paulski1966

@badbadleroybrown: You are right - it is a small sample size, but if you have a similar study that contradicts it then please share. This largers study also shows accidental deaths from gunshots were higher than self defense - it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine which is considered the most presitgious medical journal in print - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406 As for how they defined self defence - I'd imagine that's fairly obvious - shootings don't tend to happen without some form of investigation - that investigation defines how its recorded. I like your rebuttal though 'its bullshit because it doesn't match my beliefs' - great response! How long did it take to come up with that one. You accuse the researchers of selective sampling, of ignoring other sites, changing definitions etc etc and do all of this without a shred of evidence - no bias from you in the slightest! How does the FBI data double count? It counts the number of guns stolen from households - that's it. Where is the double count in that? What are you even talking about? The FBI data did not record crimes commited with it or any other factor - merely the number of firearms reported as stolen from homes - are you suggesting that criminals are telling the police when their stolen guns are stolen from them? By your own admission the ATF data is doubly flawed as they can only count a gun as stolen once they have recovered it! And even then it has to have identifying marks in place. If you want to no how many cars are stolen in the US do you count the number recovered or the number reported stolen? Why am I even having to explain something so simple? As for your claim that the ATF say only 1/10th are stolen - lets see a source for that claim please because I'm calling BS. And where do I state that 1/3 of crimes are committed with newly stolen guns? The FBI are saying over 200,000 guns are reported as stolen each year - it may be a week before they commit a crime but equally it may be a decade or never. BTW love the fact you use the word 'only' before saying there are 600,000 gun crimes! As for your question as to how dumb do I have to believe that 550 guns are stolen each day - I believe there are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the - there are only 256 million cars - in 2013 there were 700,000 cars stolen - which is 1,917 a day. So over three times as many stolen yet 10% fewer of them actually in the US. I think its you who is deluded. " That would be something like 7% of all burglaries resulting in a firearm being stolen." No, no it wouldn't. You are working on the horribly flawed basis that only one gun is stolen. there is also the fact that around 35% of households contain guns so why the hell would you be surprised that 7% of burglaries involve guns being taken? How is that in anyway surprising to you? But do please keep throwing the empty insults. I have no issues with guns - I'm just not especially keen on people dying unnecessarily. I agree its a delay - but you are arguing for an amazingly specific set of circumstances to try and make a point - I guess it boils down to the fact that which do you think is more likely - that your house is broken into whilst you are out of the house and your firearms stolen because they are not secured as fully as they could be(not an accusation towards you or any other gun owner before you start ranting, merely a point about storage), or that you end up in a life and death gun match with intruders where a couple of seconds makes the difference between life and death. And we have been over the whole 'freedom' thing - its utter horseshit - if the military support the people you don't need guns. If they support the govt, your guns would do no good. If they somehow split, say along geographical lines then the populace split as well - thereby again providing no advantage - not that any of it matters though as you are in a position where you are so busy worrying about an imaginary Hitler that you are ignoring the very real issue that you have at the moment - namely three times as many people losing their freedom than any other developed nation.

@badbadleroybrown: "The ncbi accidental shooting stat includes suicides genius... only morons like you actually think you're likely to accidentally shoot someone because there's a gun in the house. Accidental, true accidental shootings are very rare." Oh dear - from the actual link that I posted - "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." I intentionally left out the data regarding homicides and suicides - the four to one ratio does not include suicides, they are merely accidental shootings. But does please call me a moron again because you cannot read or understand simple statistics. As for the ATF data - as mentioned on previous occasions the data is flawed in that it only goes back one step - if a criminal borrows a gun from a gang member 'friend' it as recorded as such - even if that gang member had stolen the gun - like I said, the ATF data works on the principle that a gun ceases to be stolen as soon as it has passed through one set of hands - which is clearly not the case. None of which in any way changes the FBI data as they are measuring two entirely different things. You keep saying its nonsense and then provide nothing to support the claim, I can explain how the ATF data is flawed - your response to the FBI data just seems to be bluster and insults. Its quite pathetic really. My point is that having your guns out probably leaves you in greater danger than having easy access to them - most house break ins occur when the occupant is out of the house - which means the criminals then have easy access to your valuable firearms if they are left out (I am not saying that is what you do merely using this as an example) - this in turn provides greater easy access to firearms for criminals thereby increasing the chances of you coming into contact with an armed criminal. And that's ignoring the four to one ratio from above. There are plenty of quick access safe gun stores on the market - so your ridiculous assertion that I'm suggesting that guns are locked in a safe well out of arms reach is a straw man. As for the bike example - if I believed that the bike could be used to kill someone else at a later date then yes, I would do everything to ensure it was as difficult to steal as possible. Do you think companies that have access to explosives leave them lying round the house? Why might that be? And just curious, but since when has 'making it hard for criminals to steal your shit' made you a pussy. I hope you don't own a bike lock - pussy.

@badbadleroybrown: so your response is simply to call any state I post up BS - how do you manage to shoot guns exactly with your head so deeply buried in the sand? The stolen guns figure comes from the FBI - if you have evidence that they are lying then post it up. If you have evidence that the vast majority are recovered then post it up. If you have evidence that contradicts then post it up. I wasn't saying Australia was something to aspire to - I was merely demonstrating what happens when you reduce supply - the same as anything else, it pushes up the price. If illegal guns are more expensive what impact do you think that would have? As for NCBI - I never referred to the suicide stat - I referred to accidental shootings happening four times more often than defensive shootings. If you are four times more likely to shoot someone accidentally than an intruder is that gun really keeping you and your loved ones safe? As for storage - great argument! Store it however you like except when it puts others, like children, in danger. Which is the point of my argument - easily stolen guns do put others in danger. I agree it would be great if we could happily leave our things lying around without a concern in the world - but that isn't how it works, if it was there would be no need for guns in the first place. So we lock our car doors, we fit alarms, we lock our bikes - we recognise that thieves exist and try to make their life as hard as possible - when guns provide such a clear and obvious danger once stolen, surely it makes sense to make it eve harder for criminals to aquire them. As for your jingoism, I can only assume it was an attempt at humour, in which case well done!

@badbadleroybrown: "more population density equals more crime" - except in say the UK where the homicide is one third what it is in the US despite having substantially higher population density.

@badbadleroybrown: nice video - allow me to put it into perspective - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/ "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings"

@badbadleroybrown: did you just say that 200,000 guns are not making there way into the hands of criminals? Let me make this really simple - if you steal a gun you are a criminal, by very definition! So every single gun stolen makes its way into the hands of criminals because it's criminals hands that are stealing them! By its little definition any gun stolen is in the hand of a criminal! Jesus, do you honestly not understand that? And yes criminals will get guns - no one has denied that - but recognising that fact should you not do everything possible to make it as hard as possible? As a little example - if you are determined in Australia you can buy an illegal AR15 - it will cost you $30,000 - in the US it will cost you under $1500 - so can you think of why making it harder for criminals to access guns may be a good thing? Are you aware of such a thing as supply and demand? As for your rant about storage, again for the third time at least - it's not about laying the blame with the homeowner its about recognising that having over 200,000 stolen every year is not a good thing. Do you lock your car at night? Your front door? Why? Because protecting your property is a good idea - and protecting valuable property that can be used to seriously impact the lives of other people is an even better idea. That's not laying the blame at anyone's feet but the criminal - but if we recognise the fact that criminals exist, if we recognise the fact that they will try and steal firearms, if we recognise the fact that having large amounts of guns Stolen by criminals is a bad thing - then remind me why making things difficult for the criminal is a bad idea?

@badbadleroybrown: no blame at all in my first sentence - I've no doubt in the sliughtest that the vast majority of owners of those guns had them stored legally - my point is that if you are having over 200,000 guns stolen a year, maybe what is defined as 'proper' storage needs to be redifined - thats not criticising the gun owners its criticising the definition of proper storage, but then I'm sure you knew that anyway, it was a convenient excuse for you not to respond though. I'll ask again - is over 200,000 legal firearms making their way into criminals hands every year a good or bad thinng? Its a simple question.

@brncr6: What a wonderfully mature response. Well done you.