How stupid are the media? Let’s take a look at unquestioning coverage of the Brady center’s logic free assertions.

Filed under Arizona, rants, reality, state gone wild, You have nothing to fear

I am puzzled. I’ve been tearing apart, on a local newspaper forum, the lie that you are more likely to be injured by your own gun in the house by an intruder than being able to successfully defend yourself with it. Not just a little likely but an insane ratio like 43 or more to 1. On the face of it you know their argument is 100% shit. How can it not be?

We know how many people are shot breaking into houses, we know how many of them failed to carry out the seemingly easy step of disarming the homeowner and then , and this is the part I don’t get, successfully using a gun against the hapless fool who bought the thing.

  • If it’s so hard to use why are the criminals preternaturally good at it? 
  • Where are all the dead bodies from this 43-1 ratio?
     
    Ok that’s a little scene setter and if you care to read up on the real stats, how the original bullshit number came into “popular culture” the info is here. It’s a lot of reading re the defensive use of firearms and the relative risk of them being used on you. I refer you to John Lott’s seminal work on the topic. 
  • And more here. http://en.wikipedia.org/ikw… which has faults pro and con re his work.

    The myth that your own gun is more dangerous to you than not having one is on the face of it absurd but people have taken the time to refute the origin of this case. “protection or peril an analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home” where the original 43 times more likely figure the VPC uses. Its’ not an easy thing to sum up in a paragraph other than htt://guncite.com/gun-contp... has material from the original study author, Kellermann, that acknowledges errors in his initial work.
    Later work suggests that it’s a 65-2 ratio http://www.saf.org/LawRevie… in favour of the armed:. Seem believable? The daily info is out there, story after story of self defense use

    Let’s get back to today’s bullshit from the Brady bunch.

    “Mexican criminals, and traffickers who supply them, cannot get the guns they need in Mexico because of Mexico’s strong gun laws,” Brady Center President Paul Helmke said in a news conference. But in border states Texas and Arizona, he argued, weaker gun laws provide easy access to a significant supply of high-powered arms.

    Spot the logical error? Because it’s illegal to get guns in Mexico ,you know their strong gun laws that prevent them getting gun, they get them in the USA to bring back to Mexico where those amazingly strong rules appear to have headed out for a siesta. 

    (BTW it’s illegal for a non resident of the border states to buy them without transferring them to an FFL) Since when did a fucking drug cartel get all civic minded and sentimental about paperwork?

    Also what’s this bullshit re “high powered arms” relative to what? It’s emotive , unchecked, tripe and irrelevant without context much like the organization that spawned it. Yep all that research and I end up on an ad hominem attack.

    Post a Comment

    Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

    *
    *