yet another stupid death in children gun related accident...yes, in USA of course.

[Beer]

Nice strawman. I would say it isn't worth a response, but I'll humor you.

1) wife's sister doesn't have kids
2) wife knows the rules about guns. She or I would move it before they get there.
3) kids can't unlock a safe.

I could retort with a "what would you do if someone broke in and was going to rape your family and all you had was a little stick" question, but that would be a stupid retort, and I try to avoid those.

In the future, avoid strawmen type questions. They don't work.

Ah, you left out the fact about it being in a safe. " I keep a gun under my bed" seems moronic. I'm glad you aren't that moronic. Sorry I don't know the details of your family. I assumed you could draw some parallels between the reality of your family dynamics and things that are definitely possible in any given day.

 

[Beer]

Nice strawman. I would say it isn't worth a response, but I'll humor you.



I could retort with a "what would you do if someone broke in and was going to rape your family and all you had was a little stick" question, but that would be a stupid retort, and I try to avoid those.

In the future, avoid strawmen type questions. They don't work.

Children showing up at your house is a bit more common than mad rapists breaking in and raping entire families.

But to humor you .... I would let him rape me first, I would then clench my butt cheeks thus trapping him. I would then roll over and slam the back of my head into his face repeatedly knocking him unconscious. I would then beat him to death with said small stick. Then I would call the cops to come get the body off of my property.

 

[Hantlers]

Ah, you left out the fact about it being in a safe. " I keep a gun under my bed" seems moronic. I'm glad you aren't that moronic. Sorry I don't know the details of your family. I assumed you could draw some parallels between the reality of your family dynamics and things that are definitely possible in any given day.

I do keep a gun under my bed. In the highly unlikely case somebody breaks in, I'm not going to have time to get to and open a safe. I like to be prepared, for anything.

 

[moevillini]

So how would you know if I was dumb then?

your user name


if you had any serious claim to intelligence you would have chosen something like Lager, IPA or Homebrew

 

[Hantlers]

I'm arguing with a retard. I'm done.

 

[Beer]

your user name


if you had any serious claim to intelligence you would have chosen something like Lager, IPA or Homebrew

I prefer a good IPA, but I am certainly not one to be picky.

 

[Beer]

I do keep a gun under my bed. In the highly unlikely case somebody breaks in, I'm not going to have time to get to and open a safe. I like to be prepared, for anything.

Nevermind, you are definitely a doofus.

 

[Hantlers]

A recent study of all counties in the United States has again
demonstrated the lack of relationship between the prevalence
of firearms and homicide.130
This inverse correlation is one of several that seems to
contradict more guns equal more death. For decades the
gun lobby has emphasized that, in general, the American
jurisdictions where guns are most restricted have consis‐
tently had the highest violent crime rates, and those with
the fewest restrictions have the lowest violent crime rates.131
For instance, robbery is highest in jurisdictions which are
most restrictive of gun ownership.132As to one specific con‐
trol, the ban on carrying concealed weapons for protection,
“violent‐crime rates were highest in states [that flatly ban
carrying concealed weapons], next highest in those that al‐
lowed local authorities discretion [to deny] permits, and
lowest in states with nondiscretionary” concealed weapons
laws under which police are legally required to license
every qualified applicant.133 Also of interest are the exten‐
sive opinion surveys of incarcerated felons, both juvenile
and adult, in which large percentages of the felons replied
that they often feared potential victims might be armed and
aborted violent crimes because of that fear.134 The felons
most frightened about confronting an armed victim were
those “from states with the greatest relative number of pri‐
vately owned firearms.”135

A Harvard peer reviewed study. No biggie.

https://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

 

[fishonjazz]

She or I would move it before they get there.

Ever had someone show up at your house without telling you they coming first?

 

[fishonjazz]

A recent study of all counties in the United States has again
demonstrated the lack of relationship between the prevalence
of firearms and homicide.130
This inverse correlation is one of several that seems to
contradict more guns equal more death. For decades the
gun lobby has emphasized that, in general, the American
jurisdictions where guns are most restricted have consis‐
tently had the highest violent crime rates, and those with
the fewest restrictions have the lowest violent crime rates.131
For instance, robbery is highest in jurisdictions which are
most restrictive of gun ownership.132As to one specific con‐
trol, the ban on carrying concealed weapons for protection,
“violent‐crime rates were highest in states [that flatly ban
carrying concealed weapons], next highest in those that al‐
lowed local authorities discretion [to deny] permits, and
lowest in states with nondiscretionary” concealed weapons
laws under which police are legally required to license
every qualified applicant.133 Also of interest are the exten‐
sive opinion surveys of incarcerated felons, both juvenile
and adult, in which large percentages of the felons replied
that they often feared potential victims might be armed and
aborted violent crimes because of that fear.134 The felons
most frightened about confronting an armed victim were
those “from states with the greatest relative number of pri‐
vately owned firearms.”135

A Harvard peer reviewed study. No biggie.

https://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Damn that is hard to read on my phone.

Crummy format. Made me want to shoot myself just trying to read it. Luckily I have a gun

 

[Scat]

I would let him rape me first, I would then clench my butt cheeks thus trapping him. I would then roll over and slam the back of my head into his face repeatedly knocking him unconscious. I would then beat him to death with said small stick. Then I would call the cops to come get the body off of my property.

Dutch Jazzer.... Is that you?

 

[Dumb Bloke]

Hypothetical here: You are at work. Your wife's sister comes over with their kids. Kids are dumb and stupid so they are playing around where they shouldn't be. They find a gun ... they find a clip ..... Now what?

Wife's sister should be sued or incarcerated for allowing her dumb little blokes to sneak into your guns. Back in the good old days they threw the shotgun over the front door and kept a rifle by the bed. We should be allowed to keep a loaded pistol within reach for when intruders come.

 

[Hantlers]

Ever had someone show up at your house without telling you they coming first?

I don't think you understand. I live in the middle of nowhere. Closest "neighbor" lives half a mile away, and it's my 92 year old grandma. People out here don't just drop by, they let you know.

So no, people that are here to talk/visit don't just drop by without letting us know.

 

[♪alt13]

Honest question for you and others.

What do you think the relative odds are of:
1. Somebody breaking into your house to steal something necessitating the use or threat of deadly force via a gun
2. An accidental discharge of a gun causing death or injury

I'm sure there are statistics on this somewhere.

Personally, I've never met anyone in my circle of acquaintances who ever had to fire or threaten to use a gun to protect their person or belongings.

I've personally known three people who have had an accidental gun discharge in their house, fortunately none with deadly outcomes.

I understand the desire to protect one's self, but I see it as a matter of relative risk. Both the above are low probability events, but I'm guessing accidental discharges occur with a significantly higher frequency than successful defenses of persons or property.

This is an empirical question, however, not one of ideology.

My own experience

1. When I was younger(before I had kids) me and my old lady rented a home. I worked quite a bit so she was the one that put it all together. The first week we were there at about 2 in the morning I awoke to a man opening our bedroom door. He passed up the TV, playstation, her purse, and everything else of value we had. He went straight to the bedroom. Luckily I watched a little too much Unsolved Mysteries as a child and I might be a hair paranoid. I was sleeping next to the best weapon I had at the time, a shovel. I reached for it, bounded from my bed, growled something I cannot remember, and charged. The man bolted out the way he came in.

I will never know for sure what his intentions were. I don't know if he saw something or someone that he wanted. I don't know if he realized that a man that was willing to fight lived there. I can be pretty sure though that if I wasn't there with a shovel it would have ended differently. Now maybe you would argue that shovels offer sufficient protection but I highly doubt that she would have been able to stop him with just a shovel.

2. I have never ever ever had a gun accidentally discharge in my home or anywhere else. I don't know anyone that has.

Statistically speaking

A quick google search brought up this article from Newsweek. I have chosen to link to it because it is from someone that seems to be at least leaning towards gun control. He points out that the estimates for how often a gun is used in defense depends on who you ask. Gun control advocates would say about 100,000 times/year and conservatives would say 2 million.

Even if we take the low estimate of 100,000 the argument that you are more likely to accidentally shoot someone than you are to use it for protection falls flat on its face. The Law Center to prevent gun violence claims that "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people".

If you want to advocate for gun control than the likelihood of accidental shootings vs self defense is not the argument you should be using.

 

[fishonjazz]

He points out that the estimates for how often a gun is used in defense depends on who you ask. Gun control advocates would say about 100,000 times/year and conservatives would say 2 million.

Wait a minute.
Are they including all the times each year that gun owners are defending themselves from squirrels, rabbits, deer and such?

 

[Hantlers]

Wait a minute.
Are they including all the times each year that gun owners are defending themselves from squirrels, rabbits, deer and such?

That number would need to be much, much higher.

 

[fishonjazz]

That number would need to be much, much higher.

I know. I was just funnin

 

[One Brow]

A Harvard peer reviewed study. No biggie.

Link had "Page not found".

Gun control is more prevalent in states with a higher population density, and so is crime. That doesn't mean gun control and crime are related, you have to remove the statistical effect of population density first.

After looking into this on and off, for years, the greatest single factor in the crime seems to be the proportion of young males in the population. Gun prevalence and gun control have almost no effect, in either direction. Guns do raise the stakes, by making both crimes and crime defense more deadly.

 

[One Brow]

My own experience

1. When I was younger(before I had kids) me and my old lady rented a home. I worked quite a bit so she was the one that put it all together. The first week we were there at about 2 in the morning I awoke to a man opening our bedroom door. He passed up the TV, playstation, her purse, and everything else of value we had. He went straight to the bedroom. Luckily I watched a little too much Unsolved Mysteries as a child and I might be a hair paranoid. I was sleeping next to the best weapon I had at the time, a shovel. I reached for it, bounded from my bed, growled something I cannot remember, and charged. The man bolted out the way he came in.

I will never know for sure what his intentions were. I don't know if he saw something or someone that he wanted. I don't know if he realized that a man that was willing to fight lived there. I can be pretty sure though that if I wasn't there with a shovel it would have ended differently. Now maybe you would argue that shovels offer sufficient protection but I highly doubt that she would have been able to stop him with just a shovel.

2. I have never ever ever had a gun accidentally discharge in my home or anywhere else. I don't know anyone that has.

Statistically speaking

A quick google search brought up this article from Newsweek. I have chosen to link to it because it is from someone that seems to be at least leaning towards gun control. He points out that the estimates for how often a gun is used in defense depends on who you ask. Gun control advocates would say about 100,000 times/year and conservatives would say 2 million.

Even if we take the low estimate of 100,000 the argument that you are more likely to accidentally shoot someone than you are to use it for protection falls flat on its face. The Law Center to prevent gun violence claims that "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people".

If you want to advocate for gun control than the likelihood of accidental shootings vs self defense is not the argument you should be using.

That's cooking the books just a little, since you are comparing accidental deaths (not all shootings) and ignoring the increased lethality in cases of suicide and domestic violence on the one hand, and comparing that to every single crime prevented, even the non-violent crimes.

 

[♪alt13]

That's cooking the books just a little, since you are comparing accidental deaths (not all shootings) and ignoring the increased lethality in cases of suicide and domestic violence on the one hand, and comparing that to every single crime prevented, even the non-violent crimes.

My post is a response to a specific question raised by jimmyeatjazz. It relates to his post. He framed the question not I. My final line "If you want to advocate for gun control than the likelihood of accidental shootings vs self defense is not the argument you should be using." I think shows that I was addressing his post rather than the overall merits of gun control.
.

Honest question for you and others.

What do you think the relative odds are of:
1. Somebody breaking into your house to steal something necessitating the use or threat of deadly force via a gun
2. An accidental discharge of a gun causing death or injury

I'm sure there are statistics on this somewhere.

Personally, I've never met anyone in my circle of acquaintances who ever had to fire or threaten to use a gun to protect their person or belongings.

I've personally known three people who have had an accidental gun discharge in their house, fortunately none with deadly outcomes.

I understand the desire to protect one's self, but I see it as a matter of relative risk. Both the above are low probability events, but I'm guessing accidental discharges occur with a significantly higher frequency than successful defenses of persons or property.

This is an empirical question, however, not one of ideology.

Edit: I could not find statistics on accidental shootings causing injury but I think we can extrapolate an approximate by looking at the number of deaths. If 50% of people who are accidentally shot die than the number of deaths and injuries would be around 1200.

25%=2400
10%=6000