Don't count on your gun

I support the right to own guns, but I also believe in the RESPONSIBILITY that is inherent in that right. Truth of the matter is, there are more responsible gun owners than irresponsible. My father instilled in me to never pick up a gun in anger, and he was 100 percent right.

Then there are the wild-eyed freaks who believe anyone who dare suggest they might want to be careful with their gun is a socialist trying to take their gun away from them. I know of one who sadly murdered his wife and then took his own life in front of his kids on Christmas night.

Also, don't own a gun because it somehow makes you more of a man. That says more about your lack of confidence in yourself than any "toughness."

The last sentence is the most important. IF the study is accurate. I have yet to see a study on either side that i would call accurate. Did this study include how many robberies etc were stopped by someone brandishing a gun? That number is much higher than most people think, yet is rarely included in most studies because of how it is reported.

Passive aggressive anti-gun piece. Nice job Editorial staff.

I wouldn't expect any less from a bunch of liberal "journalists".

What a worthless piece of crap. This article isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. And remember, if you own a gun, always have it locked up. Yes, it will do wonders for you when someone breaks in your house and it's locked up with no ammo in it.

Please spare us any opinion on firearms from the
Obammy lemmings at the YDR.

The NRA wanted to bring firearms education to York
High. The leading opponent to this outreach was
none other than the no clue liberals at the YDR.

We are seeing the results of that action everyday
on the streets of Little Haiti. The chickens are
coming home to roost.

".....author Charles C. Branas, associate professor of epidemiology. "Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?"

Will wearing seatbelts/helmets always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security. Much depends on how you handle the gun, auto or cycle. Taking my chances with my gun, my auto and my cycle. Others may barricade themselves in their homes, never leaving the premises; fall and kill ones self in their bathtub. Life's a bitch; then you die.

Every time I read an article about a minority being shot or shooting someone in the city, I can't help but think that if given time, that young thug could have gone on to win the Nobel peace prize! Seriously folks, if you live in or travel to the city, buy a gun! It is the only language these little monkeys understand. Thank you to the YDR for helping to create an enviroment which spurns responsibility on the part of the constantly tormented minority via making them believe that they are perpetual victims! How about holding the minority communities responsible for promoting and tolerating the "thug 'n drug" culture which is so widely tolerated and even encouraged? After 30+ years of failed liberal politics in the city, doesn't anybody realize that these social services programs aren't working?

Statistics will show that owning a gun, handling a gun & certainly toting a gun everywhere you go, increses the risk of the owmer/toter injuring themselves or others by accident.

Those that believe in toting ignore this risk and assume that the good over rides those risks.

There was a report that I can't find (yet) that says a high percentage of gun owners are shot with their own gun.

They are more likely to shoot a family member or friend than a bad guy.

I wonder, the past few days we had a multitude of people saying how they won't take the swine flu shot because there wa a chance there would be some sort of bad reaction. It just wasn't worth the risk.

I say this. The risk of the flu shot has far far far less than the chance of a bad reaction than a toter's gun injuring or killing the toter, a family member or friend.

So why the difference? Why is one risk acceptible & the other not?

http://www.childrensdmc.org/upload/docs/Gun%2...

Gun owners are 5 times more likely to be shot by their own gun.

"And all this local gun violence comes in the wake of a new study released by a University of Pennsylvania professor that found people in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."

"In far too many cases, people are shot by their own weapons"

Watch closely...there's probably a good bit of slight of hand going on here between what this study actually says and the way the editorial presents it. The first example is somewhat unclear however it seems NONE of these examples involved people being shot with the gun they possessed.

Which leads to what the study purports to say....4.5 more times more likely to be shot while having a gun. But notice what it does NOT say. It does NOT say they were shot with the gun they had. And perhaps more importantly, it does NOT say they those who did the shooting were even legally allowed to own those guns. That is, drug dealers and other criminals shooting at each other while committing crimes may very well be included in that number.

Is the study then lying. No, not really. But it is then VERY misleading to say that law abiding citizens are more likely to be shot simply by virtue of legally carrying a gun.

Obviously people who carry guns for self defense need to understand the responsible use of their firearm. And yes they need to understand that there is in fact a possibility it could be used against them. But it is irresponsible to play fast and loose with statistics that may not apply quite the way they are presented simply to try and make a political point.

Dave wrote:

Statistics will show that owning a gun, handling a gun & certainly toting a gun everywhere you go, increses the risk of the owmer/toter injuring themselves or others by accident.
Those that believe in toting ignore this risk and assume that the good over rides those risks.
There was a report that I can't find (yet) that says a high percentage of gun owners are shot with their own gun.
They are more likely to shoot a family member or friend than a bad guy.
I wonder, the past few days we had a multitude of people saying how they won't take the swine flu shot because there wa a chance there would be some sort of bad reaction. It just wasn't worth the risk.
I say this. The risk of the flu shot has far far far less than the chance of a bad reaction than a toter's gun injuring or killing the toter, a family member or friend.
So why the difference? Why is one risk acceptible & the other not?

First, considering the MILLIONS of firearms in the public hands in this country if a HIGH percentage were shot with their own firearm we would be seeing thousands upon thousands of people shot. 200 million firearms in private hands. even 1% would put shootings in the millions.

IF you are going to carry a firearm then you need to know how to handle it in every situation. Frankly if you own a firearm, or even live in a house WITH a firearm, you should know how to handle it, shoot it, clean it.

To compare the flu shot to a firearm makes little sense. My firearm is not going to hurt me by be owning it. As long as I handle it properly i will not be injured, nor others.

U of Md. was granted the study to see if the H1N1 Vaccine was safe. They were granted the study the first week of September. It takes at least a week just to enroll and screen test subjects. Considering today's date I can not accept they have studied the long term effects.

The "studies" that purport to show that gun owners are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shoot an intruder are bogus. They are not more likely to be shot by the intruder with their own gun than they are to take down the intruder. Come on, if this were the case we would be hearing of instances on a daily basis.

The point of this is that gun owners do have a false sense of security. Most aren't trained to use their weapons for self defense or even with training can panic or even freeze up when they need to use them. Even the best can be surprised by an intruder.

"If this study is accurate, you are, statistically speaking, more at risk."

The most important sentence of this article.
From what I've read, this "study" is already being discredited for sloppy sampling and methodology.
Just the presence of that statement in the article indicates YDR doesn't put much credibility in it either...

Dave wrote:

http://www.childrensdmc.org/up load/docs/Gun%20Safety.pdf
Gun owners are 5 times more likely to be shot by their own gun.

LOL. You linked to a flyer for a Detroit hospital. Yeah, that's a real good source.

FAIL.

No one on the YDR editorial staff has the background or experience to write an article about gun usage. That won't stop them from continuing to do that. And don't insult the real Liberals (and gun owners, too) by calling that bunch the same kind of folks we are. That bunch is just pretty damn clueless, period; and Liberal or Conservative has nothing to do with it.

Oh I'll count on my guns, because they are what will prevent a criminal entering my home from ever leaving alive. I'll be the judge and jury, and yes, the executioner

don't let anyone with a whine piece in the paper talk you out of carrying your protection!
don't say "hold it" "put them up" or anything else
when you or your family are in danger just shoot

Why wrote:

Every time I read an article about a minority being shot or shooting someone in the city, I can't help but think that if given time, that young thug could have gone on to win the Nobel peace prize! Seriously folks, if you live in or travel to the city, buy a gun! It is the only language these little monkeys understand. Thank you to the YDR for helping to create an enviroment which spurns responsibility on the part of the constantly tormented minority via making them believe that they are perpetual victims! How about holding the minority communities responsible for promoting and tolerating the "thug 'n drug" culture which is so widely tolerated and even encouraged? After 30+ years of failed liberal politics in the city, doesn't anybody realize that these social services programs aren't working?

So,"Why", you hide behind a screen name instead of a robe, mask, and funny pointed hat.

And this is why I'll never subscribe to the YDR or Dispatch.

Poor journalistic iintegrity...to say the least..