I have, but I was military. In civilian life, once, but I didn't have one. How many times have you needed fire insurance? Life insurance?
Yes. Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. So they're unsafe. One of America's reckless gun groups are the police. Storage of guns is not taken seriously hence why kids shoot another sibling and/or parent. People who run their theories and opinions on hunches and guesses, like yourself, are often further away from what's actual/reality/facts. Just a suggestion, just do some research, look for studies by psychologists, Universities, research centres etc.. and avoid newspapers. The only one advantage of a newspaper is that it might include a link to a more robust source. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...un-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/ Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says
LOL. You really think that works, kid? This isn't high school. Correct, so where is the data from your "hypothesis testing"? I'm still waiting.
The study in question focused on individuals who were engaged in criminal activity while carrying a firearm at the time, rather than private citizens with no criminal connections, who were doing nothing but minding their own business. therefore the study is as false as the findings of Arthur Kellermann.
Anti-gun proponents, especially young and inexperienced ones, often make the rookie mistake of taking one bit of information then twisting it to fit their world view.
The data would encompass thousands, encompassing random sample methods. Are you really that innocent over how firearm research is undertaken?
So? It's meaningless unless that data was assessed and analyzed. You admit you don't have it. No worries. You are entitled to your opinion.
Denial and insults don't work in the adult world, kid. If you want to say it's your opinion, fine. If you want to claim facts, then you need to bring facts. If you don't, then it just proves you're an empty sack.
And you wondered why I asked you to define reckless and unsafe. One major flaw in that study is they lump law abiding CCW holders such as myself with drug dealers and gang members. https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/10/26/anti-gun-study-filled-with-flaws-and-bias/ Evidence? Out of a total of 900,000 law enforcement personal, there have been a total of a little over 900 people, killed by police with the vast majority being justified. That's not relevant to whether carrying everyday is reckless unless you're answering my original question as to what do you consider reckless. In which case, while leaving a loaded firearm unattended within easy access of a child is reckless, it's not however the epidemic the media wants to make it out to be. More children die from drowning than from accidentally shootings themselves, their siblings, or friends. Where did I made any accusation or claim that wasn't backed up by evidemce and studies? When a study is funded by a known gun control advocate, I have every right to not take the study at face value.
I dissed the report because there were flaws in the methods they used to come to that conclusion. Feel free to address any of the concerns brought up by the article I presented if you feel that your article was dissmissed unfairly.
The report is not a report, or a study, but rather an opinion piece presented by someone trying to hide behind their academic credentials for the sake of furthering a political narrative.
That's why it's important to watch these guys and take a close look at their study. While it's truthful data, as you mentioned, they like to fluff up their numbers by lumping in inappropriate categories. In this case, lawful gun carriers with criminals. In general, they scream about "Over 30,000 gun deaths" but neglect to point out 21,000 of those "gun deaths" are suicides. It'd be more honest, and less deceiving, to clearly break the numbers into murders, suicides and accidents.
You missed the point. The non-American guy (Nonnie) was wanting to get a gun to be in Florida. People on tourist visas can buy guns if they are on a hunting trip.
Probably correct. After all, the more fire engines that show up at a fire, the more damage is usually done to the building..... People who carry often have a reason to do so, and that is they live in less than safe circumstances. My bet would be that police officers are similarly more likely to be shot. That, and I can't find information on that almost ten year old article. I don't know what the population was. For all I know, most of the people who were "victims" of gun violence were gangbangers.
I thought you lefties were all about science. Part of science is to critically analyze research articles to find their shortcomings before you make erroneous assumptions based on those articles. Considering this article is almost ten years old, and isn't being used by anti-gunners recently, I'm sure that it is basically a study of criminal victims of gun violence, rather than otherwise law-abiding victims of gun violence.
