Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: ericlp
yep, all the numbers are wrong and you guys are spot on.


Good job!

It just boils down to whose numbers you use. There are other studies that show violent crime drops in areas with less restrictive gun laws. Rape stats dropped in areas where trained females were permitted to carry.

Common sense tells me that a properly trained homeowner (who also sees that his wife/children are also properly trained) with a gun is safer, or at least in a better position to defend his home & family, then one that is not.

Part of our "Health Class" in junior high school (Lansing, MI, late sixties) was firearms safety and hunting safety. Some of us even went to the range and were taught with live fire. Once you have an understanding, you tend to be much safer.

So, you believe the number you want to, and so will I.

 

[sandorski]

At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ericlp
yep, all the numbers are wrong and you guys are spot on.


Good job!

Well, you can start by telling how this fellow's numbers apply to me. Explain how my destiny is carved in his stone.

Research is supposed to show mediocrity, not exceptionalism. Only time will tell if you are an exception or fall in line with this study.

Which makes his study meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lemon law]

No the OP is totally accurate, I do have guns inside my home, but I have no children who come to my home. But if I were someone with children, I would be far more worried about them getting to my guns and those very guns were be under lock and key. And if some criminal then broke into my home, I would be over powered before I could get to my guns.

At the same time many of my neighbors are in my boat, they have guns and I don't worry about them attacking me, my damn worry is some idiot young adult will rob my home or their home while we are not there to defend it, and suddenly that idiot young adult will have firearms and become an deadly accident waiting to happen.

What part of the OP's statistic are possible to ignore?

 

[Vic]

The interpretation, of course.

The study makes an excellent case for gun safety and education. It does not make a good argument for laws restricting gun ownership.

 

[StageLeft]

I wouldn't say he's trolling. These stats are not the be all end all but to dismiss them outright is folly. I do think that the prevalence of guns decreases home invasions. Home invasions, AFAIK, are much less numerous in the US than in Canada/ england. i remember they appeared to happen all the time where I lived in Canada and to be invaded at night by an intruder is a trauma way up on the scale. We dont' have guns, though. If mrsskoorb would let me get one, i would get one. She won't but I don't fight it much because i know that the stats say the chances of me ever using it in defense are trivially small.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

That's your opinion. There are those who feel the same way about the Fourth Amendment. Statistically it's far more likely that you'll be killed by criminals who could be stopped by surveillance than it is that you'll die from warrantless wiretapping. It's archaic and needs to be rewritten in order to protect us from threats unforeseen by those who wrote the Constitution.

The Fourth is just a colossal error now.



Everyone should be entitled to whatever rights we think they should have, no?

No.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

 

[Perknose]

I happen to own four firearms. NONE make me feel safer in my home.

If you need a firearm to feel safe in your home, I feel sorry for your fearful and pathetic ass. Move somewhere safer or, please, just get some fucking therapy.

And, unless and until you can legally and without let or hindrance purchase stinger missles and/or other truly heavy ordnance, your pathetic lie to yourself that your 2nd amendment rights as presently construed protect you against the capricious wrath of the federal or state government in any meaningful way are a juvenile illusion.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Perknose
I happen to own four firearms. NONE make me feel safer in my home.

If you need a firearm to feel safe in your home, I feel sorry for your fearful and pathetic ass. Move somewhere safer or, please, just get some fucking therapy.

And, unless and until you can legally and without let or hindrance purchase stinger missles and/or other truly heavy ordnance, your pathetic lie to yourself that your 2nd amendment rights as presently construed protect you against the capricious wrath of the federal or state government in any meaningful way are a juvenile illusion.

I don't feel safer. I am safer. If you need a gun for emotional security, I agree.


What I disagree with is any notion that I have to justify any Constitutional right (and I know your aren't saying this). I don't need to explain to anti-gun people why I want one, no more than I should have to explain why I want warrants issued for wiretaps.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

You do not know that.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

They believe government should carry the guns for you.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

You do not know that.

Yes, I do. The Stastistics tell me so.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Perknose
I happen to own four firearms. NONE make me feel safer in my home.

If you need a firearm to feel safe in your home, I feel sorry for your fearful and pathetic ass. Move somewhere safer or, please, just get some fucking therapy.

And, unless and until you can legally and without let or hindrance purchase stinger missles and/or other truly heavy ordnance, your pathetic lie to yourself that your 2nd amendment rights as presently construed protect you against the capricious wrath of the federal or state government in any meaningful way are a juvenile illusion.

Kind of like a bunch of farmboys winning a war against one of the worlds superpowers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

You do not know that.

Yes, I do. The Stastistics tell me so.

Then you need to think about how statistics work. Case in point. There are so many traffic fatalities. Insurance companies will tell you that not all drivers are equal. So it is with gun owner, unless you have evidence that everyone who owns a handgun has the identical risk.

There are so many people who will develop diabetes. Statistics tell you how many. Those statistics do not tell you how the probabilities are distributed.

Now what do you know about the poster which allows you to categorize his personal risk relative to others?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

You do not know that.

Yes, I do. The Stastistics tell me so.

Then you need to think about how statistics work. Case in point. There are so many traffic fatalities. Insurance companies will tell you that not all drivers are equal. So it is with gun owner, unless you have evidence that everyone who owns a handgun has the identical risk.

There are so many people who will develop diabetes. Statistics tell you how many. Those statistics do not tell you how the probabilities are distributed.

Now what do you know about the poster which allows you to categorize his personal risk relative to others?

meh, do you havve Staistics stating otherwise?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

You do not know that.

Yes, I do. The Stastistics tell me so.

Then you need to think about how statistics work. Case in point. There are so many traffic fatalities. Insurance companies will tell you that not all drivers are equal. So it is with gun owner, unless you have evidence that everyone who owns a handgun has the identical risk.

There are so many people who will develop diabetes. Statistics tell you how many. Those statistics do not tell you how the probabilities are distributed.

Now what do you know about the poster which allows you to categorize his personal risk relative to others?

meh, do you havve Staistics stating otherwise?

I don't need them. You are making an extraordinary claim, in that you are stating a whole population of people are completely uniform. That would make your Statistics completely unique in all of history. Anyone who knows undergrad statistics isn't buying it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Only the Militia should have the right to bear arms, that's my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sandorski
At the time, the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. Now it is just a collossal error. It should be Amended right out or made much more specific back to the original intent.

How so?

Look around you. You are not Safer with it.

*looks around*

What are you talking about? Accident wise, there is absolutely no chance of me getting hurt. I've had guns for about 15 of my 20 years, and know quite well the procedure for dealing with them.

I'm never been in a situation where I've needed a weapon for my safety, but I damned well feel better than going into a gun fight with nothing but my fists.

I'm not saying you will get shot/killed, but you are at a much higher risk of it. Whether you feel "safe" or not.

You do not know that.

Yes, I do. The Stastistics tell me so.

You are at a much higher risk of drowning in a bathtub if you actually own a bathtub.

The statistics you claim are worthless. I bet people that own motor vehicles are statistically much more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Only the Militia should have the right to bear arms, that's my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I must have missed your minority opinion that you wrote for the SCOTUS.

 

[Zebo]

The reason is simple: A gun kept loaded and readily available for protection may also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse or a depressed teen.

And that's the guns fault? Knives, machetes (see Africa) pills and baseball bats would be used instead by these reprobates.

Trying to correct societal ills by banning tools is misplaced IMO and the peer-review fails to take into account alternate destructive devices if guns were banned.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ericlp
yep, all the numbers are wrong and you guys are spot on.


Good job!

Well, you can start by telling how this fellow's numbers apply to me. Explain how my destiny is carved in his stone.

Research is supposed to show mediocrity, not exceptionalism. Only time will tell if you are an exception or fall in line with this study.

Which makes his study meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

Vic's point is spot on. I think if you have a gun in your home, you need to take extra extra precondition unless you want to become a statistic.