Girl shoots herself with grandma's gun at Sams Club store

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: thraashman
Hey, people asked for statistics, I gave statistics. In fact I was the only person willing to give ACTUAL statistics for either side. I don't give a damn if you own a gun or not, but if you do be safe about it.

I personally don't like guns, don't own one, and won't own one. I live in work in a major city that has at times had a high crime rate. To this day I've known of only one person who was the victim of a violent crime (well 2 technically, but one survived and escaped). And yes is involved a gun. And that was in the suburbs. I've also known several gun owners, and even a couple of what I'd call gun nuts. I've not known a single person who owned a gun whoever got a chance to use it in a self defense aspect.

I've never met a single driver in my life who thought the idea of making a car safer was a bad idea. But I've never met a single gun owner who didn't go apeshit crazy at the idea of making guns safer. Of all people I've interacted with, gun owners are only beaten out by a few groups when it comes to zealotry. My personal favorite was when I met a girl a couple weeks ago that got downright foaming angry at me because I won't own a gun.

I seriously want to know why in the hell gun owners seem to be so against making guns safer. Why is it that the NRA attacks anyone who says something about lessening violence by controlling guns better, instead of actually trying to lessen violence? I don't get it.

my friend, you are on the losing side hahaha.. you remind me of my college buddies 3 years ago... Don't know what happened... but they ultimately did a 180.

I think a lot of gun owners are smart with respect to keeping their 2nd admend rights. I think they believe that rights can be chipped away. Look at smoking. It all started so harmlessly.

Non sequiturs, logical fallacies, and not so amusing personal anecdotes.

What?

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: eleison

my friend, you are on the losing side hahaha.. you remind me of my college buddies 3 years ago... Don't know what happened... but they ultimately did a 180.

I think a lot of gun owners are smart with respect to keeping their 2nd admend rights. I think they believe that rights can be chipped away. Look at smoking. It all started so harmlessly.

Don't even get me started on smoking. One of these days I'm gonna remember to bring my camera to work so I can take my ironic picture. And by this I'm referring to the giant American Cancer Society sign on my building with the 2 dozen smokers standing outside at lunch.

And I will never do a 180 on guns. I have no desire to advocate something that's purpose is killing. Other things can be used for killing sure. I've known a guy who was killed by a drunk driver. A good friend's sister was beaten to death with a hammer. Many things that have another purpose can be used to kill. Guns only purpose is to be used in killing something. I don't kill.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: thraashman
Hey, people asked for statistics, I gave statistics. In fact I was the only person willing to give ACTUAL statistics for either side. I don't give a damn if you own a gun or not, but if you do be safe about it.

I personally don't like guns, don't own one, and won't own one. I live in work in a major city that has at times had a high crime rate. To this day I've known of only one person who was the victim of a violent crime (well 2 technically, but one survived and escaped). And yes is involved a gun. And that was in the suburbs. I've also known several gun owners, and even a couple of what I'd call gun nuts. I've not known a single person who owned a gun whoever got a chance to use it in a self defense aspect.

I've never met a single driver in my life who thought the idea of making a car safer was a bad idea. But I've never met a single gun owner who didn't go apeshit crazy at the idea of making guns safer. Of all people I've interacted with, gun owners are only beaten out by a few groups when it comes to zealotry. My personal favorite was when I met a girl a couple weeks ago that got downright foaming angry at me because I won't own a gun.

I seriously want to know why in the hell gun owners seem to be so against making guns safer. Why is it that the NRA attacks anyone who says something about lessening violence by controlling guns better, instead of actually trying to lessen violence? I don't get it.

my friend, you are on the losing side hahaha.. you remind me of my college buddies 3 years ago... Don't know what happened... but they ultimately did a 180.

I think a lot of gun owners are smart with respect to keeping their 2nd admend rights. I think they believe that rights can be chipped away. Look at smoking. It all started so harmlessly.

Non sequiturs, logical fallacies, and not so amusing personal anecdotes.

What?

First off non sequiter and logical fallacy are usually interchangeable, you're being kinda redundant. Second, everyone uses anecdotes. Hell, look at the entire damn thread. No one in the thread used statistics. The second I tried to use statistics and cite sources, people attacked but none of them cited their own sources, they just made baseless claims.

And sure, I made even a few claims I didn't cite. And if I'd been trying to go all anti-gun I'd have then begun to cite the dozens of friends and family members of friends who've been the victim of gun violence. But I limited it to direct knowledge of the person and situation. Because I'm not trying to sensationalize. In fact if you really look at my posts, I never once make any claims about taking guns away, lessening gun ownership, restricting gun carrying, or really anything. All I ever said was we need to make guns safer. And most of the responses have proven my statements about gun owners. You don't want safer and you attack anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you.

 

[eits]

christ, i hope she pulls through

that's horrible

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is really weak.

It's as weak the "CCW saves the day" or "Why wasn't there a CCW to stop this madman" threads that we get subjected to every week around this place.. Why can't we get the bad with the good?


The simplest fact is that more people with more guns will lead to more people getting shot.

The difference of course is even if CCW doesnt save the day it is still a right provided for in our constitution. Taking away those guns like so many want requires better evidence than a 4 year old playing with a gun getting shot for why a right should be taken away.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is really weak.

It's as weak the "CCW saves the day" or "Why wasn't there a CCW to stop this madman" threads that we get subjected to every week around this place.. Why can't we get the bad with the good?


The simplest fact is that more people with more guns will lead to more people getting shot.

The difference of course is even if CCW doesnt save the day it is still a right provided for in our constitution. Taking away those guns like so many want requires better evidence than a 4 year old playing with a gun getting shot for why a right should be taken away.

Actually, in all technicality the Constitution provides for the right to bear arms, not to conceal carry. Laws in states where they allow CCW is what provides for that right.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is really weak.

It's as weak the "CCW saves the day" or "Why wasn't there a CCW to stop this madman" threads that we get subjected to every week around this place.. Why can't we get the bad with the good?


The simplest fact is that more people with more guns will lead to more people getting shot.

The difference of course is even if CCW doesnt save the day it is still a right provided for in our constitution. Taking away those guns like so many want requires better evidence than a 4 year old playing with a gun getting shot for why a right should be taken away.

*shrug* I'm not advocating the government taking away any rights. I'm just against people posting CCW stories like they're the second coming.

Like I said, lets just take the bad with the good.


edit: my idea of a good gun control policy would be one that removes guns from the hands of criminals, the mentally unstable and just plain stupid people as well.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Being an idiot is the reson for this story. No different than if grandma was driving and casused an accident when she should never have been allowed to drive.

A responsible gun owner, car driver, heavy equipment operator, surgeon, etc... knows what to do to be safe within their areas. Obviously, grandma is an idiot.

bullets are much different than fender-benders, slow-moving forklifts, or skilled professionals who have their patients sign a waiver...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is really weak.

It's as weak the "CCW saves the day" or "Why wasn't there a CCW to stop this madman" threads that we get subjected to every week around this place.. Why can't we get the bad with the good?


The simplest fact is that more people with more guns will lead to more people getting shot.

The difference of course is even if CCW doesnt save the day it is still a right provided for in our constitution. Taking away those guns like so many want requires better evidence than a 4 year old playing with a gun getting shot for why a right should be taken away.

*shrug* I'm not advocating the government taking away any rights. I'm just against people posting CCW stories like they're the second coming.

Like I said, lets just take the bad with the good.

Unfortunately for you, there's at least around 10 times as many good as bad. When you've got that kind of ratio the bad just needs to be accepted for the greater good.

 

[RightIsWrong]

These are only my personal thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.

As far as the OP, I think that it is a perfectly acceptable counter argument to the CCW would have saved the day threads.

I am for what I see as "sensible" gun control.

That means, background checks, waiting periods and no automatic weapons. If you are not a past criminal, can wait a week and want a semi or revolver....you are welcome to it. If you absolutely positively need a gun right this second...you are probably the type of person that shouldn't have a gun, EVER! Now, the sticky point on this comes into play when it is a woman (generally speaking) who is making the case because of a stalker. In this instance, I would say if you meet the background check and have a RO against the alleged stalker, the waiting period could be waived. If you don't bother to get a RO, I'm not sure how serious you take the threat in the first place.

Regarding the stats from both sides, I think that the old saying comes into play: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Both sides are manipulating the data to make their cases look stronger than they actually are. Guns will be used in crimes and there will be accidental shootings. They will also be used to stop a crime occasionally and protect someone from harm.

The 130,000-2.5 million stat is complete horseshit. If you were to total all CCW holders in the U.S. and divide them by any number in that range, you will see that it is probably somewhere between 10% and 60% of CCWs have had to use their weapon IN THAT GIVEN YEAR that the survey was conducted to make it factual. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor comes into play here: The simplest explanation is the truth....it's a bullshit estimate and when surveyed, people will lie to make their biased opinion on such a hot topic issue more likely to appear true.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: NeoV
2nd - why, after all these years, can't some of the billions of dollars that gun-makers earn go towards developing a child-proof gun? Should it be that hard to make a gun that a 4 year old can't physically fire?

They've just been developed. A biometric gun would certainly have avoided this accident.

PDF on Atmel's new fingerprint chip.

"There is also the safety aspect on items like lockouts for heavy equipment, and even gun safety. Most gun accidents occur from the kids finding either an unsecured gun or the keys to the cabinet or trigger lock. With a biometric, there is no key for them to find."

So anti-gun folks, if a biometric was mandated by law, would you still be against CCW's?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
These are only my personal thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.

As far as the OP, I think that it is a perfectly acceptable counter argument to the CCW would have saved the day threads.

I am for what I see as "sensible" gun control.

That means, background checks, waiting periods and no automatic weapons. If you are not a past criminal, can wait a week and want a semi or revolver....you are welcome to it. If you absolutely positively need a gun right this second...you are probably the type of person that shouldn't have a gun, EVER! Now, the sticky point on this comes into play when it is a woman (generally speaking) who is making the case because of a stalker. In this instance, I would say if you meet the background check and have a RO against the alleged stalker, the waiting period could be waived. If you don't bother to get a RO, I'm not sure how serious you take the threat in the first place.

Regarding the stats from both sides, I think that the old saying comes into play: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Both sides are manipulating the data to make their cases look stronger than they actually are. Guns will be used in crimes and there will be accidental shootings. They will also be used to stop a crime occasionally and protect someone from harm.

The 130,000-2.5 million stat is complete horseshit. If you were to total all CCW holders in the U.S. and divide them by any number in that range, you will see that it is probably somewhere between 10% and 60% of CCWs have had to use their weapon IN THAT GIVEN YEAR that the survey was conducted to make it factual. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor comes into play here: The simplest explanation is the truth....it's a bullshit estimate and when surveyed, people will lie to make their biased opinion on such a hot topic issue more likely to appear true.

Between 1 and 4% of each states eligible citizens have a permit in any given year. In Washington, for instance, with a very low population we have 250,000 permit holders. Numbers hold up across the country except in the few may-issue states. So if you multiply 250,000 by say, 40, you have 10 million ccw's active each year. Most of those never use their weapons, it's true, but a number of people use a gun that don't have a license. In fact, far more defensive gun uses are by non-holders. If we assume between 1/4 and 1/3 of households with a firearm (which is within current estimates) we have a HUGE number of potential defensive uses.

The government, at every level, has accepted some number within the range given (usually tending towards the 130-300k range). If you have ANY evidence to the contrary I'm sure the government would love to hear from you, especially after spending MILLIONS on the National Academy of Sciences reviews that admitted such data is accurate.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
These are only my personal thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.

As far as the OP, I think that it is a perfectly acceptable counter argument to the CCW would have saved the day threads.

I am for what I see as "sensible" gun control.

That means, background checks, waiting periods and no automatic weapons. If you are not a past criminal, can wait a week and want a semi or revolver....you are welcome to it. If you absolutely positively need a gun right this second...you are probably the type of person that shouldn't have a gun, EVER! Now, the sticky point on this comes into play when it is a woman (generally speaking) who is making the case because of a stalker. In this instance, I would say if you meet the background check and have a RO against the alleged stalker, the waiting period could be waived. If you don't bother to get a RO, I'm not sure how serious you take the threat in the first place.

Regarding the stats from both sides, I think that the old saying comes into play: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Both sides are manipulating the data to make their cases look stronger than they actually are. Guns will be used in crimes and there will be accidental shootings. They will also be used to stop a crime occasionally and protect someone from harm.

The 130,000-2.5 million stat is complete horseshit. If you were to total all CCW holders in the U.S. and divide them by any number in that range, you will see that it is probably somewhere between 10% and 60% of CCWs have had to use their weapon IN THAT GIVEN YEAR that the survey was conducted to make it factual. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor comes into play here: The simplest explanation is the truth....it's a bullshit estimate and when surveyed, people will lie to make their biased opinion on such a hot topic issue more likely to appear true.

Between 1 and 4% of each states eligible citizens have a permit in any given year. In Washington, for instance, with a very low population we have 250,000 permit holders. Numbers hold up across the country except in the few may-issue states. So if you multiply 250,000 by say, 40, you have 10 million ccw's active each year. Most of those never use their weapons, it's true, but a number of people use a gun that don't have a license. In fact, far more defensive gun uses are by non-holders. If we assume between 1/4 and 1/3 of households with a firearm (which is within current estimates) we have a HUGE number of potential defensive uses.

The government, at every level, has accepted some number within the range given (usually tending towards the 130-300k range). If you have ANY evidence to the contrary I'm sure the government would love to hear from you, especially after spending MILLIONS on the National Academy of Sciences reviews that admitted such data is accurate.

We both know that I don't have numbers. As I have stated, those were my opinions based on what I feel is common sense and logic.

Let's take your numbers and use those for the sake of this argument.

At the time of my doing the math using the US population from here, there would be 12,721, 137 (rounded up) possible CCWs if we go on the high end (4%) of issuance.

Using the lowest number in that range (130,000) would mean that there are a minimum of 2.15% of the maximum CCW holders that have used their gun in defense in a single year. Using the highest number (2.5M) will indicate that over 25% have.

Now take into account the crime rate (2007) of 80.0645 per 1000 people (and that is ALL crimes including burglaries, theft, software piracy, police crime, etc and not just violent crime) and the numbers just don't seem feasible if I look at them realistically.

Do a number of CCW holders use their weapon in self defense? Of course they do. What that number is, I don't know and anyone that claims that they do is just giving their opinion like I am.

A random study on such a hot button topic is going to produce polar opposite stats. CCW holders want to make their case look stronger because they don't want to loose their right to their CCW and the best way to do that is to make it look like their CCW was required for safety more than it really was.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
These are only my personal thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.

As far as the OP, I think that it is a perfectly acceptable counter argument to the CCW would have saved the day threads.

I am for what I see as "sensible" gun control.

That means, background checks, waiting periods and no automatic weapons. If you are not a past criminal, can wait a week and want a semi or revolver....you are welcome to it. If you absolutely positively need a gun right this second...you are probably the type of person that shouldn't have a gun, EVER! Now, the sticky point on this comes into play when it is a woman (generally speaking) who is making the case because of a stalker. In this instance, I would say if you meet the background check and have a RO against the alleged stalker, the waiting period could be waived. If you don't bother to get a RO, I'm not sure how serious you take the threat in the first place.

Regarding the stats from both sides, I think that the old saying comes into play: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Both sides are manipulating the data to make their cases look stronger than they actually are. Guns will be used in crimes and there will be accidental shootings. They will also be used to stop a crime occasionally and protect someone from harm.

The 130,000-2.5 million stat is complete horseshit. If you were to total all CCW holders in the U.S. and divide them by any number in that range, you will see that it is probably somewhere between 10% and 60% of CCWs have had to use their weapon IN THAT GIVEN YEAR that the survey was conducted to make it factual. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor comes into play here: The simplest explanation is the truth....it's a bullshit estimate and when surveyed, people will lie to make their biased opinion on such a hot topic issue more likely to appear true.

Between 1 and 4% of each states eligible citizens have a permit in any given year. In Washington, for instance, with a very low population we have 250,000 permit holders. Numbers hold up across the country except in the few may-issue states. So if you multiply 250,000 by say, 40, you have 10 million ccw's active each year. Most of those never use their weapons, it's true, but a number of people use a gun that don't have a license. In fact, far more defensive gun uses are by non-holders. If we assume between 1/4 and 1/3 of households with a firearm (which is within current estimates) we have a HUGE number of potential defensive uses.

The government, at every level, has accepted some number within the range given (usually tending towards the 130-300k range). If you have ANY evidence to the contrary I'm sure the government would love to hear from you, especially after spending MILLIONS on the National Academy of Sciences reviews that admitted such data is accurate.

We both know that I don't have numbers. As I have stated, those were my opinions based on what I feel is common sense and logic.

Let's take your numbers and use those for the sake of this argument.

At the time of my doing the math using the US population from here, there would be 12,721, 137 (rounded up) possible CCWs if we go on the high end (4%) of issuance.

Using the lowest number in that range (130,000) would mean that there are a minimum of 2.15% of the maximum CCW holders that have used their gun in defense in a single year. Using the highest number (2.5M) will indicate that over 25% have.

Now take into account the crime rate (2007) of 80.0645 per 1000 people (and that is ALL crimes including burglaries, theft, software piracy, police crime, etc and not just violent crime) and the numbers just don't seem feasible if I look at them realistically.

Do a number of CCW holders use their weapon in self defense? Of course they do. What that number is, I don't know and anyone that claims that they do is just giving their opinion like I am.

A random study on such a hot button topic is going to produce polar opposite stats. CCW holders want to make their case look stronger because they don't want to loose their right to their CCW and the best way to do that is to make it look like their CCW was required for safety more than it really was.

Right, and I totally get that. I just think that when you consider that 1/4 to 1/3 of all households have a firearm, suggesting that 300k people use them for something defensive isn't that outlandish. If it were all ccw holders I wouldn't buy it at all of course...but 300,000 out of 80 million? I say it's plausible.

Again, I'm open for the counter argument...but I can't understand how every bit of research keeps supporting it unless it's true. You'd think that these huge studies would be able to find a flaw by now if it existed. So even if the numbers seem high to me, the logic is pretty inescapable.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Right, and I totally get that. I just think that when you consider that 1/4 to 1/3 of all households have a firearm, suggesting that 300k people use them for something defensive isn't that outlandish. If it were all ccw holders I wouldn't buy it at all of course...but 300,000 out of 80 million? I say it's plausible.

Again, I'm open for the counter argument...but I can't understand how every bit of research keeps supporting it unless it's true. You'd think that these huge studies would be able to find a flaw by now if it existed. So even if the numbers seem high to me, the logic is pretty inescapable.

I can see that point of view and when it comes down to a .0045% likelihood, I'd be more willing to accept that. I guess the disconnect is that I was looking at CCWs only instead of the whole and the original study where those numbers came from.

http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

3.1% of the time (4030 incidents using 130k and 77,500 incidents using 2.5M) both parties fired? I think that there would have been a lot more news reports of something as rampant as that, don't you?

Common sense just tells me that Kleck is a flawed study.

Edit: I did find this interesting ordinance in looking up stuff.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: rudder
In 2005 there were 3,582 unintentional drownings in the U.S. We need to ban swimming.

Amen.

Out of how many swimmers/bathers in situations where drowning is possible? 300 million people taking baths or going swimming in pools/oceans/lakes, or boating/jetskiing, kayaking, etc? 3500 deaths out of how many hundreds of millions of possibilities for such deaths?

Comparison Fail.

There's plenty of legit arguments for gun ownership, so I never get why people descend into horrible inapplicable comparisons.

In the concealed carry states, how many people regular carry guns? In texas, how many carry guns in public w/o the public even knowing?

Most people I knew when living in conceal carry states, carried their firearms 24*7 -- how many possibilities for death? In homes that have firearms, how many guest comes into contact with the armed family?

Again, percentage wise, a tiny fraction carry concealed, which is why there's so few OP related incidents. If EVERYONE carried concealed like almost EVERYONE goes swimming/bathes, the number of deaths would undeniably increase greatly. More people swimming results in more people drowning. More people carrying guns results in more shootings, accidental or otherwise.

It can also be debated that "possiblities" should not matter when considering safety. If 3500 kids die in swimming pools, 3500 kids died. Assuming that less kids are killed with firearms, why ban firearms? Find the thing that killed more people and ban that.

Of course 'possibilities' matter, they are part of the equation when determining probability. Without the 'possible' it's impossible to determine the 'probable'. When you roll a 6 sided die, there are 6 'possible' outcomes, landing on any one side has a 'probability' of 1 in 6 (or if you ask Chuck Klosterman it's 50/50, either you get a 3 or you dont )

You are dealing in numbers and ignoring percentages. Thousands die in car accidents every year but we keep driving because hundreds of millions of people travel in cars several times per day (high "possibility" for death by car accident), yet among those hundreds of millions of car rides the number of actual deaths is comparatively small ("probability").

Its like saying product X killed 500000 kids and product Y killed 2000 kids, but lets ban product Y because product Y was not as common than product X. Who cares? Baning product Y would save more kids. After all, thats what its all about -- saving lives right? Not ratios or "possibilities"..

Did you mean banning product X would save more kids?

If product X is a widget used by every single kid in the country, say 50 million, and it killed 5,000 of them, versus product Y which is a widget used by 2000 kids, ALL of whom were killed by it, I think it's clear which product is more dangerous.

Further, I'm not for banning guns, I'm just against people claiming that if everyone owned guns there would be fewer shootings. CCW is fine now because from what I've read only about 1% of the pop bother getting CCW permits. If everyone had guns, there'd be more shootings. I don't think it'd be chaos, but I do think it'd be kinda like the old west. Ok, maybe not that bad, but there would be an increase. Maybe a decrease in the death toll of Columbine type shootings, but increases in a variety of others.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Right, and I totally get that. I just think that when you consider that 1/4 to 1/3 of all households have a firearm, suggesting that 300k people use them for something defensive isn't that outlandish. If it were all ccw holders I wouldn't buy it at all of course...but 300,000 out of 80 million? I say it's plausible.

Again, I'm open for the counter argument...but I can't understand how every bit of research keeps supporting it unless it's true. You'd think that these huge studies would be able to find a flaw by now if it existed. So even if the numbers seem high to me, the logic is pretty inescapable.

I can see that point of view and when it comes down to a .0045% likelihood, I'd be more willing to accept that. I guess the disconnect is that I was looking at CCWs only instead of the whole and the original study where those numbers came from.

http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

3.1% of the time (4030 incidents using 130k and 77,500 incidents using 2.5M) both parties fired? I think that there would have been a lot more news reports of something as rampant as that, don't you?

Common sense just tells me that Kleck is a flawed study.

Edit: I did find this interesting ordinance in looking up stuff.

Oh I agree, Kleck IS flawed. That's why I tend to support the lower end of the numbers, instead of jumping on the Kleck/Lott bandwagon.

Remember that only in some studies and surveys is firing required to be considered defensive gun use. Merely brandishing, or even investigating to interrupt a crime due to having a weapon can qualify as defensive gun use under some study methodology.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Right, and I totally get that. I just think that when you consider that 1/4 to 1/3 of all households have a firearm, suggesting that 300k people use them for something defensive isn't that outlandish. If it were all ccw holders I wouldn't buy it at all of course...but 300,000 out of 80 million? I say it's plausible.

Again, I'm open for the counter argument...but I can't understand how every bit of research keeps supporting it unless it's true. You'd think that these huge studies would be able to find a flaw by now if it existed. So even if the numbers seem high to me, the logic is pretty inescapable.

I can see that point of view and when it comes down to a .0045% likelihood, I'd be more willing to accept that. I guess the disconnect is that I was looking at CCWs only instead of the whole and the original study where those numbers came from.

http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

3.1% of the time (4030 incidents using 130k and 77,500 incidents using 2.5M) both parties fired? I think that there would have been a lot more news reports of something as rampant as that, don't you?

Common sense just tells me that Kleck is a flawed study.

Edit: I did find this interesting ordinance in looking up stuff.

Oh I agree, Kleck IS flawed. That's why I tend to support the lower end of the numbers, instead of jumping on the Kleck/Lott bandwagon.

Remember that only in some studies and surveys is firing required to be considered defensive gun use. Merely brandishing, or even investigating to interrupt a crime due to having a weapon can qualify as defensive gun use under some study methodology.

And I agree with you. That's why I can concede that the .0045% of usage based on the low number and the % of ownership based on population is feasible.

I do think that there should be control and maybe use the biometric trigger locks. The only problem with those is the database and who has access to it. I've had to go through the .gov security clearance procedures so I'm already in the DB...but I wouldn't want to be or think that I should be if I weren't already.

BTW, we'd better stop actually debating such a hot topic in a civilized and rational way or we will end up looking like appeasers to the other side's views.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Linux23
Guns should be banned in public.

.

Shucks I think they should be worn openly.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: techs
Because most people don't see the need, and understands you are thousands of times more likely to get killed if you own a gun than if you don't.

please prove that.

/popcorn

Well Ive owned over 10 guns, and that would by techs account make me 10,000 time more likely to get killed by a gun. Luck of the Irish I guess.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: NeoV


2nd - why, after all these years, can't some of the billions of dollars that gun-makers earn go towards developing a child-proof gun? Should it be that hard to make a gun that a 4 year old can't physically fire?

Are you kidding me? Go to your local gunstore and check out how many different safeties the average pistol has compared to one made 30 years ago.

And really, you've just got to be responsible for making sure your kids don't do something dangerous around a weapon. It's like going camping and building a fire. Keep on eye on the children and make sure they dont' start a forest fire. Don't ban fires.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Right, and I totally get that. I just think that when you consider that 1/4 to 1/3 of all households have a firearm, suggesting that 300k people use them for something defensive isn't that outlandish. If it were all ccw holders I wouldn't buy it at all of course...but 300,000 out of 80 million? I say it's plausible.

Again, I'm open for the counter argument...but I can't understand how every bit of research keeps supporting it unless it's true. You'd think that these huge studies would be able to find a flaw by now if it existed. So even if the numbers seem high to me, the logic is pretty inescapable.

I can see that point of view and when it comes down to a .0045% likelihood, I'd be more willing to accept that. I guess the disconnect is that I was looking at CCWs only instead of the whole and the original study where those numbers came from.

http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

3.1% of the time (4030 incidents using 130k and 77,500 incidents using 2.5M) both parties fired? I think that there would have been a lot more news reports of something as rampant as that, don't you?

Common sense just tells me that Kleck is a flawed study.

Edit: I did find this interesting ordinance in looking up stuff.

Oh I agree, Kleck IS flawed. That's why I tend to support the lower end of the numbers, instead of jumping on the Kleck/Lott bandwagon.

Remember that only in some studies and surveys is firing required to be considered defensive gun use. Merely brandishing, or even investigating to interrupt a crime due to having a weapon can qualify as defensive gun use under some study methodology.

And I agree with you. That's why I can concede that the .0045% of usage based on the low number and the % of ownership based on population is feasible.

I do think that there should be control and maybe use the biometric trigger locks. The only problem with those is the database and who has access to it. I've had to go through the .gov security clearance procedures so I'm already in the DB...but I wouldn't want to be or think that I should be if I weren't already.

BTW, we'd better stop actually debating such a hot topic in a civilized and rational way or we will end up looking like appeasers to the other side's views.

Nah, just happen to be semi-rational. Hell, I want Washington state to implement mandatory training programs, since there is no current requirement. There's nothing wrong with reasonable measures.

Ideally I'd want a federal program, with exhaustive training and background checks, which culminated in a federal ID which allows you to carry in 100% of non-secured locations (ie didn't have to pass through a locked door, metal detector, and armed guard to get to). I don't mind regulation and oversight as long as the end result is innocent, good people being safe everywhere they go.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: KB
I know you are posting this just because the CCW fans post everytime some CCW does something. This case is very rare, and no where near a DAILY occurrence. If it was, you would be posting a new one everyday.

It is an unfortunate event and definitely the grandma is at fault; however we can't make a pro/con CCW decision on one case alone. This is something both sides need to realize.

Whats interesting is that in PA it costs 5 dollars and a quick background check to get a CCW. This means every "joe moron" can carry in PA and we don't see too many CCW negatives (or for that matter too many CCW positives) coming out of PA.

What's also rare is someone with a CCW saving the day because of it. It does happen but it's extremely rare.

Shrug, depends on what you mean by "saving the day". My CCW has protected me from a would be mugger. I know half a dozen people who can say the same.

Oh, all of those situations ended without a single shot being fired. Bad guys typically run away when they discover their prey can defend themselves. No point in getting into a shootout when they can simply move on to someone who can't defend themselves.

"My CCW has protected me from a would be mugger. I know half a dozen people who can say the same"

Wow. I lived in New York City for 35 years and was never mugged.

Come on down to NOLA and we can change that real quick.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: jonks

Its like saying product X killed 500000 kids and product Y killed 2000 kids, but lets ban product Y because product Y was not as common than product X. Who cares? Baning product Y would save more kids. After all, thats what its all about -- saving lives right? Not ratios or "possibilities"..

Did you mean banning product X would save more kids?

If product X is a widget used by every single kid in the country, say 50 million, and it killed 5,000 of them, versus product Y which is a widget used by 2000 kids, ALL of whom were killed by it, I think it's clear which product is more dangerous.

Further, I'm not for banning guns, I'm just against people claiming that if everyone owned guns there would be fewer shootings. CCW is fine now because from what I've read only about 1% of the pop bother getting CCW permits. If everyone had guns, there'd be more shootings. I don't think it'd be chaos, but I do think it'd be kinda like the old west. Ok, maybe not that bad, but there would be an increase. Maybe a decrease in the death toll of Columbine type shootings, but increases in a variety of others.

Yes, sorry about the typo. I mean "banning product X would save more kids." I think people should focus on saving lives, not what is "more dangerous". Let say that there was a he-man action figure being sold and used by every kid in the country, but the action figure was a choking hazard causing 5k kids to die each year. Lets also say that there was a Barbie action figure that was only used by a smaller portion of the population but only caused 2k kids to die. I say ban the he-man action figures. By banning the more popular item you save more people. Instead of 5k kids dead at the end of the year, only 2k kids died. You actually save 3k people. Which product is "more dangerous" should not be in the equation.

Yes, with more guns there will be more gun violence. But most pro-firearms folks aren't debating that. Most are saying with more firearms, the total number of violent crime would go down. Pro-firearm folks claim that women, the elderly and the infirmed will be able to better protect themselves.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: rudder
In 2005 there were 3,582 unintentional drownings in the U.S. We need to ban swimming.

Amen.

Out of how many swimmers/bathers in situations where drowning is possible? 300 million people taking baths or going swimming in pools/oceans/lakes, or boating/jetskiing, kayaking, etc? 3500 deaths out of how many hundreds of millions of possibilities for such deaths?

Comparison Fail.

There's plenty of legit arguments for gun ownership, so I never get why people descend into horrible inapplicable comparisons.

I would wager that more households have firearms then swimming pools.