The right (and wrong) figures for gun control in the United States

1. United States of America President Barack Obama is pushing for gun control legislation, citing fears that people will become "numb" to any future mass shootings, which he claims are now occurring every week. His remarks came after a shooting in Kansas last month in which three people were killed, and 14 others were injured. However, his efforts have been thwarted by a Congress reprovingly failed to pass any new gun-control legislation since the 1990s. Instead, in January, the president used executive orders to announce stricter restrictions on background checks for gun buyers. The slew of horrific gun deaths and heinous mass shootings demanded that something is done. Following a mass shooting in Oregon last year, the president challenged the media to compare gun deaths and terrorism deaths in the United States. Several organizations complied. To put this tweet in context, more than twice as many people in the United States died at the hands of a gun last year as in terrorist attacks over the previous 44 years combined. So, in light of the president's question, what do the numbers say about the US gun debate? We provide the best gun safes for your precious guns. Oranges and apples Everyone on both sides of the argument tries to use evidence to support their claims, but not everyone does so responsibly. The National Rifle Association's (NRA) tweet is one of the most egregious instances of data abuse throughout the entire discussion. It makes a completely false analogy between gun killings (a deliberate act) and accidental poisonings. A ratio can only be created between like entities, such as your football team's win-loss record. The NRA's

2. comparison only yields a rate; in this case, there are approximately three accidental poisoning deaths for every intentional gun death. We are encouraged to draw the inference that there are more pressing issues to address before gun deaths, but the distinction is meaningless. This isn't just a case of sloppy data analysis; it’s part of a trend of cherry-picked comparisons intended to advance a political campaign and muddy the public debate. The use of gun homicides is intentional because it leaves out the most common cause of firearm-related deaths: suicide. In the United States, self-inflicted gunshot wounds kill almost as many victims as a homicide. A reality that casts all weapons statistics in a negative light. The NRA would prefer to leave these suicides out of the discussion, claiming that these deaths shouldn't be counted against the firearm death toll because weapons don't increase suicide rates, and future suicides would find another way if gun access were limited. However, all of these claims are demonstrably false. According to studies, 75 percent of suicide attempts are made within an hour of making the decision, and using a gun increases the risk of death. As a result, limiting gun access could save lives. What is your position? Another troublesome notion is to equate all murders with those committed with a firearm. This contributes to gems like this one from Bill Whittle, a well-known conservative writer, and commentator. The main lesson from this video is that, even though the United States ranks first in per capita gun ownership, it ranks about 100th per capita murders. A more accurate comparison would be to weigh all of the harm caused by guns (injuries and deaths caused by any means) against gun ownership. Due to the patchy availability and coherence of injury data, only 22 countries are compared here, but the pattern is very different from the one propagated by the gun lobby. The red trend line shows that as weapons availability rises, the rate of injury and death rises. Australia vs. the United States It will be fascinating to see how gun control becomes an election topic as the US presidential campaign heats up. If that happens, it'll be fun to watch the figures used by different sides of every argument. You must have a gun safe in your home to defend yourself and your family. On the other hand, keeping a gun safe is a hassle for the average person; due to their weight and the amount of space they need, they are difficult to transport. It may seem simple until it arrives at its destination, but moving it won't

3. be easy. The quality of your weapons remains the same if you have one pistol or many shotguns. Regardless of how many guns you have, having good gun safes is both necessary and appealing. There are several different sizes to choose from. A 600-pound safe is a decent choice if you're looking for something to keep in your basement; otherwise, go for something smaller. When you think about it, a gun safe is important for your entire family's protection, not just your weapons. Check out our gun safes on sale and find the right one for you. You wouldn't have to be concerned with your pace or results as you grew because they didn't matter. Others keep their weapons, as well as their valuables and personal possessions, in gun safes. A gun safe in the event of a home invasion, fire and water records in the event of a fire, and possessions safe in flood are among them. There are six main characteristics to look for to find the best match for your needs. Even though it is short, it is not a comprehensive list. You'd have to find something on the list that doesn't already exist to satisfy your desires or needs. If you're looking for the best gun safes, we're the best choice available. You and your family are putting yourself and your family in danger by holding weapons inside your home instead of safely locking them up. It's important to keep the weapons in good working order to discourage novice users from mishandling them (failing to hold them properly) and to prevent children or burglars from using them as a source of temptation. While you have the right to display your cherished firearms collection, storing your gun case in these areas is typically not a good idea. While it is perfectly appropriate to show your collection, particularly in high-crime areas, it isn't always the best idea.