Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

[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.

I am, am I? The Stats already show the Higher Risk. You might have a point, perhaps they only apply under certain conditions, but until stats comparing specific conditions are worked out it is prudent to accept what is known and not what "might be".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

The possibilty exists, but is that more dangerous than getting killed by a Gun one keeps in the house? The False comparison though is that a Bathtub is not designed to Kill. It has an entirely different Purpose.

 

[ericlp]

This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Tho, if you want to be a gun owner and buy a hand gun, no problem, you get to wait 15 days then presto! Here ya go! Have fun! Why not make em take a safety course and read up on gun ethics to pass a written test about the gun they purchased and a correct way to clean/store/lock it. I'd feel a hell of a lot better knowing that someone understands what he/she just purchased.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Tho, if you want to be a gun owner and buy a hand gun, no problem, you get to wait 15 days then presto! Here ya go! Have fun! Why not make em take a safety course and read up on gun ethics to pass a written test about the gun they purchased and a correct way to clean/store/lock it. I'd feel a hell of a lot better knowing that someone understands what he/she just purchased.

Certainly a reasonable stipulation.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Tho, if you want to be a gun owner and buy a hand gun, no problem, you get to wait 15 days then presto! Here ya go! Have fun! Why not make em take a safety course and read up on gun ethics to pass a written test about the gun they purchased and a correct way to clean/store/lock it. I'd feel a hell of a lot better knowing that someone understands what he/she just purchased.

I'm all for something along these lines. The only problem is that a good portion of the people who purchase handguns are probably already familiar with gun safety, so it's kind of unfair IMO to force them to take a course on it. Giving people the option to test out would probably be a good idea, and people who were in the military, avid hunters, etc. could probably just be exempted from the test.

 

[1prophet]

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.

I hear similar arguments due to changing times (technology, internet, terrorism, drugs, pedophiles, corporate interests RIAA/MPAA, etc.) against the 4th amendment.

? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Tho, if you want to be a gun owner and buy a hand gun, no problem, you get to wait 15 days then presto! Here ya go! Have fun! Why not make em take a safety course and read up on gun ethics to pass a written test about the gun they purchased and a correct way to clean/store/lock it. I'd feel a hell of a lot better knowing that someone understands what he/she just purchased.

No offense but guns arn't quite as complicated as cars.



Rule # 1
Treat all guns as if they are loaded.

Rule # 2
Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy or kill.

Thats about it. Test on Monday.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: herm0016
yea, i am safer.

his opinion is based not on anyones research, but on the constitution. you are just trolling.

The constitution doesn't say what Scalia wrote. The court put off this issue over 200 years, and finally only issued a ruling that was 5-4 including the 4 radicals on the right.

He's hardly trolling to raise this issue for discussion. You're the one trolling with the response, since his topic was 'regardless of the right to, is it a good idea?' with a defense of the constitutional issue and not a word on his topic about whether you are safer with a handgun in the house.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

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.

What's wrong with being able to argue for your constitutional rights? I think yo're a lot better off if you are able to articulate why they're a good idea.

Who's saying you 'have to'? It's not as if you are hauled in front of a judge to get the right, it's a political discussion.

And ultimately anything in the constitution is one amendment away from removal.

But just politcally, it's better for those who want a right when the public agrees with rights, rather than opposing them.

For example, if you have the 'free speech' right to burn a flag, isn't it better the more Americans who accept that as a good right to have and support your right to do it even if they disagree with you on it, rather than having a flag-burning amendment be an effectibe rallying cry for the oppoinents, who use it to get out the vote of people who hold that view and elect politicians like Bush?

 

[ProfJohn]

A study of one county is not enough to make a good judgement for the entire country. Especially a county as liberal as King County.

Try doing the same study out in Texas or West Virginia etc. I am sure you will get different results. More than likely you will find that in places with lots of guns that the stats drop since the pool is much bigger.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Screw the statistics. I am fully aware of gun safety procedures and practice them. I am at minuscule risk from any firearms I might handle. I raised 4 kids who learned gun safety and proper shooting techniques at 5 or 6. My youngest was in kindergarten when he started helping me reload rounds after we came back from the range. My wife and I have had many fun times at turkey shoots with a large number of other shooters and never seen an accidental shooting there. Nor at the indoor pistol range. Nor at the trap field. Nor during deer season in W.V..

You want to protect stupid people from hurting themselves with guns, put a "stupid tattoo" on their foreheads and make it harder for them to get guns.

I'm more worried about the idiots that drive while on their cell phones, often with kids in the vehicle. I can't imagine shooting trap or popping holes in a target with a magnum while I'm on a cell phone.

 

[newnameman]

I'll let the NRA handle this one: Text

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Screw the statistics. I am fully aware of gun safety procedures and practice them. I am at minuscule risk from any firearms I might handle. I raised 4 kids who learned gun safety and proper shooting techniques at 5 or 6. My youngest was in kindergarten when he started helping me reload rounds after we came back from the range. My wife and I have had many fun times at turkey shoots with a large number of other shooters and never seen an accidental shooting there. Nor at the indoor pistol range. Nor at the trap field. Nor during deer season in W.V..

You want to protect stupid people from hurting themselves with guns, put a "stupid tattoo" on their foreheads and make it harder for them to get guns.

I'm more worried about the idiots that drive while on their cell phones, often with kids in the vehicle. I can't imagine shooting trap or popping holes in a target with a magnum while I'm on a cell phone.

And if every gun owner was like you, there would be no problems here. But, "screw the statistics" aside, there are clearly a lot of incredibly irresponsible gun owners out there. I don't think that's an argument against gun ownership, but I think it's at the very least an argument for doing SOMETHING to improve the situation. The fact that you and every other gun owner posting in this thread claims to be a responsible gun owner does nothing at all to change all the irresponsible gun owners out there. Clearly it's a problem, the solution just isn't as obvious as taking all the guns (as some anti-gun folks would argue) or as simple as totally ignoring the issue while claiming that it doesn't matter because YOU are safe with your guns (as the NRA crowd claims).

Edit: To use a useful analogy, it's like speed limits on the roads. Now I'd drive safe even if there were few traffic laws, but I also realize that not everyone would...so I'm fine with legal restrictions on driving even though I personally don't need them to be a good driver.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

yes and that is because you have the freedom to choose whether to have a gun or not, and that freedom should not be infringed upon because others can not or do not handle their freedom in a safe and productive manner.

If someone decides that they cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm, I encourage them not to have one. That is a choice they can make themselves. That's the meaning of freedom. As for myself, I choose my way.

Agreed.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Rainsford

And yet, they let you drive a car until you screw it up badly or often enough, then they take away your legal right to drive. I'm sure you would object to them preemptively taking away that privilege even though there are an awful lot of bad drivers out there. There are even a lot of people that willfully violate the driving laws to to the point of hazard.


Sure, let's do something about the idiots that have guns. What, beyond enforcing the current laws, I don't know. Just like I don't know how to keep hazardous drivers off the road. But I wouldn't ban guns anymore than I would cars. And quoting statistics about gun accidents is as useless for controlling gun ownership as it is to quote auto accident stats to keep people from driving. But, nevertheless, people quote the gun stats seldom for any reason but to suggest that no one should have them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

what he said.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

The possibilty exists, but is that more dangerous than getting killed by a Gun one keeps in the house? The False comparison though is that a Bathtub is not designed to Kill. It has an entirely different Purpose.

That doesn't make it a false comparison in the context you used.

You said you are more likely to have a gun accident if you own a gun. I am trying to point out that its a worthless statistic. Of course your more likely to have a gun accident if you actually have a gun. Just like your more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident if you actually own a motor vehicle.

Now if you want to compare the number of homes with guns to the number of gun accidents, that would not be a worthless statistic.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



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.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

The possibilty exists, but is that more dangerous than getting killed by a Gun one keeps in the house? The False comparison though is that a Bathtub is not designed to Kill. It has an entirely different Purpose.

That doesn't make it a false comparison in the context you used.

You said you are more likely to have a gun accident if you own a gun. I am trying to point out that its a worthless statistic. Of course your more likely to have a gun accident if you actually have a gun. Just like your more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident if you actually own a motor vehicle.

Now if you want to compare the number of homes with guns to the number of gun accidents, that would not be a worthless statistic.

Where did I say "accident"?

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Tho, if you want to be a gun owner and buy a hand gun, no problem, you get to wait 15 days then presto! Here ya go! Have fun! Why not make em take a safety course and read up on gun ethics to pass a written test about the gun they purchased and a correct way to clean/store/lock it. I'd feel a hell of a lot better knowing that someone understands what he/she just purchased.

Most people that buy guns already know how to clean / store / lock it. Every new gun comes with an owner's manual, and if you buy a used gun, the manufacturer will send you a new manual for free on request.

Further, most gun stores I have visited will happily go over the firearm to make sure you understand how to strip & clean it, and unusual features regarding its operation: It's in their interest to do so.

Most gun stores, especially those with ranges, have NRA-certified trainers that will also offer firearms safety and operational training for new gun owners.

Firearms and hunting safety used to be part of the curriculum in my Junior High school and High School. The libs worked hard to get it tossed.

You have proposed nothing new, neat, exciting, or different.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Where did I say "accident"?

Sigh, I have already proven you wrong but I'll bite.

You said the odds where of a person getting shot and killed where "much higher" if they had a gun in their home. Besides the obvious, that I pointed out above, lets look at the numbers.

1/3 of American households have guns in them. Thats what, 24,000,000 homes (according to us census data of owner occupied homes) or 60 million individual gun owners. Now your statement is making the connection that you (family member, whatever) are shot and killed BECAUSE you have a gun in your home. Besides accidental deaths what other data would you like to use?

In 2000 there where 776 deaths from gun accidents. Assuming ALL of them where due to a gun being in the home that would be roughly 1 in 31,000. For comparisons sake:


Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1

Odds of getting away with murder: 2 to 1

Odds of being the victim of serious crime in your lifetime: 20 to 1

Odds of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski


Where did I say "accident"?

Sigh, I have already proven you wrong but I'll bite.

You said the odds where of a person getting shot and killed where "much higher" if they had a gun in their home. Besides the obvious, that I pointed out above, lets look at the numbers.

1/3 of American households have guns in them. Thats what, 24,000,000 homes (according to us census data of owner occupied homes) or 60 million individual gun owners. Now your statement is making the connection that you (family member, whatever) are shot and killed BECAUSE you have a gun in your home. Besides accidental deaths what other data would you like to use?

In 2000 there where 776 deaths from gun accidents. Assuming ALL of them where due to a gun being in the home that would be roughly 1 in 31,000. For comparisons sake:


Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1

Odds of getting away with murder: 2 to 1

Odds of being the victim of serious crime in your lifetime: 20 to 1

Odds of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1

The thread is not about "accidents". It's about Gun Deaths. Many of those deaths are "Accidents", but many are not.