Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Gallstones]

Wild Turkey burns less and it's tastier.

[Seth]

on the premise that 0.0003% of them are wounded and 0.00002% of them are killed

Re-do your maths, Seth.
no one here is going to let you get away with adding a couple of zero's to make the numbers look more in your favour.
And as I calculated earlier, 100,000 people per year receiving a bullet means that, over the average life time, one in 50 Americans are shot. That is not an insignificant number. it is an appallingly high number.

Do the maths? You do the maths. Divide 100,000 by 300,000,000. Let us know what you get for an answer.

And your extrapolation is complete bullshit too.

Of course so is your claim. Let me guess, you got your "data" directly from the Brady Campaign website.

Here's what their "fact sheet" says:

* The Brady Campaign averaged the most recent three years of data from death certificates (2008-2010) and
estimates of emergency room admissions (2009-2011) ava
ilable via CDC’s National Cent
er for Injury Prevention
and Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System,
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
. Data
retrieved 12/28/12. Numbers may not sum to 100%
because of rounding. **Es
timate may be unstable.
1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005
i
(202) 898-0792
i
FAX (202) 371-9615
http://www.bradycampaign.org
THERE ARE TOO MANY VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
As a nation, we are better than this
IN ONE YEAR ON AVERAGE*
(all ages)

Over 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents, or by police intervention.

Here's the bullshit: Note how the "statistoid" is phrased, it includes crime victims, suicides, accidents and police shootings all lumped together as if they all mean the same thing.

First, I've disposed of the "suicides & suicide attempts" already. What someone does to themselves is irrelevant when it comes to making policy decisions about whether others may be armed for self defense is a red-herring argument.

Second, when it comes to crime victims, including murder victims, history has shown that the more law-abiding citizens who carry guns for self defense and are therefore able to prevent or thwart such crimes, the fewer crimes are perpetrated. So using gun crime statistics to argue that fewer people should be legally armed is horseshit logic.

Third, as for "accidents," the "factoid sheet" says "584 people are killed accidentally."

That's 584 people out of 300,000,000, or 0.00000194666667% of the population. No public policy other than encouraging gun safety education is needed to deal with gun accidents, and the single most effective organization in gun safety education on earth is the National Rifle Association, which has been almost single-handedly responsible for the 98% drop in gun accidents since 1904.

As for "police intervention," it's incredibly stupid to even include police shootings of criminals in a "factoid sheet" about "gun violence" and there's fewer of those than accidental shootings, so it's insignificant to begin with.

As usual, your logic is faulty and your conclusions are crap.

[Blind groper]

Do the maths? You do the maths. Divide 100,000 by 300,000,000. Let us know what you get for an answer.

Seth

You presented your result as a percentage. That is not simply 300,000,000 divided by 100,000. There is another factor of 100 - two zeroes. A percentage. Get it? If you want to lecture me on maths, learn a little basic maths first. I am sure there is an elementary school near where you live that would be happy to teach you the basics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He was fractionally correct.

[MrJonno]

As for "police intervention," it's incredibly stupid to even include police shootings of criminals in a "factoid sheet" about "gun violence" and there's fewer of those than accidental shootings, so it's insignificant to begin with.

Love the way you may out that the police shooting criminals is such a normal event, in a functioning society a criminal is more likely to die of a heart attack from fright than be shot at by a policeman. I doubt if your average British policeman has ever seen a gun carrying criminal never mind had to think about shooting them

[Blind groper]

I've disposed of the "suicides & suicide attempts" already. What someone does to themselves is irrelevant

That opinion applies only for callous, evil, nasty scumbag assholes.

Normal and decent people do care about what happens to would-be suicides. I have some personal experience here, knowing several people who attempted and failed at suicide, and knowing one guy who succeeded. I have also read up on the research done by academics researching suicide.

What happens is that a person who is depressed tries to end the pain, and attempts suicide. If they fail, they will probably never make the attempt again, and most will live through the bout of depression, and regain a level of contentment. Those suicide survivors become normal and reasonably happy people mainly, and live normal lives. Any attempt at suicide is a tragedy, and only a total asshole will suggest that the fate of a would-be suicide is unimportant.

[Blind groper]

history has shown that the more law-abiding citizens who carry guns for self defense and are therefore able to prevent or thwart such crimes, the fewer crimes are perpetrated. .

Not history.
That is what the great gun fraud John Lott claims. Other academics point out that their research shows the opposite.

[Blind groper]

National Rifle Association, which has been almost single-handedly responsible for the 98% drop in gun accidents since 1904.

The NRA is a weird organisation. It is true that there was a time when it devoted much effort, successfully, to gun safety. But it changed. It is now a paranoid and destructive force. It has turned its efforts to trying to make it easy for criminals to get hold of guns and shoot people, and opposes any effort to stop that happening.

[Seth]

I've disposed of the "suicides & suicide attempts" already. What someone does to themselves is irrelevant

That opinion applies only for callous, evil, nasty scumbag assholes.

Normal and decent people do care about what happens to would-be suicides.

I respect their human right to end their life if they can no longer tolerate it. I reject using the potential that someone else may successfully commit suicide with a gun as a justification for taking firearms from anyone else. While I may sympathize with their pain and despair, and I encourage anyone contemplating suicide to seek medical attention, I'm not going to allow my right to keep and bear arms to be infringed because someone, somewhere, sometime might misuse a firearm to commit suicide. That's exactly the same thing as saying that we must ban rope, knives and pharmaceuticals for everyone because someone might kill themselves with it. It's asinine to even suggest it.

I have some personal experience here, knowing several people who attempted and failed at suicide, and knowing one guy who succeeded. I have also read up on the research done by academics researching suicide.

So don't keep a gun in YOUR house, but don't presume to tell me (or anyone else) that we cannot keep and bear arms because YOU, or some person you know MIGHT one day commit suicide. That's the essence of not seeing the forest for the trees and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's idiocy.

What happens is that a person who is depressed tries to end the pain, and attempts suicide. If they fail, they will probably never make the attempt again, and most will live through the bout of depression, and regain a level of contentment. Those suicide survivors become normal and reasonably happy people mainly, and live normal lives. Any attempt at suicide is a tragedy, and only a total asshole will suggest that the fate of a would-be suicide is unimportant.

It might be important to you, or to them, or to their friends and family, but it's not important enough to me to allow the sacrifice of my natural human right to be armed for self defense. Sorry, but it's just not.

[Seth]

history has shown that the more law-abiding citizens who carry guns for self defense and are therefore able to prevent or thwart such crimes, the fewer crimes are perpetrated. .

Not history.
That is what the great gun fraud John Lott claims. Other academics point out that their research shows the opposite.

But they are wrong, and biased, and cooked their numbers to support a pre-determined conclusion, so their conclusions are rejected.

[Seth]

National Rifle Association, which has been almost single-handedly responsible for the 98% drop in gun accidents since 1904.

The NRA is a weird organisation. It is true that there was a time when it devoted much effort, successfully, to gun safety. But it changed.

It's added staunch defense of gun owner's rights to it's agenda, but it hasn't given up or decreased it's efforts towards gun safety and training.

It is now a paranoid and destructive force.

You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you, and it's perfectly clear that Obama, Feinstein and their ilk are absolutely and unquestionably out to get gun owners. So that's called "reasonable fear" not "paranoia," and destruction of the liberal agenda of infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights is absolutely what they are after, and that's what we, the members, WANT them to be about.

It has turned its efforts to trying to make it easy for criminals to get hold of guns and shoot people, and opposes any effort to stop that happening.

You lie.

[Blind groper]

history has shown that the more law-abiding citizens who carry guns for self defense and are therefore able to prevent or thwart such crimes, the fewer crimes are perpetrated. .

Not history.
That is what the great gun fraud John Lott claims. Other academics point out that their research shows the opposite.

But they are wrong, and biased, and cooked their numbers to support a pre-determined conclusion, so their conclusions are rejected.

No. The correct statement is to say that John Lott claims they are wrong. But John Lott is a self serving person who has to say that or admit he was wrong. Which he never will do.

it's perfectly clear that Obama, Feinstein and their ilk are absolutely and unquestionably out to get gun owners.

Obama and his allies want what is best for the American people. For the reasons I have repeated a thousand times, it is clear that total gun freedom is not the best thing. So they want to introduce reasonable restrictions to cut the slaughter of innocents. Personally, I think they are too moderate. Nothing short of a complete ban on hand guns will cut the murder rate by an appreciable margin.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

Obama and his allies want what is best for the American people. For the reasons I have repeated a thousand times, it is clear that total gun freedom is not the best thing. So they want to introduce reasonable restrictions to cut the slaughter of innocents. Personally, I think they are too moderate. Nothing short of a complete ban on hand guns will cut the murder rate by an appreciable margin.

They also have to be politically realistic - there is clearly no way that complete bans would fly in the current (or foreseeable in the near future) American milieu. In fact, it seems that even his current moderate proposals may be stalled indefinitely...

[rainbow]

He is. But the nut cases live on!

Yeah, but I'm optimistic that there will be a day when there are no more nutcases spouting obsolete Freudian psychoanalytic babble.

I'd rather be optimistic about people not having the mental and physical inadequacies that make them want to own a gun.

[FBM]

He is. But the nut cases live on!

Yeah, but I'm optimistic that there will be a day when there are no more nutcases spouting obsolete Freudian psychoanalytic babble.

I'd rather be optimistic about people not having the mental and physical inadequacies that make them want to own a gun.

I own guns. What do you perceive to be my mental and physical inadequacies? Not saying I don't have any, only that none that I know of contribute to my enjoyment of the sports that involve guns.