tarckstar wrote:
If I have an unloaded gun in a safe in one part of the house, and ammo in a same in another part of the house, how does this protect me in the event of a home instrusion? Will the intruder wait for me while I gather my gun and ammo?
I'll bank on my dogs, thanks.
Sorry, is this a question? Because it looks like a set of premises leading to a conclusion.
Breaking News wrote:
The stakes in terms of having an option in an emergency versus the probability of needing it coupled with training and proper safety is the calculus that matters to me.
Oh, you’re right though, I’m certainly less likely to use it for self defense if I don’t have it. Seeing as how I can almost certainly control how my weapon will be used does shift the “statistical” risk you have placed so much emphasis on. I tend not to concern myself with other peoples’ risk factors or behavior, their choices or the situations they find themselves in.
Law enforcement is difficult work. We can always count on these vaunted individuals to respond promptly when needed and to always intervene on our behalf upon arrival... Even the Supreme Court has rules that officers must put their safety ahead of public safety...
Here’s to hoping neither of us ever need a weapon in a crisis, brother.
I'm glad you're a conscientious and well-educated gun owner, but not everybody is. People be dum. Personally, I have no problem with guns and enjoy shooting at ranges, but I don't want one in my house and I don't trust myself to use one properly in a crisis. Luckily, I am a small skinny target and can run away really fast.
what did it cost? wrote:
Breaking News wrote:
The stakes in terms of having an option in an emergency versus the probability of needing it coupled with training and proper safety is the calculus that matters to me.
Oh, you’re right though, I’m certainly less likely to use it for self defense if I don’t have it. Seeing as how I can almost certainly control how my weapon will be used does shift the “statistical” risk you have placed so much emphasis on. I tend not to concern myself with other peoples’ risk factors or behavior, their choices or the situations they find themselves in.
Law enforcement is difficult work. We can always count on these vaunted individuals to respond promptly when needed and to always intervene on our behalf upon arrival... Even the Supreme Court has rules that officers must put their safety ahead of public safety...
Here’s to hoping neither of us ever need a weapon in a crisis, brother.
I'm glad you're a conscientious and well-educated gun owner, but not everybody is. People be dum. Personally, I have no problem with guns and enjoy shooting at ranges, but I don't want one in my house and I don't trust myself to use one properly in a crisis. Luckily, I am a small skinny target and can run away really fast.
No reasonable person or responsible gun owner would fault you for that. Gun ownership is most definitely not for everyone. Respect for knowing yourself and being honest.
It’s really sad to see the pathetic unidimensional straw manning of a complex topic and lack of good faith effort exercised by the anti-gun contingent with regard to such a complex and multivariate issue. What is obvious is that those opposed to gun ownership really seem to derive substantial moral superiority, or at least satisfaction, from a carelessly (or deliberately..) narrow swath of information without ever truly entertaining the possibility that their own misunderstanding, biases or fear more than likely overrides their “reasoning.”
But you do you, as they say.
gayalienshrek123 wrote:
theres about 30000 deaths from guns in the US an annually and about half of those are suicides.
If you or someone in your family commits suicide using a gun, wouldn't you say the gun you bought to protect your family has endangered them? It is true that people can and do commit suicide using other methods, but every extra possible suicide method adds to the probability of suicide. Unless you believe your family is somehow immune to the causes of suicide, having a gun is dangerous, and about half of that danger is the danger of a suicide in your family.
what did it cost? wrote:
Many people have a need for one, and guns have definitely saved lives before. I'm not saying they should be illegal. But for most people, the risk:reward ratio associated with owning a gun tips in favor of risk. Unless you are trained to use a gun (e.g. LEO, military, dedicated hobbyist) who lives in a dangerous area and is willing to spend thousands on a proper safe, you're better off with an automated security system.
Of course, we can argue all day, but neither of us will change our minds.
I didn't think I was arguing, and I certainly didn't say what I think about guns.
I was just pointing out that the data is unclear, and it's very difficult to study. Most defensive uses of firearms do not involve actually firing a gun, and they are probably unreported. There are also potential positive externalities to legal gun ownership (relatively fewer burglaries of homes known to be occupied in states with high rates of gun ownership). Some people also point out that suicide isn't an accidental death, and that it probably deserves its own category as there isn't even a consensus on its morality. I don't think that means that guns are good. I just think it means that the gun proponents have a point when they don't accept at face value claims that guns do more harm than good.
As for what I actually think, I actually have pretty mixed feelings.
- I think a lot of gun owners are living out James Bond or Rambo fantasies.
- I think that people have widely varying needs for personal protection including guns.
- I think that we'd probably be safer on aggregate if we tried to completely disarm the populace, though many individuals would be less safe. (You don't have a right to police protection.)
- I think that there are probably no gun control measures that would be both constitutional and have any appreciable effect on gun violence.
- I think that there is likely no argument for disarming the populace that doesn't apply with equal force to the police.
- I think that guns are frequently a proxy in the culture war rather than a serious policy topic of conversation.
Breaking News wrote:
what did it cost? wrote:
I'm glad you're a conscientious and well-educated gun owner, but not everybody is. People be dum. Personally, I have no problem with guns and enjoy shooting at ranges, but I don't want one in my house and I don't trust myself to use one properly in a crisis. Luckily, I am a small skinny target and can run away really fast.
No reasonable person or responsible gun owner would fault you for that. Gun ownership is most definitely not for everyone. Respect for knowing yourself and being honest.
It’s really sad to see the pathetic unidimensional straw manning of a complex topic and lack of good faith effort exercised by the anti-gun contingent with regard to such a complex and multivariate issue. What is obvious is that those opposed to gun ownership really seem to derive substantial moral superiority, or at least satisfaction, from a carelessly (or deliberately..) narrow swath of information without ever truly entertaining the possibility that their own misunderstanding, biases or fear more than likely overrides their “reasoning.”
But you do you, as they say.
How many boards are you monitoring right now, lobbyist?
.
truth-b-told wrote:
gayalienshrek123 wrote:
theres about 30000 deaths from guns in the US an annually and about half of those are suicides. theres an estimated 3 million lives saved annually with a gun.
Did it ever occur to you that lying, even on a message board, is wrong.
No he's right. In Europe roughly one percent of the population is murdered each year (mostly stabbings), so we can conclude that if there wasn't prevalent gun ownership in the USA, there would be a similar amount of bloodshed.
Breaking News wrote:
No reasonable person or responsible gun owner would fault you for that. Gun ownership is most definitely not for everyone. Respect for knowing yourself and being honest.
It’s really sad to see the pathetic unidimensional straw manning of a complex topic and lack of good faith effort exercised by the anti-gun contingent with regard to such a complex and multivariate issue. What is obvious is that those opposed to gun ownership really seem to derive substantial moral superiority, or at least satisfaction, from a carelessly (or deliberately..) narrow swath of information without ever truly entertaining the possibility that their own misunderstanding, biases or fear more than likely overrides their “reasoning.”
But you do you, as they say.
It's true that a lot of people try to moralize what should be a logical public safety issue. I think that most people, including me, fall squarely into the "it would be dangerous for this person to own a gun" camp and that guns should be difficult to acquire in the same way CDLs or permits to climb K2 are difficult to acquire.
800 dude wrote:
I didn't think I was arguing, and I certainly didn't say what I think about guns.
I just like arguing on the internets.
I was just pointing out that the data is unclear, and it's very difficult to study. Most defensive uses of firearms do not involve actually firing a gun, and they are probably unreported. There are also potential positive externalities to legal gun ownership (relatively fewer burglaries of homes known to be occupied in states with high rates of gun ownership).
That's true. My initial thought is that areas with more gun owners have less burglary simply because gun owners live out in the boonies, but I'm willing to think about it along other axes.
Some people also point out that suicide isn't an accidental death, and that it probably deserves its own category as there isn't even a consensus on its morality. I don't think that means that guns are good. I just think it means that the gun proponents have a point when they don't accept at face value claims that guns do more harm than good.
From a public health standpoint, suicide becomes way harder if you don't have guns around. That alone makes it worth questioning whether or not you should own one. But guns and suicide aren't intrinsically evil.
As for what I actually think, I actually have pretty mixed feelings.
- I think a lot of gun owners are living out James Bond or Rambo fantasies.
- I think that people have widely varying needs for personal protection including guns.
- I think that we'd probably be safer on aggregate if we tried to completely disarm the populace, though many individuals would be less safe. (You don't have a right to police protection.)
- I think that there are probably no gun control measures that would be both constitutional and have any appreciable effect on gun violence.
- I think that there is likely no argument for disarming the populace that doesn't apply with equal force to the police.
- I think that guns are frequently a proxy in the culture war rather than a serious policy topic of conversation.
I definitely agree with all of those points except for maybe the point about disarming police. Call me a fascist, but I'm generally okay with LEO/military types having better access to firepower than civilians. They already have access to a ton of other gear that we don't (e.g. info databases, stingrays, etc) and eventually they'll all be required to wear GPS-enabled live feed cameras while on duty anyway, so while I don't like the situation, I think we're going to have to learn to deal with the threat of government force in a way that doesn't include guns. It's frustrating that the Gun Problem is baked into the structure of our country in the same way that racial inequality and outdated gender roles are, but that's how society goes.
Aloysha wrote:
truth-b-told wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that lying, even on a message board, is wrong.
No he's right. In Europe roughly one percent of the population is murdered each year (mostly stabbings), so we can conclude that if there wasn't prevalent gun ownership in the USA, there would be a similar amount of bloodshed.
Wow, each year in Europe 1% of the population is murdered! After 20 years 20% of that original population has been murdered? They must have a high birthrate.
Does the NRA suggest you lie?
what did it cost? wrote:
Breaking News wrote:
The stakes in terms of having an option in an emergency versus the probability of needing it coupled with training and proper safety is the calculus that matters to me.
Oh, you’re right though, I’m certainly less likely to use it for self defense if I don’t have it. Seeing as how I can almost certainly control how my weapon will be used does shift the “statistical” risk you have placed so much emphasis on. I tend not to concern myself with other peoples’ risk factors or behavior, their choices or the situations they find themselves in.
Law enforcement is difficult work. We can always count on these vaunted individuals to respond promptly when needed and to always intervene on our behalf upon arrival... Even the Supreme Court has rules that officers must put their safety ahead of public safety...
Here’s to hoping neither of us ever need a weapon in a crisis, brother.
I'm glad you're a conscientious and well-educated gun owner, but not everybody is. People be dum. Personally, I have no problem with guns and enjoy shooting at ranges, but I don't want one in my house and I don't trust myself to use one properly in a crisis. Luckily, I am a small skinny target and can run away really fast.
The discussion is whether the average family is safer or in greater risk with a gun.
I think you know the answer.
Which one? I have 7.
NRA shill, that’s who wrote:
whom says the owl wrote:
Estimated by who?
By gay alien Shrek, of course.
For people not living in war zones or third world countries with major drug trafficking and gang violence—guns ALWAYS make you less safe. This is true in the US. Only wanna be Rambo-types who back in to parking spaces in their F-150s (in case they need to make a quick get away...because they are super important so everyone is after them) believe guns make them safe.
Wow, very "intelligent" conclusion. (end of sarcasm)
Aloysha wrote:
truth-b-told wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that lying, even on a message board, is wrong.
No he's right. In Europe roughly one percent of the population is murdered each year (mostly stabbings), so we can conclude that if there wasn't prevalent gun ownership in the USA, there would be a similar amount of bloodshed.
Ah for fux sake, if you’re going to lie at least make it semi believable.
L L wrote:
Po Po wrote:
A gun is no more dangerous to you or your family than your lawnmower, as long as you follow these basic rules:
1) when not in use, keep it locked up in a gun safe where you have the only key or combination, which you keep on your person or in your wallet at all times.
2) store your gun unloaded, and your magazines empty of rounds. I store them in separate locked safes.
3) teach your family members the fundamentals of gun safety and not playing with guns, even toy or BB guns. Also impress upon them that they are not to tell anyone else that you have a gun or where it is stored
4) do not clean your gun in the house with your kids around
5) if you’re outside the home with your gun, say in a car, do not become more aggressive because you are carrying. De-escalate any confrontation, and do not drink while you are carrying.
Obviously if someone kicks in my door in a home invasion scenario, I am not going to be able to quickly respond, but the likelihood of that occurring in the suburbs is virtually nonexistent unless you are known to have large quantities of drugs in the house. I would gladly trade that off for the safety benefits.
A great many of us grew up with guns in the house because our fathers brought them home from WWII or Korea, and/or because they were hunters, with no negative effects. Almost every so-called “accidental” death you read about from guns in households is because one of the above rules wasn’t followed.
None of what you wrote refutes the fact that a gun is more likely to endanger a person than protect them.
So do knives.
I get your drift pal, you don't like guns, many of us do, so be it. Your opinion is just that, and hurtfully for you, not going to change the Constitution either.
Shapiero wrote:
gayalienshrek123 wrote:
theres about 30000 deaths from guns in the US an annually and about half of those are suicides.
If you or someone in your family commits suicide using a gun, wouldn't you say the gun you bought to protect your family has endangered them? It is true that people can and do commit suicide using other methods, but every extra possible suicide method adds to the probability of suicide. Unless you believe your family is somehow immune to the causes of suicide, having a gun is dangerous, and about half of that danger is the danger of a suicide in your family.
Did it occurred to you that the easiest way to commit suicide is jumping off a cliff or in front if a passing 18 wheeler?
Our constitution was constructed to be a changing evolving document. Thomas Jefferson stated many times that people of the future should not be shackled by the ideas and laws of people from the past.
So to say something is in the constitution, is not the end of the story. The 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified.
It surprises me how many people extremely knowledgeable in gun safety, many even training others, have family members harmed by guns.
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Caitlin Clark thinks she can beat Eagles draft pick Cooper Dejean in 1 on 1