Quote Originally Posted by lunacycles View Post
I'd honestly be interested in seeing facts or documentation to support this statement.
A very highly regarded professor of criminology, Gary Kleck, Ph.D. of Florida State University, did a study that shows that guns are 'used' (meaning anything from shouting "I have a gun, leave my house" to actual use) to prevent crimes more often (almost twice as often) than commit them. The information is out there, Google is your friend. When I was forced to grab a gun in my own home (thankfully they did not want to challenge my rifle) I was strongly anti gun- the rifle, a .22, was my father's and probably would not work if I tried, and was empty. It took the L.A. Riots to make me re-think my reliance on police.

As for the 'you are more likely to be a victim if you have a gun', that is skewed anti-gun nonsense. First, the data is taken from emergency room info- which leaves out the vast majority of defensive gun use like mine, no shots fired AND not reported to authorities. Also, it is skewed as violent people own violent things (not the other way around) and yes gang bangers, drug dealers and other violent type criminals do shoot each other. Sprouting that as proof that owning a gun is dangerous is quite a stretch.

Now, firearms accidents are another 'foaming at the mouth' anti-gun talking point that should be addressed while the topic is open. From the CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html if you wish to look), the last year they have data, 2007, was 613, out of a population of 301,579,895, a rate of .20. This rate per 100,000 has been falling since the 1930s despite an increase of firearms ownership, population AND an increase in 'shall issue' concealed carry- citizens carrying firearms concealed in public. By comparison, 820 people died in bicycle-involved accidents, a rate of .27 so owning a firearm is is safer than cycling.

Sorry for the long post from my soapbox again ...