I know you're desperate for me to be wrong, because it challenges your world view, but that doesn't make it so. Keep in mind the number of accidental deaths that are misclassified as homicide (minimizing the count of accidents while inflating the violent crime stats): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/u...nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130929&_r=1& And you believe this event is more common than a fistfight that causes a bloody and/or broken nose? I never said (or even implied) that ALL aggravated assault was related to pushing and punching. I simply said that pushing and punching is far more common than the type of aggravated assault that requires lethal force to prevent.
Nice to see a rational poster. Thanks for making some sense rather than ranting a bunch of bumper-sticker slogans. I agree that safety precautions and training are a key component of firearm safety and would add that these are key components to "well regulated" (taking "regulated" to mean trained). So why is any requirement related to training and/or safety equipment ravenously attacked by most pro-gun folks as the first step toward totalitarianism? Doesn't that sort of extremist paranoia automatically marginalize the pro-gun position and make it less likely to be supported by anyone that's looking for a rational solution to a societal problem? - - - Updated - - - Actually, yes... and I've only had to use it twice outside of sparring.
Of course, that's assuming we're not inflating the number of "violent crime" reports (such as homicide) while minimizing the number of "accidental shootings" recorded... As illustrated in the below, a number of medical examiners classify any "accidental shooting" that they feel is due to negligence as "homicide"... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/u...nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130929&_r=1&
Really? Which one of them illustrated that their interpretation of what the founding fathers meant was better than the founding fathers' direct explanation of what they meant? The notion that you prefer points that support your position has no bearing on reality. Nevertheless, I'm sure they appreciate having a cheerleader!
The New York Times is not a reputable source in the subject of firearms and crime. If your arguement is based on the NYT, its meaningless.
So according to that article, accidental gun deaths are under-reported by 50 percent. Okay, let's say they are. That means real accidental gun deaths in 2007 were ~1200 total. Again, with 310 million firearms in the United States, your odds of being killed by a firearm accidentally are .00000385. According to your own stats, the average person will be the victim of one violent crime in their life, other than aggravated assault. Those odds are a hell of a lot higher than being accidentally killed by a firearm. Again, the risk vs. reward analysis is clear: you're at more risk of serious bodily injury if you don't own a firearm for self defense than if you do. You're still wrong. Don't even get me started with the under-reported statistics of rape and sexual assault. (Which I 100% condone the use of lethal force to stop.)
3 examples does not make the case that a nation of 320 million people must enact national reforms. Thats assinine. Referencing an unpublished NYT "review" is worthless, particularly since the NYT is severely biased and politically motivated. Do you blindly trust Sean Hannity when he critiques a democrat? Not all sources are equal. But lets say the NYT is correct and there are twice as many accidental deaths of children - its still a statistical anomaly. There were around 600 accidental shooting deaths in 2012 (thats adults and children), double it and it is still a very small rate. All the NYT is trying to do is play the sympathy card, they pick a case and parade the child in front of the nation hoping to generate enough sympathy to get their agenda (banning guns) passed.
I am seventy-eight years old. I have a fake knee, two bad shoulders, COPD, as well as a pacemaker. You can place your martial arts in some dark place, and hope beyond hope your assailant doesn't have a firearm that would negate your martial arts before you had time to say 'Boo'.
Their is no alternative viewpoint than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That, Sir, is the entire crux of the matter.
You can use Kung Fu and deflect the bullets. I've seen it done on TV. I even saw Bruce Lee one time catch a bullet with his teeth.
Forgive me guys, I have kinda lost track of this thread. Are we really arguing here that .00000385% chance of an accidental firearm death is too much to warrant owning a gun? I would not mind entering the discussion, just not sure where to start with that.
Really? My business involves 80% of my customers paying cash. Most of the time, they pay me in full view of anyone who happens to be in the store at the time. I'd say carrying a firearm to prevent someone who saw that, and decided to relieve me of that money by following me to the parking lot in prudent, not paranoid. And my customers who know I carry (not all do) actually like it, because they know I'm added security for them while I'm in their stores. And invisible security at that, from a bad guy's perspective, I just look like a customer in line.
Who's more paranoid? - The man carrying a tool, in case he may need to use it as intended. or - The man that won't even own said tool because there is a chance he may injure himself with it?
Good post. More rejection of less than reliable sources are very good. Thanks - - - Updated - - - Good rebuttal. Statistics are always appropriate. Thanks
It depends on your basic safety level, and your prudence. For me, I think it's worth the low risk. Honestly, my main reason for self defense is on those occasions when the basic communications break down--aka the aftermath of hurricanes. The need for self defense is low, but, IMHO, the risk of having a gun in the house is also low. I've lived in a household with guns my entire 48 yrs of living. I've never had an unsafe situation with guns in those times. I'm a cautious man.
same here..sigh, I guess we don't fit into the statistics...............unless it is for good safety reasons. The balance of responsible gun owners still outnumbers the ones who do evil. I do know this, those who live their lives by "what if's" are never happy people. They tend to be rude and obnoxious and insulting about the fact that you aren't part of the problem. So they try to make you part of the problem. That is were their logic fails.
Had I not a firearm, loaded, and ready to fire my wife and I would both be dead. I am thankful my twice barreled shutz gun was ready and that the guy was still on the tile floor instead of the carpet or we would have had to get new carpet. I think it great most house breakers are not too smart and when he stuck his head through to door to look it got blown off with buck shot at close range. He had the hammer back ready to shoot his pistolo.
I agree that the responsibility of the owner and the safety precautions they take have a massive impact on the level or risk... That seems fairly obvious. So why don't we mandate training for owners, similar to the mandated training for drivers? We could use more cautious people who actually respect their firearms rather than treating them as toys.
