Obviously, there's no way to prove it one way or the other, but there are enough studies on the problems with the accuracy of opt in Internet surveys with paid participants to not automatically accept the results. http://www.websm.org/db/12/16868/Web Survey Bibliography/Guest_Blog_More_on_the_Problems_with_Optin_Internet_Surveys/ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHMvbP-zzsrZru3fmFnARVWvyNb-A A recent Pew survey, not opt in, which can yield more accurate results, shows ownership at 44% of households. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-gun-ownership-rises-to-44-of-all-homes/article/2600319
What? There are academic watchdogs that have no problem finding fraud in academia. NONE. ZERO. It's one of the reasons that there are financial disclosure rules in the US. A very ridiculous statement on your part.
Get back to me when Colt or Smith & Wesson manufactures a car for the sole purpose of killing people, m'kay?
Are you now claiming that a gun has the sole purpose of killing people? Your point was that owning a gun adds risk to your life. Owning and driving a car adds more risk to your life. It's hypocritical to attack the risk of owning a gun while accepting the risk of owning a car.
Which point was that - that surveys using paid opt in participants have an inherent bias, or that current household gun ownership is up to 44% according to Pew Research?
Trying to pretend that the purpose of a gun is not to kill? Given that kind of extremist irrational gun fetish response it is patently obvious that nothing will be gained from any further interaction on this topic. Have a nice day!
My guns must be defective. They haven't even wounded anyone. My guns were bought to be a deterrent to my family being robbed, raped, or killed. It's worked so far.
Why is your gun a deterrent? What makes it a deterrent to an intruder intent upon harming your family?
You said "sole purpose of killing people". Are you now distancing yourself from that claim? It would be understandable if you did, as it is completely unsupportable. I have a double digit number of firearms, all of which are used regularly and none have been ever used to kill a person. Nearly all of them would never be used for that purpose. I do have two handguns purchased for concealed carry, and I bought them for the purpose of self defense. The remainder were bought for the express purpose, and were designed for, hunting, competition and training.
Drowning kills the most kids. So do you want to fill all pools with cement ?? Car crashes kills the next most kids. So do you want to outlaw cars ?? Drownings and cars kill thousands of more kids than guns do. Why would you jump right to 3rd place and ignore #1 and #2 ??
Guns are not toys, therefore kids (anyone under 18 ) should not have access to guns. Parents should protect their kids. To protect their kids parents need their own guns. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.
It's good to know you aren't a criminal. Most criminals try to avoid being shot and steer toward unarmed victims. The fact that so many Texans are armed and very likely to be no billed in a self defense shooting is a huge deterrent to home invasions and carjackings.
Same is even true in places with stupid Gun laws, you need to understand how to Legally obtain and carry the means of your defense. Expensive ? Yes. Proper ? No. Best; Vermont. Worst ? Washington D.C. Other Countries vary, still possible as a Police agent of some sort, Interpol in Europe.
In other words the deterrent purpose of your gun is to shoot someone who poses a threat. In your opinion would your gun be a deterrent if it didn't have the ability to potentially kill the criminal?
As a Police Officer, the purpose of a sidearm is threat elimination, not killing. The presence of Arms is a deterrent.
