Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sean

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership

Recommended Posts

Guns are more likely to do harm than good.

By EVAN DEFILIPPIS and DEVIN HUGHES

January 14, 2015

 

"Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertzs paper is simply mathematically impossible"

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P7nDkKR7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Interesting article, they sold me, I am turning in all my guns tomorrow. I hope I make it through the night

without shooting my wife.

 

It appears some folks have saved their lives or prevented serious injury by using or displaying guns in a proper manner:

 

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Tom Ray, JBSF, Charile Foxtrot, et al; for a cleanup in aisle 3!!!!

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Data doesn't matter. Deaths of innocents is just the price of our freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured what we really needed was another gun thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

I figured what we really needed was another gun thread.

 

Why not, it is Sunday,The Dakar Rally is over & the Mavericks hasn't started yet, although the seas are building.

 

I think all the anti-gun folks should turn theirs in, the damn things go off all the time, all by themselves, the guns, that is.

Similar to all those awful SUV's killing people. No body should be allowed to drive anything bigger than a YUGO. Corvettes are really bad.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured what we really needed was another gun thread.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

 

1zdohg2.gif

 

I'm guessing the article cited proved something? The science is settled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are more likely to do harm than good.

By EVAN DEFILIPPIS and DEVIN HUGHES

January 14, 2015

 

"Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertzs paper is simply mathematically impossible"

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P7nDkKR7

 

Politico as a source? If you say "yes", I can cite the King James Bible as a credible source.

 

JFC. Are the stats in that article backed up by Mother Jones? If so, you might have even less credibility.

 

EDIT - Here's the author's website - http://www.armedwithreason.com/

 

Any original thoughts on the subject? You have a problem with the Constitution or the Papa John thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns are more likely to do harm than good.

By EVAN DEFILIPPIS and DEVIN HUGHES

January 14, 2015

"Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertzs paper is simply mathematically impossible"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P7nDkKR7

Politico as a source? If you say "yes", I can cite the King James Bible as a credible source.

 

JFC. Are the stats in that article backed up by Mother Jones? If so, you might have even less credibility.

You gonna argue the math? Pretty simple really, even I could follow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guns are more likely to do harm than good.

By EVAN DEFILIPPIS and DEVIN HUGHES

January 14, 2015

"Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertzs paper is simply mathematically impossible"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P7nDkKR7

Politico as a source? If you say "yes", I can cite the King James Bible as a credible source.

 

JFC. Are the stats in that article backed up by Mother Jones? If so, you might have even less credibility.

You gonna argue the math? Pretty simple really, even I could follow it.

 

Hey, Sean. Do me a favor and lobby Congress to pass laws of protection for people who want them with an exemption for folks like me who would rather take care of our own family and neighbors.

 

I live in a small New England town in a state with very strict gun control, and no one at my local pub jumped on the Newtown bandwagon - blaming the gun. My very good friend, Billy Backstay, has become a fucking idiot progressive except for starting a thread here opposing what you are advocating. I had a few drinks with the pathetic cunt today at happy hour.

 

I could give a shit about the math, Sean. I care about the Constitution. "If we can save just one..." is political crap. When the majority of people actually buy into that pussy narrative, we are done.

 

I don't own a gun and am not an NRA member, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that if the 2 year old in walmart had not shot mom, she would have been ready to kill robbers or mass murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new in the Politico article. Could have been copypasta'd from any number of articles over the last 15 years or so.

 

Reminds me of arguing with my ex who would bring up the same stuff from years prior over and over again that had no bearing on current reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Data doesn't matter. Deaths of innocents is just the price of our freedom.

I agree, data doesn't matter in the question...for me anyway. And although you've expressed it deliberately in a pejoritive manner its essentially correct. Also not sure what "innocents" means in your context, would the oppisate be lives of the guilty? Guilty of what? Anyway, I suppose its to tug at the emotional arguement "oh my god kids were killed by someone with a gun, we must ban guns". Our country allows many activites that result in peoples deaths. Some things are codified or legislated because we as a culture decided we must limit some behaviors for the common good. Fire codes are a good example. Other things we allow even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result. In those cases we judge the freedom to do those things and decide for ourselves whether we'll accept the risk. Many many many more people are killed by drunk drivers............wheres the call to close all bars? If there were no bars we'd make a huge dent in the number of drunk driving deaths. Heck if we take it a step further we should actually make alcohol illegal. That would make an even bigger impact in drunk driving deaths. Well we as a culture value bars and alcohol enough that we edure those deaths so we can go have a drink. From your perspective guns should be the same...............because you don't value owning a gun...no big deal to you. There are LOTS of people who do own guns......its a big deal to them. There are about 120 ocean drownings every years and some 65,000 rescues of people in danger of drowning. We could eliminate lifeguards and quite a number of drownings if we simply made swimming in the ocean illegal. However....a lot of people value swimming in the ocean. Not people in Kansas...........but people on the coast............

 

Whether guns help or hinder safety isn't the question.......the real question is - are the number of deaths worth infringing on the freedom others value of owning and shooting guns. I judge not.

 

Reminder - I don't own a gun and likely never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new in the Politico article. Could have been copypasta'd from any number of articles over the last 15 years or so.

 

Reminds me of arguing with my ex who would bring up the same stuff from years prior over and over again that had no bearing on current reality.

 

In the beginning, they see no wrong in you. As time goes by, they remember more of the things you did wrong. Finally they can remember every bad thing you ever did and cannot see anything you do right. To act on this theory, I once made the mistake of asking her when was the last time I did something right. Don't try that at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the article, at least my take, is to expose the insidious lies the gun industry, through the NRA, is using to sell product. They have a lot of folks (present company included) believing these lies. Sometimes truth just doesn't sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry a gun, you are more likely to be killed by a gun than not carrying a gun. Simple math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

I figured what we really needed was another gun thread.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

 

1zdohg2.gif

 

I'm guessing the article cited proved something? The science is settled?

 

Oh my, that's a big one, .50 Smith & Wesson. Like Chris Mathews, it makes my leg tingle. Should be able

to get the job done. As Clint says, "It will blow your head clean off" Makes my .357 Magnum look kind of wimpy.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the article, at least my take, is to expose the insidious lies the gun industry, through the NRA, is using to sell product. They have a lot of folks (present company included) believing these lies. Sometimes truth just doesn't sell.

 

Sometimes anti gunpeople's lies are called out.

 

If every single legal gun was turned in, would that impact gun deaths?

 

You seem smart, Sean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point of the article, at least my take, is to expose the insidious lies the gun industry, through the NRA, is using to sell product. They have a lot of folks (present company included) believing these lies. Sometimes truth just doesn't sell.

 

Sometimes anti gunpeople's lies are called out.

 

If every single legal gun was turned in, would that impact gun deaths?

 

You seem smart, Sean.

Dramatically. If you are considering gun deaths by legal gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conceal carry Walmart patriot who challenged the two tea baggers who killed the two cops in Las Vegas...Dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. It is the price of our freedom. Just like the 33,000 motor vehicle deaths that occur each year in the US.

 

Data doesn't matter. Deaths of innocents is just the price of our freedom.

I agree, data doesn't matter in the question...for me anyway. And although you've expressed it deliberately in a pejoritive manner its essentially correct. Also not sure what "innocents" means in your context, would the oppisate be lives of the guilty? Guilty of what? Anyway, I suppose its to tug at the emotional arguement "oh my god kids were killed by someone with a gun, we must ban guns". Our country allows many activites that result in peoples deaths. Some things are codified or legislated because we as a culture decided we must limit some behaviors for the common good. Fire codes are a good example. Other things we allow even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result. In those cases we judge the freedom to do those things and decide for ourselves whether we'll accept the risk. Many many many more people are killed by drunk drivers............wheres the call to close all bars? If there were no bars we'd make a huge dent in the number of drunk driving deaths. Heck if we take it a step further we should actually make alcohol illegal. That would make an even bigger impact in drunk driving deaths. Well we as a culture value bars and alcohol enough that we edure those deaths so we can go have a drink. From your perspective guns should be the same...............because you don't value owning a gun...no big deal to you. There are LOTS of people who do own guns......its a big deal to them. There are about 120 ocean drownings every years and some 65,000 rescues of people in danger of drowning. We could eliminate lifeguards and quite a number of drownings if we simply made swimming in the ocean illegal. However....a lot of people value swimming in the ocean. Not people in Kansas...........but people on the coast............

 

Whether guns help or hinder safety isn't the question.......the real question is - are the number of deaths worth infringing on the freedom others value of owning and shooting guns. I judge not.

 

Reminder - I don't own a gun and likely never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guns are more likely to do harm than good.

By EVAN DEFILIPPIS and DEVIN HUGHES

January 14, 2015

"Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertzs paper is simply mathematically impossible"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P7nDkKR7

Politico as a source? If you say "yes", I can cite the King James Bible as a credible source.

 

JFC. Are the stats in that article backed up by Mother Jones? If so, you might have even less credibility.

You gonna argue the math? Pretty simple really, even I could follow it.

 

JFC, not this shit again!

 

Are you gonna argue with the CDC? I'll let Tom direct you to the numerous CDC references we've all posted using a gun for self defense was a good strategy. Futhermore, I'm sure Tom will also tell you that many self defense events take place outside the home - the one single thing most of these "hit pieces" deliberately ignore.

 

oy-vey-this-thread-meme-generator-again-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Data doesn't matter. Deaths of innocents is just the price of our freedom.

I agree, data doesn't matter in the question...for me anyway. And although you've expressed it deliberately in a pejoritive manner its essentially correct. Also not sure what "innocents" means in your context, would the oppisate be lives of the guilty? Guilty of what? Anyway, I suppose its to tug at the emotional arguement "oh my god kids were killed by someone with a gun, we must ban guns". Our country allows many activites that result in peoples deaths. Some things are codified or legislated because we as a culture decided we must limit some behaviors for the common good. Fire codes are a good example. Other things we allow even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result. In those cases we judge the freedom to do those things and decide for ourselves whether we'll accept the risk. Many many many more people are killed by drunk drivers............wheres the call to close all bars? If there were no bars we'd make a huge dent in the number of drunk driving deaths. Heck if we take it a step further we should actually make alcohol illegal. That would make an even bigger impact in drunk driving deaths. Well we as a culture value bars and alcohol enough that we edure those deaths so we can go have a drink. From your perspective guns should be the same...............because you don't value owning a gun...no big deal to you. There are LOTS of people who do own guns......its a big deal to them. There are about 120 ocean drownings every years and some 65,000 rescues of people in danger of drowning. We could eliminate lifeguards and quite a number of drownings if we simply made swimming in the ocean illegal. However....a lot of people value swimming in the ocean. Not people in Kansas...........but people on the coast............

 

Whether guns help or hinder safety isn't the question.......the real question is - are the number of deaths worth infringing on the freedom others value of owning and shooting guns. I judge not.

 

Reminder - I don't own a gun and likely never will.

 

Thank you PB. With your permission, I think I will just link to this post every time someone brings up the usual anti-gun drivel. Izzat ok? Because I just don't have the patience to keep saying the same thing over an over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Data doesn't matter. Deaths of innocents is just the price of our freedom.

I agree, data doesn't matter in the question...for me anyway. And although you've expressed it deliberately in a pejoritive manner its essentially correct. Also not sure what "innocents" means in your context, would the oppisate be lives of the guilty? Guilty of what? Anyway, I suppose its to tug at the emotional arguement "oh my god kids were killed by someone with a gun, we must ban guns". Our country allows many activites that result in peoples deaths. Some things are codified or legislated because we as a culture decided we must limit some behaviors for the common good. Fire codes are a good example. Other things we allow even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result. In those cases we judge the freedom to do those things and decide for ourselves whether we'll accept the risk. Many many many more people are killed by drunk drivers............wheres the call to close all bars? If there were no bars we'd make a huge dent in the number of drunk driving deaths. Heck if we take it a step further we should actually make alcohol illegal. That would make an even bigger impact in drunk driving deaths. Well we as a culture value bars and alcohol enough that we edure those deaths so we can go have a drink. From your perspective guns should be the same...............because you don't value owning a gun...no big deal to you. There are LOTS of people who do own guns......its a big deal to them. There are about 120 ocean drownings every years and some 65,000 rescues of people in danger of drowning. We could eliminate lifeguards and quite a number of drownings if we simply made swimming in the ocean illegal. However....a lot of people value swimming in the ocean. Not people in Kansas...........but people on the coast............

 

Whether guns help or hinder safety isn't the question.......the real question is - are the number of deaths worth infringing on the freedom others value of owning and shooting guns. I judge not.

 

Reminder - I don't own a gun and likely never will.

 

Thank you PB. With your permission, I think I will just link to this post every time someone brings up the usual anti-gun drivel. Izzat ok? Because I just don't have the patience to keep saying the same thing over an over.

 

Even though PB does not own a gun, people should continue to die, just incase he and others like him change their mind. And so that current gun owners can continue to shoot paper targets. Fuck em I say, die bitch's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though PB does not own a gun, people should continue to die, just incase he and others like him change their mind. And so that current gun owners can continue to shoot paper targets. Fuck em I say, die bitch's.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you care what goes on in my country? I don't tell you how to run yours or what's better for you......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are people. Everytime there is a plane crash the media focus on how many Australians there were or weren't, on the flight. I don't care that much. Humans are humans. I realise that most may value their countryman more, that's probably normal and perhaps I am slightly bias yeah, but from a distance they are humans.

 

So here, we have relatively low death rates from guns and it frustrates me that people are being killed unnecessarily in places like the US.

 

The passport that a person owns, for me, does not make them more or less worthy of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let Tom direct you to the numerous CDC references we've all posted using a gun for self defense was a good strategy. Futhermore, I'm sure Tom will also tell you that many self defense events take place outside the home - the one single thing most of these "hit pieces" deliberately ignore.

 

Why is this my job? ;) The CDC conclusions again.

 

Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

 

This article didn't cite any studies restricted to the home, so I won't bother with that tangent this time.

 

It also doesn't look for any flaws in studies from the other side. Like, for example, the bolded bit above.

 

The main objection to Kleck's study seems to be, "People might have lied when asked about defensive gun use!"

 

OK, so the main objection to the much lower figure would be, "People were not even asked about defensive gun use in a study of defensive gun use!"

 

I guess it's a lot easier to imagine getting the answers you wanted if you simply don't ask the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd_amend.jpg

 

Typical focus on only the costs, not the benefits, of self-defense. Same as this post:

 

 

Data doesn't matter. Deaths of innocents is just the price of our freedom.

 

And stopping violent criminals is one of the benefits, along with "consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

 

But if you ignore those benefits and focus only on criminal and negligent gun use, it looks like guns are only used for crimes or used negligently. Keep those blinders on, or you might see the rest of the story!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even though PB does not own a gun, people should continue to die, just incase he and others like him change their mind. And so that current gun owners can continue to shoot paper targets. Fuck em I say, die bitch's.

Out of curiosity, why do you care what goes on in my country? I don't tell you how to run yours or what's better for you......

You do take some enjoyment out of targeting the weaknesses (better word?) you perceive in our country, as do a many others. Evidently you each see a target worth shooting at & although it's annoying for you, many Aussies see a large target worth shooting at (puns intended) with guns in the US

 

Aussies don't mind a good sledging match either just quietly, we like to get a reaction

 

It is your country & as PB posted, he & most people in the US value guns & what they represent over the cost of having them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Typical focus on only the costs, not the benefits, of self-defense

 

Where's your sense of humour Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's lies

Damn lies

And then there are statistics

 

 

Statistics can be made to reflect what is required in the solution, either by selective omission, addition or induced errors. The variables are used or not depending on what you wish to see.

 

It's a bit like a report or analysis, the sponsor tells the analyst what is required and the analyst constructs the document to reflect what the person calling the tune demands, he also pays the wages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Typical focus on only the costs, not the benefits, of self-defense

 

Where's your sense of humour Tom?

 

Saving it in case more posts about Aussie slingshot control show up.

 

FWIW, you're not the only country with absolutely ridiculous rules about pocket knives. We have them too. Maybe after my second cup I will return and goof on New Jersey for calling ordinary .22's "assault rifles" or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all your advocacy has failed. A human head is just as vulnerable to a .22 as a ,308. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all your advocacy has failed. A human head is just as vulnerable to a .22 as a ,308. Just saying.

 

So "assault weapons" bans should ban all guns, since they're all "military style assault weapons" in the sense you mention.

 

Thanks for admitting the goal. It's refreshing to see some honesty on that subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends really. If you want to stop brick walls being shot down, ban large caliber stuff. If you want to stop human skin being penetrated then that's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Typical focus on only the costs, not the benefits, of self-defense

 

Where's your sense of humour Tom?

 

Saving it in case more posts about Aussie slingshot control show up.

 

FWIW, you're not the only country with absolutely ridiculous rules about pocket knives. We have them too. Maybe after my second cup I will return and goof on New Jersey for calling ordinary .22's "assault rifles" or something.

 

Some gun humor for ya, PBO

 

Liam Neeson Gets His Wish

 

 

After Irish-born actor Liam Neeson shot off his mouth about Americans’ fondness for guns — you know, the things he uses in his hit action movies — the company that provided the weapons for the latest installment in the Taken series decided it had had enough:

 

PARA USA regrets its decision to provide firearms for use in the film “Taken 3″. While the film itself is entertaining, comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties. We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson and ask that our friends and partners in Hollywood refrain from associating our brand and products with his projects. Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same....

 

That's pretty amusing to me.

 

This one would be funnier if there were some way to prove the quotation is accurate.

 

The owner of a New Jersey deli shot and killed a man who police say was attempting to rob the store at gunpoint. New Jersey has made it almost impossible for law abiding citizens to own guns and concealed weapons permits are nearly impossible to acquire. Thugs in the state are not expecting an armed response...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is a giant pile of steaming malarkey. The authors claim that someone is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person who they mistake for an attacker than to use a gun to defend themselves against an actual attacker, and then proceed to show zero data to back up the assertion and three anecdotes to give their malarkey some emotional punch. It is bullshit. If guns are always more dangerous to have than to not have, then why do we give them to police? There is no doubt that a gun in the hands of a person properly trained is a useful self defense tool. We have plenty of history that proves that. I suggest if you really want to do something positive, donate some money to the NRA to provide firearms training for gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three articles from the past week where a gun saved the life of someone being attacked in Oklahoma, and these are only the ones that the bad guy died. I am sure all three of these people are happy they had a gun.

 

http://www.newson6.com/story/27845800/police-store-clerk-shoots-at-tulsa-robbers-killing-two

Store clerk shot two armed robbers when the entered his store.

 

http://newsok.com/attempted-robbery-victim-shoots-alleged-robber-in-northwest-oklahoma-city-police-say/article/5385586

Attempted robbery victim who was carrying a gun shot and the suspect

 

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/police-report-shooting-near-downtown-tulsa

Off duty OKC police officer sees domestic disturbance happening on the way to the Garth Brooks concert, when he tried to break it up the male half pulled a gun and the officer shot and killed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Oklahoma defensive gun use, but this time the perp survived

 

The victim said he accidentally fired a shot into the ground while clubbing the guy with his pistol.

 

Not true. He negligently fired a shot into the ground. Rule 3 yet again.

 

If you must use a pistol as a club, keep your finger off the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even though PB does not own a gun, people should continue to die, just incase he and others like him change their mind. And so that current gun owners can continue to shoot paper targets. Fuck em I say, die bitch's.

Out of curiosity, why do you care what goes on in my country? I don't tell you how to run yours or what's better for you......

You do take some enjoyment out of targeting the weaknesses (better word?) you perceive in our country, as do a many others. Evidently you each see a target worth shooting at & although it's annoying for you, many Aussies see a large target worth shooting at (puns intended) with guns in the US

 

Aussies don't mind a good sledging match either just quietly, we like to get a reaction

 

It is your country & as PB posted, he & most people in the US value guns & what they represent over the cost of having them

 

Show me a post where I criticize AUS for your gun laws. I disagree with your laws, but you are welcome to live your life however your country chooses to - because you started at a different point than we do wrt to certain liberties. And I've categorically stated that on numerous recent occasions. I think what you perceive as taking the mickey out of you is I am using AUS examples in discussions with other Americans to show that strict gun laws do not always reduce horrific crimes. Its not directly a criticism of your laws, just showing to other here in the USA who would like to try something similar that it doesn't work as well as they would hope for. Do you see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is a giant pile of steaming malarkey. The authors claim that someone is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person who they mistake for an attacker than to use a gun to defend themselves against an actual attacker, and then proceed to show zero data to back up the assertion and three anecdotes to give their malarkey some emotional punch. It is bullshit. If guns are always more dangerous to have than to not have, then why do we give them to police? There is no doubt that a gun in the hands of a person properly trained is a useful self defense tool. We have plenty of history that proves that. I suggest if you really want to do something positive, donate some money to the NRA to provide firearms training for gun owners.

 

Here's a stat that no one ever talks about when discussing the supposed "scourge" of accidental gun deaths....

 

There are estimated to be roughly 300 million guns in circulation. 33% of all households have a gun. The official number of household in the US is 117.5 million. So 1/3 of that is still about 41 million household with guns.

 

Yet there are only ~600 accidental gun deaths per year (and dropping). And something like only 62 children were accidentally killed with a gun in 2011.

 

So let's do some math: the % of accidental gun deaths based on those 41 million households with guns = .00000001 % deaths per gun owning households.

 

Really? Is .00000001 % = the sky falling? I'll take my chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was it negligence?

 

 

Another Oklahoma defensive gun use, but this time the perp survived

 

The victim said he accidentally fired a shot into the ground while clubbing the guy with his pistol.

 

Not true. He negligently fired a shot into the ground. Rule 3 yet again.

 

If you must use a pistol as a club, keep your finger off the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Well, another interesting gun thread. So, for you anti-gun folks that live in a "nice" place,

you may not need one unless this person comes to visit you:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/25/brutal-new-jersey-home-invasion-caught-on-video-baby-monitor/?test=latestnews

 

In another article it was stated that the woman lived in a "Nice area"

 

You can always take him on "Mano-Mano", hand to hand combat, good luck.

 

A double murder suspect was recently apprehended near our home, among other bad people

traveling through our "Nice" town:

 

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=333d7f4f-fa2c-4010-aaec-e661d78ad820 (Page 5)

 

Random, I think the reason we have more crime than you do is we have more bad people. We could round up a few million or so & send them

to you, freight prepaid. All you need to do is feed & house them, & maybe they won't burn your country down? Oh, I forgot, you also have to

provide all of them with free cell phones.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How was it negligence?

 

 

Another Oklahoma defensive gun use, but this time the perp survived

 

The victim said he accidentally fired a shot into the ground while clubbing the guy with his pistol.

 

Not true. He negligently fired a shot into the ground. Rule 3 yet again.

 

If you must use a pistol as a club, keep your finger off the trigger.

 

It was negligent because he didn't keep his #^$@*& finger off the #^$@*& trigger of the gun he was holding and an uncontrolled shot (that could have gone anywhere) was the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How was it negligence?

 

 

Another Oklahoma defensive gun use, but this time the perp survived

 

The victim said he accidentally fired a shot into the ground while clubbing the guy with his pistol.

 

Not true. He negligently fired a shot into the ground. Rule 3 yet again.

 

If you must use a pistol as a club, keep your finger off the trigger.

 

It was negligent because he didn't keep his #^$@*& finger off the #^$@*& trigger of the gun he was holding and an uncontrolled shot (that could have gone anywhere) was the result.

 

Well, to make that determination, we must first understand what negligence is.

 

To be negligent, four things must be shown:

 

1. A duty of care.

2 A breach of that duty.

3. Damages

4. Causation.

 

Here, it seems, none of those things are present. Does a person acting in self defense in a home invasion have a duty of care towards his attacker that had just stabbed another person in the home? I have never seen such a duty. If there is a duty, did the person here breach it? In the heat of defending oneself, this kind of error is hardly unreasonable. In fact, points should be given for not just putting a cap in the ass of the attacker. Then, of course, there are no damages. And, with no damages means there is no causation.

 

Not even close to negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS. This isn't the Vestas grounding thread. Give it a break, sea lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make me. There is nothing negligent about accidentally discharging a firearm when fighting off a home invader.

 

To say otherwise, is ridiculous. Just like the duchebags that would defend a "captain" that sailed his vessel into a reef because he couldn't bother to look at the chart.

 

Oh FFS. This isn't the Vestas grounding thread. Give it a break, sea lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though PB does not own a gun, people should continue to die, just incase he and others like him change their mind. And so that current gun owners can continue to shoot paper targets. Fuck em I say, die bitch's.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you care what goes on in my country? I don't tell you how to run yours or what's better for you......

You do take some enjoyment out of targeting the weaknesses (better word?) you perceive in our country, as do a many others. Evidently you each see a target worth shooting at & although it's annoying for you, many Aussies see a large target worth shooting at (puns intended) with guns in the US

Aussies don't mind a good sledging match either just quietly, we like to get a reaction

It is your country & as PB posted, he & most people in the US value guns & what they represent over the cost of having them

Show me a post where I criticize AUS for your gun laws. I disagree with your laws, but you are welcome to live your life however your country chooses to - because you started at a different point than we do wrt to certain liberties. And I've categorically stated that on numerous recent occasions. I think what you perceive as taking the mickey out of you is I am using AUS examples in discussions with other Americans to show that strict gun laws do not always reduce horrific crimes. Its not directly a criticism of your laws, just showing to other here in the USA who would like to try something similar that it doesn't work as well as they would hope for. Do you see the difference?

I'm sure that referring to Australia as 'pusstralia' is demonstrating something to someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Ah, word definition discussions. JZK, I see you are participating here. Just curious if, like me,

you have been banned from Sailnet for being "on the right", which is, of course, the proper position.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see now, why you were banned and it wasn't for being right.

 

Take your skirt off and harden the fuck up about your ban. WTF has it got to do with this community! Totally irrelevant here, stop crying like a little girl!

 

My apologies if your are indeed a girl ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not banned from sailnet.

Ah, word definition discussions. JZK, I see you are participating here. Just curious if, like me,

you have been banned from Sailnet for being "on the right", which is, of course, the proper position.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The article is a giant pile of steaming malarkey. The authors claim that someone is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person who they mistake for an attacker than to use a gun to defend themselves against an actual attacker, and then proceed to show zero data to back up the assertion and three anecdotes to give their malarkey some emotional punch. It is bullshit. If guns are always more dangerous to have than to not have, then why do we give them to police? There is no doubt that a gun in the hands of a person properly trained is a useful self defense tool. We have plenty of history that proves that. I suggest if you really want to do something positive, donate some money to the NRA to provide firearms training for gun owners.

 

Here's a stat that no one ever talks about when discussing the supposed "scourge" of accidental gun deaths....

 

There are estimated to be roughly 300 million guns in circulation. 33% of all households have a gun. The official number of household in the US is 117.5 million. So 1/3 of that is still about 41 million household with guns.

 

Yet there are only ~600 accidental gun deaths per year (and dropping). And something like only 62 children were accidentally killed with a gun in 2011.

 

So let's do some math: the % of accidental gun deaths based on those 41 million households with guns = .00000001 % deaths per gun owning households.

 

Really? Is .00000001 % = the sky falling? I'll take my chances.

AGREED. It seems as if we are 10 times as likely to be killed by aspirin (or other over the counter anti-inflammatory medication) as guns. I guess aspirin does more harm than good, right? Time to ban it. How many people have to be sacrificed just so you can nurse your hangover headache?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

I can see now, why you were banned and it wasn't for being right.

 

Take your skirt off and harden the fuck up about your ban. WTF has it got to do with this community! Totally irrelevant here, stop crying like a little girl!

 

My apologies if your are indeed a girl ...

 

I can see now, why you were banned and it wasn't for being right.

 

Take your skirt off and harden the fuck up about your ban. WTF has it got to do with this community! Totally irrelevant here, stop crying like a little girl!

 

My apologies if your are indeed a girl ...

 

"Crying"? No, actually bragging, can't figure out what took them so long. :D . My deepest apologies if my posts offend, irritate, annoy.

upset, bore, or bother you in any way. The liberal's mantra, "Can't we all just get along?"

 

Reading & replying to my posts is voluntary.

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

No, I am not banned from sailnet.

Ah, word definition discussions. JZK, I see you are participating here. Just curious if, like me,

you have been banned from Sailnet for being "on the right", which is, of course, the proper position.

 

Paul T

 

I see. You will just have to lean to the right more. :D

 

Paul T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How was it negligence?

 

 

Another Oklahoma defensive gun use, but this time the perp survived

 

The victim said he accidentally fired a shot into the ground while clubbing the guy with his pistol.

 

Not true. He negligently fired a shot into the ground. Rule 3 yet again.

 

 

If you must use a pistol as a club, keep your finger off the trigger.

 

 

 

 

It was negligent because he didn't keep his #^$@*& finger off the #^$@*& trigger of the gun he was holding and an uncontrolled shot (that could have gone anywhere) was the result.

 

 

Well, to make that determination, we must first understand what negligence is.

 

To be negligent, four things must be shown:

 

1. A duty of care.

2 A breach of that duty.

3. Damages

4. Causation.

 

Here, it seems, none of those things are present. Does a person acting in self defense in a home invasion have a duty of care towards his attacker that had just stabbed another person in the home? I have never seen such a duty. If there is a duty, did the person here breach it? In the heat of defending oneself, this kind of error is hardly unreasonable. In fact, points should be given for not just putting a cap in the ass of the attacker. Then, of course, there are no damages. And, with no damages means there is no causation.

 

Not even close to negligence.

 

 

1. Your kids, dog, neighbour, his cat, etc etc.

2. Shooting any of them because you didn't take your finger off the trigger when hitting someone sounds like it qualifies.

3. Shot -> damaged. Fairly clear?

4. Seriously?

 

The fact that noone was unlucky enough to intercept his bullet does not reduce the negligence involved, it just reduces the number of people who can sue you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares. Guns are a political wedge issue. on one side are people that hate guns and want to take them from people who own them and on the other people who own guns and are afraid someone will restrict them. It's a war and in all wars both sides use BS propaganda. Not big news.

 

I like guns and home defense against common burglars is low of the list of why.

 

The 2nd amendment is high on the list why. The wisdom gained by the founding fathers came from throwing off the chains of a King that ignited the final revolutionary war fuse by trying to confiscate the patriot's _________________?

 

Come on you snark asses on the left fill in the blank...

 

That and that alone is why I resist unreasonable gun control and gun restrictions.

 

The ancillary arguments are often window dressing both side promulgate to sway the ignorant masses to their point of view.

 

Big f'n deal.

 

There is a balancing act between freedom and security.

 

All of our rights come with a cost and a responsibility.

 

Guns included.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How was it negligence?

 

Another Oklahoma defensive gun use, but this time the perp survived

 

The victim said he accidentally fired a shot into the ground while clubbing the guy with his pistol.

 

Not true. He negligently fired a shot into the ground. Rule 3 yet again.

 

 

 

It was negligent because he didn't keep his #^$@*& finger off the #^$@*& trigger of the gun he was holding and an uncontrolled shot (that could have gone anywhere) was the result.

 

Well, to make that determination, we must first understand what negligence is.

 

To be negligent, four things must be shown:

 

1. A duty of care.

2 A breach of that duty.

3. Damages

4. Causation.

 

Here, it seems, none of those things are present. Does a person acting in self defense in a home invasion have a duty of care towards his attacker that had just stabbed another person in the home? I have never seen such a duty. If there is a duty, did the person here breach it? In the heat of defending oneself, this kind of error is hardly unreasonable. In fact, points should be given for not just putting a cap in the ass of the attacker. Then, of course, there are no damages. And, with no damages means there is no causation.

 

Not even close to negligence.

 

1. Your kids, dog, neighbour, his cat, etc etc.

2. Shooting any of them because you didn't take your finger off the trigger when hitting someone sounds like it qualifies.

3. Shot -> damaged. Fairly clear?

4. Seriously?

 

The fact that noone was unlucky enough to intercept his bullet does not reduce the negligence involved, it just reduces the number of people who can sue you.

In fact, it not only reduces the negligence, it flat out eliminates it. No damage, no negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was negligent because he didn't keep his #^$@*& finger off the #^$@*& trigger of the gun he was holding and an uncontrolled shot (that could have gone anywhere) was the result.

Well, to make that determination, we must first understand what negligence is.

 

To be negligent, four things must be shown:

 

1. A duty of care.

2 A breach of that duty.

3. Damages

4. Causation.

 

Here, it seems, none of those things are present. Does a person acting in self defense in a home invasion have a duty of care towards his attacker that had just stabbed another person in the home? I have never seen such a duty. If there is a duty, did the person here breach it? In the heat of defending oneself, this kind of error is hardly unreasonable. In fact, points should be given for not just putting a cap in the ass of the attacker. Then, of course, there are no damages. And, with no damages means there is no causation.

 

Not even close to negligence.

 

 

1. Your kids, dog, neighbour, his cat, etc etc.

2. Shooting any of them because you didn't take your finger off the trigger when hitting someone sounds like it qualifies.

3. Shot -> damaged. Fairly clear?

4. Seriously?

 

The fact that noone was unlucky enough to intercept his bullet does not reduce the negligence involved, it just reduces the number of people who can sue you.

 

 

In fact, it not only reduces the negligence, it flat out eliminates it. No damage, no negligence.

 

 

Sorry, I forget that some of you guys can't speak english.

 

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It was negligent because he didn't keep his #^$@*& finger off the #^$@*& trigger of the gun he was holding and an uncontrolled shot (that could have gone anywhere) was the result.

Well, to make that determination, we must first understand what negligence is.

 

To be negligent, four things must be shown:

 

1. A duty of care.

2 A breach of that duty.

3. Damages

4. Causation.

 

Here, it seems, none of those things are present. Does a person acting in self defense in a home invasion have a duty of care towards his attacker that had just stabbed another person in the home? I have never seen such a duty. If there is a duty, did the person here breach it? In the heat of defending oneself, this kind of error is hardly unreasonable. In fact, points should be given for not just putting a cap in the ass of the attacker. Then, of course, there are no damages. And, with no damages means there is no causation.

 

Not even close to negligence.

 

1. Your kids, dog, neighbour, his cat, etc etc.

2. Shooting any of them because you didn't take your finger off the trigger when hitting someone sounds like it qualifies.

3. Shot -> damaged. Fairly clear?

4. Seriously?

 

The fact that noone was unlucky enough to intercept his bullet does not reduce the negligence involved, it just reduces the number of people who can sue you.

 

In fact, it not only reduces the negligence, it flat out eliminates it. No damage, no negligence.

 

Sorry, I forget that some of you guys can't speak english.

 

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

Right. No harm, no negligence. However, this case fails all four of the elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breach of the duty of care is a question for a jury, but I am not sure a case like this would ever get to a jury. Being under this kind of pressure defending against a home invader that already stabbed someone? Not in a million years.

 

Plenty of negligence. Just no excuse for someone to sue you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JZK, it may not merit a court case, but unintentionally firing a gun is negligent behavior. It won't happen if you keep your finger off the trigger.

 

If I sent a stray round right over your head, you might not be in the "no harm, no foul" camp on this. That round went into the ground, but could have gone anywhere, as I said above.

 

In another thread, some creative individual built what I consider an inadequate backstop and I called it reckless. No damages resulted, but it was still reckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am juggling with three loaded guns, and one fires off an unintentional round, I might agree with you. But under the heat of an attack like this one, no way it is negligent.

 

How about this. If you enter my home and attack me, and I fire off a round at you, but it misses, goes through the window and hits the neighbor in the head, am I responsible under a theory of negligence or any other theory? Most likely not.

 

 

JZK, it may not merit a court case, but unintentionally firing a gun is negligent behavior. It won't happen if you keep your finger off the trigger.

 

If I sent a stray round right over your head, you might not be in the "no harm, no foul" camp on this. That round went into the ground, but could have gone anywhere, as I said above.

 

In another thread, some creative individual built what I consider an inadequate backstop and I called it reckless. No damages resulted, but it was still reckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea what state you're in. In Texas you would be held responsible and charged with manslaughter due to reckless behavior or if you're lucky, criminally negligent homicide, a lesser offense.

 

You're supposed to be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Not always possible in those situations so I guess that's one reason an AR15 such a good home defense weapon. Less likely to penetrate exterior walls than other solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face."

 

What do you think? Was this fellow negligent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? if you aim at the perpetrator's head, and you are justified in firing, and your shot misses, and it hits the neighbor, you are not responsible. The law is 90% about intent.

 

 

No idea what state you're in. In Texas you would be held responsible and charged with manslaughter due to reckless behavior or if you're lucky, criminally negligent homicide, a lesser offense.

 

You're supposed to be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Not always possible in those situations so I guess that's one reason an AR15 such a good home defense weapon. Less likely to penetrate exterior walls than other solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you sure about that? if you aim at the perpetrator's head, and you are justified in firing, and your shot misses, and it hits the neighbor, you are not responsible. The law is 90% about intent.

 

 

No idea what state you're in. In Texas you would be held responsible and charged with manslaughter due to reckless behavior or if you're lucky, criminally negligent homicide, a lesser offense.

 

You're supposed to be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Not always possible in those situations so I guess that's one reason an AR15 such a good home defense weapon. Less likely to penetrate exterior walls than other solutions.

Yes. The law is explicitly clear and taught as part of Texas' CHL training. Look up the state codes if you'd like.

 

But anyway, I'm not dumb enough to go for a head shot in a stressor like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you sure about that? if you aim at the perpetrator's head, and you are justified in firing, and your shot misses, and it hits the neighbor, you are not responsible. The law is 90% about intent.

 

 

No idea what state you're in. In Texas you would be held responsible and charged with manslaughter due to reckless behavior or if you're lucky, criminally negligent homicide, a lesser offense.

 

You're supposed to be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Not always possible in those situations so I guess that's one reason an AR15 such a good home defense weapon. Less likely to penetrate exterior walls than other solutions.

Yes. The law is explicitly clear and taught as part of Texas' CHL training. Look up the state codes if you'd like.

 

But anyway, I'm not dumb enough to go for a head shot in a stressor like that.

 

Ok, I will look, but lets be clear on the premise. You are saying that someone that if someone that is justified in defending themselves shoots at an intruder, misses, and hits a neighbor they are responsible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what it says in the self defense section:

 

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

 

 

Civil remedies are available, if, and only if, the elements of that remedy are proven.

 

So what jury in their right mind is going to find that a person shooting towards an intruder in self defense acted "unreasonably" under the circumstances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS guys - JZK is nothing but another fucking mike woofsey when it comes to arguing about legal definitions. he got run out of the Vestas grounding thread on Ocean racing anarchy for the same exact reason - arguing over the definition of "negligence". Please don't feed the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face."

 

What do you think? Was this fellow negligent?

 

Nuh, he's just another scared gun nut. That's what happens. Nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one get run out of a thread? Is that even possible? Capt' Chris sailed his vessel into an Island because he didn't realize that he was supposed to also look at the chart once in a while. What is so complicated about that? No definitions needed.

FFS guys - JZK is nothing but another fucking mike woofsey when it comes to arguing about legal definitions. he got run out of the Vestas grounding thread on Ocean racing anarchy for the same exact reason - arguing over the definition of "negligence". Please don't feed the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How does one get run out of a thread? Is that even possible? Capt' Chris sailed his vessel into an Island because he didn't realize that he was supposed to also look at the chart once in a while. What is so complicated about that? No definitions needed.

FFS guys - JZK is nothing but another fucking mike woofsey when it comes to arguing about legal definitions. he got run out of the Vestas grounding thread on Ocean racing anarchy for the same exact reason - arguing over the definition of "negligence". Please don't feed the troll.

 

Jeffry "the clown toss" knows what he’s talking about having been run out of more threads then he can count... giggle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another myth, now at room temperature. Not too far from Lake Hefner in OKC.

 

http://www.news9.com/story/27873417/ocpd-victim-of-attempted-robbery-shoots-and-kills-suspect-in-nw-okc

 

Edit: And another

 

Guess if you're going to live in New York, you'd better be a cop at some point in your life.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/teen-shot-killed-rob-driver-brooklyn-street-sources-article-1.1806542

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The article is a giant pile of steaming malarkey. The authors claim that someone is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person who they mistake for an attacker than to use a gun to defend themselves against an actual attacker, and then proceed to show zero data to back up the assertion and three anecdotes to give their malarkey some emotional punch. It is bullshit. If guns are always more dangerous to have than to not have, then why do we give them to police? There is no doubt that a gun in the hands of a person properly trained is a useful self defense tool. We have plenty of history that proves that. I suggest if you really want to do something positive, donate some money to the NRA to provide firearms training for gun owners.

Here's a stat that no one ever talks about when discussing the supposed "scourge" of accidental gun deaths....

 

There are estimated to be roughly 300 million guns in circulation. 33% of all households have a gun. The official number of household in the US is 117.5 million. So 1/3 of that is still about 41 million household with guns.

 

Yet there are only ~600 accidental gun deaths per year (and dropping). And something like only 62 children were accidentally killed with a gun in 2011.

 

So let's do some math: the % of accidental gun deaths based on those 41 million households with guns = .00000001 % deaths per gun owning households.

 

Really? Is .00000001 % = the sky falling? I'll take my chances.

What's the probability of defensive gun use, using your maths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so fuckin scared, where's my gun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The article is a giant pile of steaming malarkey. The authors claim that someone is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person who they mistake for an attacker than to use a gun to defend themselves against an actual attacker, and then proceed to show zero data to back up the assertion and three anecdotes to give their malarkey some emotional punch. It is bullshit. If guns are always more dangerous to have than to not have, then why do we give them to police? There is no doubt that a gun in the hands of a person properly trained is a useful self defense tool. We have plenty of history that proves that. I suggest if you really want to do something positive, donate some money to the NRA to provide firearms training for gun owners.

Here's a stat that no one ever talks about when discussing the supposed "scourge" of accidental gun deaths....

 

There are estimated to be roughly 300 million guns in circulation. 33% of all households have a gun. The official number of household in the US is 117.5 million. So 1/3 of that is still about 41 million household with guns.

 

Yet there are only ~600 accidental gun deaths per year (and dropping). And something like only 62 children were accidentally killed with a gun in 2011.

 

So let's do some math: the % of accidental gun deaths based on those 41 million households with guns = .00000001 % deaths per gun owning households.

 

Really? Is .00000001 % = the sky falling? I'll take my chances.

What's the probability of defensive gun use, using your maths?

 

Who cares? The probability of defensive gun uses is not the sole reason most own guns. If it was also .0000001%, many would still have a gun. And even if it was zero, there are other constitutionally valid reasons to own a gun. Like because I can......

 

See, that's the beauty of a constitutional liberty - I don't have to justify it to anyone.

 

edit: And BTW, its "math". It's not plural. No s necessary.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The article is a giant pile of steaming malarkey. The authors claim that someone is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent person who they mistake for an attacker than to use a gun to defend themselves against an actual attacker, and then proceed to show zero data to back up the assertion and three anecdotes to give their malarkey some emotional punch. It is bullshit. If guns are always more dangerous to have than to not have, then why do we give them to police? There is no doubt that a gun in the hands of a person properly trained is a useful self defense tool. We have plenty of history that proves that. I suggest if you really want to do something positive, donate some money to the NRA to provide firearms training for gun owners.

Here's a stat that no one ever talks about when discussing the supposed "scourge" of accidental gun deaths....

 

There are estimated to be roughly 300 million guns in circulation. 33% of all households have a gun. The official number of household in the US is 117.5 million. So 1/3 of that is still about 41 million household with guns.

 

Yet there are only ~600 accidental gun deaths per year (and dropping). And something like only 62 children were accidentally killed with a gun in 2011.

 

So let's do some math: the % of accidental gun deaths based on those 41 million households with guns = .00000001 % deaths per gun owning households.

 

Really? Is .00000001 % = the sky falling? I'll take my chances.

What's the probability of defensive gun use, using your maths?

 

Who cares? The probability of defensive gun uses is not the sole reason most own guns. If it was also .0000001%, many would still have a gun. And even if it was zero, there are other constitutionally valid reasons to own a gun. Like because I can......

 

See, that's the beauty of a constitutional liberty - I don't have to justify it to anyone.

 

edit: And BTW, its "math". It's not plural. No s necessary.....

 

Well it's the subject of the thread...

 

I guess it's irrelevant if you just want to stomp on any part of the conversation that could maybe, just possibly, no matter how infinitesimally small of a chance, lead to conceding a point. Bravo. I was interested in your response for another reason & left that reason undefined - either way I suspected I would get a response that demonstrated your fear of an actual discussion, not that anybody can't see that already but hey, shits & giggles right

 

Maths.....you're correcting my Australian english. Awesome. My turn, unless you're Dutch you shouldn't use 'cookie', it's "biscuit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: And BTW, its "math". It's not plural. No s necessary.....

North America is the only place which cannot handle all 5 characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face."

 

What do you think? Was this fellow negligent?

 

 

See Rule 4. And 2, but the bottom line is yes, he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm so fuckin scared I think might piss my pants the next time a possum walks on the roof! Where's my fuckin big gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm so fuckin scared I think might piss my pants the next time a possum walks on the roof! Where's my fuckin big gun?

 

A mans got a right to protect his family, like it or not. Jackass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites