/wolves/fox going after my cattle/sheep/chickens, a firearm is the quickest, simplest way to immediately separate them from my livestock

Nobody I know keeps a gun unloaded and out of the way that they use for home-D.

What scares me most is that I know a few people that keep a load pistol between their bed mattresses for protection. I just hope their young kids never know what is between the mattresses.

That is the real danger imo.

Also for hunting - guns or bows? Which one do you want people to use? Knives maybe? Tiger pit?

I see no good reason for people to own guns.

Gun people talk about their constitutional rights. But it is just crude selfishness. Because the rest of the people have rights too. They have a right not to be shot by your gun.

My place is overrun by poisonous snakes.

I use rat shot in a .38 pistol.

When you say nobody, you mean civilians.

You don't like or have any use for guns, then by all means don't fucking get one.

When you you put food on the tables of rural hunters well below the poverty line, we'll talk.

When you safeguard my family from harm, we'll talk.

When you allow the elderly and the weak to protect themselves without resulting to a contest of strength with their attackers, we'll talk.

When you can demonstrate that you NEED anything besides food, water, shelter, and critical medicines, we'll talk.

Archery, javelin, slingshot, atlatl, all indeed were effective hunting devices and remain so today. That is, in cultures where hunting is a full-time job.

These tools are very difficult to learn and require constant practice to be used effectively.

Our modern society does not afford all of us 30+ hours per week to shoot, say, a longbow. But if there is a coyote or feral dog attacking one of my animals, a rifle is a safe and humane way to kill the interloping beast. And I have the time to maintain competency with that weapon.

I'm all for sensible gun control and am a proponent of increased regulation for firearms in this country, but I've actually deterred a person who was threatening me and my household (I had a crazy ex -- who I've since gotten a restraining order against -- show up at my place wielding a knife) with a handgun.

Just my two cents.

They were too fast for the dogs. So I had to stay out in a pickup at night by the coops and shoot the martens. I used an AR-15, which is pretty much perfect for varminting.

Sure as fuck want it, however.

1 person with a gun is helpless against a tyranical government
several million is another story

look how well the viet cong did

1. The point of having a gun in a safe for home-defense is that it can be stored loaded and ready to go. It takes 5-6 seconds for me or my partner to enter the combination and open it. In the dark. It would take far longer for my partner to fumble for his cellphone to call 911 (or for me, TTY in the dark?!), and at minimum 10 minutes for them to respond to my location. Even then, the police and the government have no legal obligation to save my life or protect me or my family from danger. NONE.

2. If it was just little ol' me against the military, probably laughable. But the idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the people (collective) could be counted on to stand for freedom against the government. If you're willing to roll over and take it when your natural rights are stripped from you, then you don't deserve to keep them. Move somewhere else where a government "grants you" the right to free speech with an asterisk.

3. And we managed to survive hundreds of years literally throwing our excrement out of windows and into the street. I'll take a deer killed humanely with a .223 over a slab of bacon from a factory pig that was castrated by hand without anesthesia and killed (if it survives long enough) with a bolt to the skull.

4. Do you think mace, pepper spray, or a stun gun, sword, bow and arrow, ninja star, etc. would be more effective against a charging mountain lion or grizzly bear than a gun? How do you suggest people protect themselves and family in those situations, since you brought it up?

5. I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I hope that I never have to use it. I hope to keep it so long that it expires and I have to replace it. But when the need arises, I am trained and prepared to use it to protect my house from a fire. Could I get by without it? Probably. Do I want/have to? No.

I see my firearm in a similar light. I have not needed to use it yet. I hope I never have to. But, if the situation arises where I do, I am glad that it is there and maintained, and that I am trained and prepared to use it to protect myself and my loved ones. Could I get by without it? Probably. Do I want/have to? No.


Of course I support enforcing our current gun control laws, and having more consistent and thorough background checks wherever guns are sold, but your OP is just silly.