The stat actually includes everything - suicides, accidental discharge while cleaning, accidental discharge while loading, accidental discharge due to a broken trigger or mechanism, a kid finding a loaded gun, etc.
And this is why this stat is not a deterrent to gun owners. They know if they are careful they reduce their risk to as minimal as possible. And they consciously decide to take that risk. Yes, some are more careful than others, but no human is the same as another, so that is expected.
…everyone should be assumed to be an idiot and have their rights and ability for effective personal defense taken away. That is defining deviancy down; a horrible way to make laws.
Fundamentally, if gun control is defined by “the lowest common denominator,” then everyone should have their car keys taken away given the millions of idiotic drunk drivers causing accidents and deaths.
Applying the more extreme gun control logic to driving: If everyone cannot be the most careful while owning a gun, then no one should own a gun. Ergo, if everyone cannot drive a car sober, then no one should drive a car.
The ones who are careless are not only deciding to take the risk, they are also forcing the risk on everyone else. Yet you insist that careless, incompetent gun owners should still be allowed to own guns and present a danger to the rest of us, who did not consciously agree to take the risk they’re foisting on us.
In contrast, in my eyes, I would have failed if I diid not give my wife and kids a chance to protect themselves against an unknown and that unknown occurred. And since I have not fully developed my time machine yet to look into the future, I will not assume nothing strange would ever happen.
And I live in some extremely safe places where nothing seems to happen, but being prepared if something does happen is a choice I make.
My parents (86 and 75), have decided to get some stun guns. My dad wants one for every room, my mom says that is ridiculous, but is willing to get one for every floor of the house. I’m glad that at least they have decided to get something better than the axe that they almost used against us when we snuck in and out of the house, 40 years ago.
First the NYT, now the Wash Post confirms - a majority has decided not to be defenseless cannon fodder given the government cannot stop terrorists and others.
Hey, like I said, I’m all for thread creep, because really everything is related. I just didn’t see the connection.
And that reminds me, did I tell you how great Indian Wells, Chateau St Michelle Cabernet is? There has got to be some connection to this thread! Yes, post #649 mentioned an Indian. (Just kidding!)
Nevertheless, your time machine tells you that none of the four members of your family (two of whom are quite young) will ever become suicidal. Interesting.
“Defenseless cannon fodder”? Who uses a cannon these days? All a government or terrorist organization has to do is shut down the electrical grid, or shut off the water supply.
So in post #1237 the Gallup poll is mocked, but in # 1435 a poll is the bees knees. And if memory serves, the preteens fought off a home invader , and now it’s potential bears. And “defenseless cannon fodder” is, to quote the thread lecturer, hyperbole.
Who said the argument is over because of polls? No one I know.
What the polls do show is all the pontifications of gun control people cannot rewrite the reality that people live and see. After seeing fellow citizens shot by terrorists and others, and the government also being responsible for letting people who profess to kill us into the country, people have deduced they have to defend themselves and not be dependent on government and on statistics that guns in the home are not safe. Well, I can tell you the guns in my house are way safer for my family than every time we get into our cars and drive 50 miles.
To show how stats are literally useless in assessing how people respond to risk - a person had a higher risk of injury and death walking in Southside Chicago (and Baltimore too) than walking around cities in Afghanistan and Iraq during the wars. How many people does one think he can convince to walk in a war zone? Like none. In Chicago, plenty.
Comparing guns in the house to highway auto safety is apples and oranges. And it’s seems the “pontificating” is not on the side of those who want to see improved gun safety or gun control. And as many have said, an anecdotal report is not the same as data.
320 million people in the US. Roughly 3.7 million burglaries per year (US DOJ, Bureau of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey). Someone was at home during 28% of burglaries. About 12% of all occupants home during a burglary faced a person with a firearm. 65% of burglars were known to their victims. Households of people residing in single family units are less likely to be burglarized while someone is at home than multiple unit homes. Shannan Catalano, PhD, BJS Statistician, Sept 2010, “Victimization During Household Burglary.”
In other words, if you happen to be one of the unlucky 1 in 4 who is at home during a burglary and you shoot the burglar, there is a 2 out of 3 chance you are shooting someone you know, and a 9 out of 10 chance that person is unarmed.
