Gun Facts ! EVERYTHING you need to educate the public and prove the Anti's Lies

[son of the revolution]

Here ya go everyone . Found this Fact/Myth Format compiled and published by a guy from CA . Its in a PDF Format , runs to 101 pages and the guy allows essentially " free " disbursement of the information , provided credit is given . I printed out a copy and put it in a tabbed binder for easy refrence and gave the guy what I could for a donation . All the facts seem to be really well sourced as accurate . I have to admit I wish some of them were a little more recent then the mid 90's but ....................... I'll be working on comparing this information to the tons I have already to see if I can update or add to this guys work , but its pretty damned thorough already . Maybe some copies need to be handed out to the politicians in Harrisburg at the rally ???!?!

Any way , hope it helps and enjoy


http://www.gunfacts.info/

[eXceLon]

I think just handing over a 101 page book probably isn't going to do much good, as few people are going to sit down and read it.

It does however break things down nicely by subject, so it could be useful to mine for facts and information to present regarding specific gun control policies.

[son of the revolution]

I think just handing over a 101 page book probably isn't going to do much good, as few people are going to sit down and read it.

It does however break things down nicely by subject, so it could be useful to mine for facts and information to present regarding specific gun control policies.

Probably right , since they couldnt bother to read the biggest spending bill in US History why should we expect any of them to read a mere 100 pages about something so trivial as the Second Ammendment ?

yes I know the rally in Harrisburg is STATE Legislators not Congress , but the sentiment applies to both .

[leeam]

I skimmed through this and thought it was quite interesting and easy to read the way it is laid out, but as is already stated, a lot of this stuff is quite outdated... So much so that I think the author purposely put outdated stuff in some sections just to make it look more pro-gun. Here's probably the best example I saw:

Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime

Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control.

Of course, like nearly everything else, a credible source is listed... Unfortunately it's from 1969 publication. Who knows what years it actually was referencing? 1959?

Don't get me wrong, I totally believe that a gun in a retail business would be a good deterrent to crime, however I suspect that number is a little lower than 26% these days. Now if you would graph % of guns kept in retail businesses vs crime against retail businesses you might be on to something.

Anyway there's many other facts that have well chosen dates. Another great example is this:

Myth: High capacity semi-automatics are preferred by criminals

Fact: The use of semi-automatic handguns used in crimes is slightly less than the ratio of semi-automatic handguns owned by private citizens. Any increase in style and capacity simply reflects the overall supply of the various types of firearms.

Really? Criminals prefer revolvers to semi-autos? Consider the date of it's reference: 1977.

When you grasp so much for anything to support your belief that you start using outdated statistics/try to cover up how true they may be, you're into the realm of quantity over quality... I also fully understand that it's probably hard to get up to date statistics for everything, but for a lot of these I suspect updated references wouldn't be as pro gun.

To be clear, I fully support what this guy has done. Provide clear and backed up arguments to many of the claims of the antis. I just wish it were less quantity and more quality (updated/relevent).

[son of the revolution]

I skimmed through this and thought it was quite interesting and easy to read the way it is laid out, but as is already stated, a lot of this stuff is quite outdated... So much so that I think the author purposely put outdated stuff in some sections just to make it look more pro-gun. Here's probably the best example I saw:



Of course, like nearly everything else, a credible source is listed... Unfortunately it's from 1969 publication. Who knows what years it actually was referencing? 1959?

Don't get me wrong, I totally believe that a gun in a retail business would be a good deterrent to crime, however I suspect that number is a little lower than 26% these days.

Now if you would graph % of guns kept in retail businesses vs crime against retail businesses you might be on to something.

Anyway there's many other facts that have well chosen dates.

Another great example is this:



Really? Criminals prefer revolvers to semi-autos? Consider the date of it's reference: 1977.


When you grasp so much for anything to support your belief that you start using outdated statistics/try to cover up how true they may be, you're into the realm of quantity over quality...

I also fully understand that it's probably hard to get up to date statistics for everything, but for a lot of these I suspect updated references wouldn't be as pro gun.

True in some regard , but I've also seen a much more recent stat that still supports that criminals prefer revolvers .

Theres also the question of context to some of those dates .

Theres one in there from 1969 IIRC , about the City of Orlando hosting a firearms course for women , and the rape and attempted assualt rate summarily plummeted ! Could you imagine a high ranking LEO or City Official coming out and advocating for women to learn how to handle a gun today to protect themselves !??!?!? He'd be excoriated and run out of town by the MSM and the PC Police before the end of the day ! But that doesnt change the underlying Stat , that women are more able to defend themselves against a sexual assualt with a gun then without .

[leeam]

That's a stat that I believe is perfectly valid to keep, in that I don't see any good reason why that would be significantly different today. My complaint was with arguments that (to me anyway) appear to be no longer true (like the business thing and the revolvers... btw I don't know that criminals don't prefer revolvers, but when I think criminals I think evil 33 round glock 18s and full auto ar-15s )

[son of the revolution]

That's a stat that I believe is perfectly valid to keep, in that I don't see any good reason why that would be significantly different today. My complaint was with arguments that (to me anyway) appear to be no longer true (like the business thing and the revolvers... btw I don't know that criminals don't prefer revolvers, but when I think criminals I think evil 33 round glock 18s and full auto ar-15s )

Bolded by me


'scuse me for saying , but that bolded part sounds significantly like what the typical know nothing Anti says !! What is " evil" about ANY particular weapon ??? A weapon , in and of itself is an inanimate object , incapable of "feelings " , self awareness , jumping off the table and shooting itself , and certainly not capable of being " good " or "bad " . ANY weapon is simply a tool designed to accomplish a specific task . That a person may USE a tool for an evil purpose , has ZERO to do with the object itself .

If you think Glock 18's and Full Autos and the people who possess them are somehow " evil " . You'd want to call the Pope himself if you got a glimpse inside my house or my mind !

[leeam]

My bad, I intended the winking emoticon to imply sarcasm.