Another good guy with a gun story.

[IJTSSG]

Tons of people don't seem to realize that as the #1 reason given for gun ownership is personal safety. Considering owning a gun makes you less safe that's a pretty stupid decision to make, don't you agree? You're not only way more likely to die from suicide, you're more likely to die from homicide too.

I'm much more likely to die from a car accident or medical malpractice and I still drive to the doctor. Stupid me. LOL.

 

[Kwatt]

They gave the judges the statements made by the individuals they called, to attempt to discount this by calling it hearsay is absurd.

The study is methodologically sound and passed peer review. It's solid.

OK, I will ask straight out.
Do you accept that results of a random phone pole is "Empirical evidence"?

.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, I will ask straight out.
Do you accept that results of a random phone pole is "Empirical evidence"?

Yes, random digit dialing poll results are empirical evidence so long as the poll was conducted in a methodologically sound way as this one was. There's no arguing this, it's just a statement of fact.

EDIT: This poll was conducted in a substantially similar way to the polls we rely on to predict election outcomes. Nobody seems to argue that those polls are empirical evidence, so why this?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm much more likely to die from a car accident or medical malpractice and I still drive to the doctor. Stupid me. LOL.

We already covered this, what's the confusion?

1) While cars may kill you in a wreck they also provide utility in that they can be used to transport you to where you need to go. That's why owning a car is smart.
2) Doctors may kill you with malpractice but overall the average person will live longer if they visit the doctor than if they never do. That's why going to the doctor is smart.
3) If you are purchasing a gun for the purpose of self protection guns actually provide NEGATIVE utility, making you worse off. That's why owning a gun for personal protection is dumb.

If you want to say that you own a gun for recreational purposes, hunting, whatever, those are all perfectly reasonable reasons to own one. Owning it for personal protection is not reasonable because guns provide negative personal protection.

 

[IJTSSG]

We already covered this, what's the confusion?

1) While cars may kill you in a wreck they also provide utility in that they can be used to transport you to where you need to go. That's why owning a car is smart.
2) Doctors may kill you with malpractice but overall the average person will live longer if they visit the doctor than if they never do. That's why going to the doctor is smart.
3) If you are purchasing a gun for the purpose of self protection guns actually provide NEGATIVE utility, making you worse off. That's why owning a gun for personal protection is dumb.

If you want to say that you own a gun for recreational purposes, hunting, whatever, those are all perfectly reasonable reasons to own one. Owning it for personal protection is not reasonable because guns provide negative personal protection.

You're the only one that's confused. Gun owners, no matter why they choose to have a gun, are much more likely to die from a whole host of things, including traffic accidents and malpractice than they are of a gun shot. Full stop.

 

[fskimospy]

You're the only one that's confused. Gun owners, no matter why they choose to have a gun, are much more likely to die from a whole host of things, including traffic accidents and malpractice than they are of a gun shot. Full stop.

Irrelevant.

 

[Clockworkz]

We already covered this, what's the confusion?

1) While cars may kill you in a wreck they also provide utility in that they can be used to transport you to where you need to go. That's why owning a car is smart.
2) Doctors may kill you with malpractice but overall the average person will live longer if they visit the doctor than if they never do. That's why going to the doctor is smart.
3) If you are purchasing a gun for the purpose of self protection guns actually provide NEGATIVE utility, making you worse off. That's why owning a gun for personal protection is dumb.

If you want to say that you own a gun for recreational purposes, hunting, whatever, those are all perfectly reasonable reasons to own one. Owning it for personal protection is not reasonable because guns provide negative personal protection.

Wow... I can’t begin to tell you how wrong you are at least with #3.

 

[soundforbjt]

A new sock...the election is over.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Oh look a new Alt Account

 

[fskimospy]

Wow... I can’t begin to tell you how wrong you are at least with #3.

By all means do!

 

[pmv]

I'm much more likely to die from a car accident or medical malpractice and I still drive to the doctor. Stupid me. LOL.

That you do one thing wrong doesn't justify doing other things wrong, so I don't see the relevance of this to gun control arguments.

More importantly, you are more likely to kill or harm someone else by driving. So if it's less than, say, 10 miles, you are being selfish and irresponsible by choosing to drive uneccessarily. Use your legs a bit more and maybe you won't need to go to the doctor so often..

 

[SlowSpyder]

Owning a gun is riskier than not owning a gun. Wow. That's a groundbreaking discovery. Groundbreaking. LOL.

Did you know if you have knives in your home you're more likely to get cut? He's really onto something!

 

[fskimospy]

Did you know if you have knives in your home you're more likely to get cut? He's really onto something!

Glad we agree that owning a gun for self protection is a dumb idea then!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Glad we agree that owning a gun for self protection is a dumb idea then!

It isn't dumb though, you use a broad paint brush, using an average that is so sky high that it doesn't have any tangible meaning to individual gun owners. Having a gun in your home adds a potential for harm that would not be there without a gun. It also provides a potential for protection one may not have. Which one is more likely to take effect? You and I won't agree on that.

This story always sticks out in my mind as a situation where I bet anything that man wishes he had a gun.

 

[fskimospy]

It isn't dumb though, you use a broad paint brush, using an average that is so sky high that it doesn't have any tangible meaning to individual gun owners. Having a gun in your home adds a potential for harm that would not be there without a gun. It also provides a potential for protection one may not have. Which one is more likely to take effect? You and I won't agree on that.

This story always sticks out in my mind as a situation where I bet anything that man wishes he had a gun.

I am relying on the empirical evidence. If you want to disagree with the evidence that’s fine but you should recognize you’re making your opinion based on emotions and not facts.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I am relying on the phone polls.

Fixed that for you.

 

[fskimospy]

Fixed that for you.

First of all, if you’re claiming scientific polling doesn’t count you’re only exposing your own ignorance. Second, you are well aware of the fact that there is a wide range of medical literature showing increased risk of death by homicide and suicide for gun owners. I know this because I’ve linked it for you myself.

Again, if your emotions can’t handle the facts and you need to ignore them that’s fine, but you can’t expect the rest of us to pretend along with you.

What’s funny is that if the facts showed guns really did make people safer I would have no problem with changing my mind about them. It’s sad that you’re unable to do the same.

 

[Vic]

Why does the OP consider someone who fired on law enforcement officers to be a "good guy?"

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why does the OP consider someone who fired on law enforcement officers to be a "good guy?"

Eh?

 

[SlowSpyder]

First of all, if you’re claiming scientific polling doesn’t count you’re only exposing your own ignorance. Second, you are well aware of the fact that there is a wide range of medical literature showing increased risk of death by homicide and suicide for gun owners. I know this because I’ve linked it for you myself.

Again, if your emotions can’t handle the facts and you need to ignore them that’s fine, but you can’t expect the rest of us to pretend along with you.

What’s funny is that if the facts showed guns really did make people safer I would have no problem with changing my mind about them. It’s sad that you’re unable to do the same.

Phone polls.

 

[fskimospy]

Phone polls.

Lol. I guess that’s a shorter way of saying ‘I don’t know how science works’.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Lol. I guess that’s a shorter way of saying ‘I don’t know how science works’.

Here's a phone survey that says guns are used as many as 2,500,000 times a year defensively (they think the numbers are inflated a bit and suggest the real number may be 1,500,000 times a year, though).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Yay phone surveys!

 

[fskimospy]

Here's a phone survey that says guns are used as many as 2,500,000 times a year defensively (they think the numbers are inflated a bit and suggest the real number may be 1,500,000 times a year, though).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Yay phone surveys!

That is not what they think at all, hahaha. The paper concludes that the numbers generated by that survey about defensive gun are unreliable and should be ignored. It looks like you stopped reading far too early, haha.

If you actually bother to read it you would see they point out several aspects of that number that are facially absurd and they discuss the methodological problems that lead to that false number. For example one woman reported more than 500 defensive gun uses in the most recent year, estimates would indicate 120,000 gunshot victims from defensive gun use alone, etc.

I love it when people own themselves because they are too lazy to actually read the things they linked.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That is not what they think at all, hahaha. The paper concludes that the numbers generated by that survey about defensive gun are unreliable and should be ignored. It looks like you stopped reading far too early, haha.

If you actually bother to read it you would see they point out several aspects of that number that are facially absurd and they discuss the methodological problems that lead to that false number. For example one woman reported more than 500 defensive gun uses in the most recent year, estimates would indicate 120,000 gunshot victims from defensive gun use alone, etc.

I love it when people own themselves because they are too lazy to actually read the things they linked.

You're saying you don't think the phone survey was accurate?

 

[Vic]

Eh?

Apparently you can't remember the threads you start either.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/maryland-red-flag-law-claims-a-victim.2556349