Summations Only

But that's not what I said, Percy. What I said (at least in the part you quoted) is that you are more likely to die in a car accident when going to pick up supper than you are to die from skipping supper that night.Yet we all go to pick up supper.And some of us actually do end up dying in a car accident on our way to do so.My point is that we don't live our lives according to the golden rules of statistical probabilities. Sometimes we weigh in the probabilities, but other timesmany other timeswe simply ignore them.So citing statistics of how likely someone is to shoot off their own foot with a gun vs. defend themselves is no more effective at deterring gun ownership than citing statistics that someone is more likely to die in a car accident picking up supper is effective at deterring people from eating supper.Bottom line: there is more involved in the decision to own a gun than just the probabilities of XYZ. Absolutely. And people could be trained to use them more safely too, as they are with automobiles.

A car's intended purpose is not to hurt or kill criminals, nor anyone else. In other words, a car's purpose is not personal protection. Please see my Message 3480. How are you defining the term "responsible gun owner"? Responsible gun owners would want strong guns laws that keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners, they'd want safer guns, and they'd want effective answers to the problem of how one keeps a gun available for protection while making misuse and theft very unlikely. How many "responsible gun owners" are there exactly?Based on the discussion here I'd guess the answer is "a very tiny percentage of gun owners," so given the lack of responsible gun owners I'd have to agree with your statement that it is more likely for people to be killed by a motor vehicle driven by an irresponsible operator than by a gun wielded by a "responsible gun owner."Also based on the discussion here it seems that to a gun nut the definition of a responsible gun owner is "me!" And the definition of an irresponsible gun owner is anyone who makes the news injuring or killing someone or ones.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Jon,I'm not sure why you think you have an effective argument there. You can decide to ignore the statistics, but the statistics clearly say that owning a gun increases your risk of being a gun victim.--Percy

What argument?I am simply pointing out that real people don't live their lives by the strict standards of statistical probabilities.The statistics that owning a gun is more likely to get you shot than protect you have as little bearing on some folks' decisions to own guns as the statistics that you're more likely to die in a car accident than starve to death skipping one meal have on the decision to go get supper, i.e., none.Folks bringing statistics into the debate need to be honest about the relevancy of the statistics and their overall weight in the decision-making process of regular human beings.

And you are correct. The problem lies in, "how far" do we let the government go, in deciding gun laws? There are those who think the government is all-knowing and will only do things that are "good" for the people. But they proven, again and again, that they would rather over-regulate than under-regulate. They put riders on every bill that gets passed. They can't leave a simple law alone, and before you know it ... they are taking your liberties ... not protecting them.Case in point ... any cigarette smokers here? How many live in cities that don't allow smoking, even in outdoor public spaces? How much do you pay for your smokes ... because they decided to make you pay more taxes to light up?We don't argue against BETTER regulations ... we argue against run-away regulating.

Curiously I find the juxtaposition of your comments re the Jade Helm 15 military exercise government takeover conspiracy (you forgot the tunnels under the Walmarts btw) and your comments on Open-minded Skepticism rather amusing: Now I do note that you have changed position - somewhat - on Jade Helm 15, but your initial take on was not skeptical - apparently you only looked deeper when the reality of the conspiracy controversy was questioned. Let me introduce you to one of my pet concepts: the worldview cognitive dissonance bubble -- everyone has a worldview (made up of what they know and what they believe) and new information that conforms to that worldview is readily accepted into their bubble, while information that runs contrary to it is not easily accepted (if not rejected outright), Like a bubble-boy that is protected from pathogens by living in a large plastic bubble. See Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs. The cognitive dissonance arises when evidence contradicts beliefs. One way to "resolve" the dissonance is to reject the evidence, another much harder way is to change your belief/s. Where to start ...The tax incentives (read give-aways) to large corporations, like oil companies, exceeds the total money spent on social programs, education and scientific research. The tax refunds to rich people in loop-holes and bush give-aways also exceeds the total money spent on social programs, education and scientific research.The money spent on the military budget in the US exceeds that of the next 10 largest countries combined -- including Russia and China.The people that pay the most taxes are the middle class workers. They pay for the tax cuts for the rich, they pay for the war debts, they pay for the food stamps that allow people working at poverty level jobs (like Walmart) to live (ie -- we subsidize Walmart, and all the other companies that don't pay a living wage while they pad their corporate profit pockets)The biggest expansion of government has been under republican presidents. Clinton and Gore reduced the government workforce and left a surplus. Bush gave it away and then started two unfinanced wars that quickly put the government back in debt.Now I'm fairly sure that you have seen things like this: What's your take? And yet I wonder what else you have accepted as valid information, especially regarding the availability of guns without license or background checks. The whole "they're coming to take away your guns" is a conspiracy theory. Registering guns is not a database collected as a "prelude" to coming for your guns. Background check are also not part of a scheme to take guns from legal citizens. Personally I think that the last registered owner of a gun used in a crime should be held accountable, bear some responsibility for the crime (aiding and abetting?) and I think you should be required to carry "wrongful or accidental death and injury" insurance similar to what you need to own a car.The republican "fear" campaign is a conspiracy theory. When republicans use guns in their campaign speeches it is part of their "fear" campaign, not reality.Enjoy

Correct. The ones that are making a profit from government are the ones that spend a few billion to buy politicians to get trillions in return -- your tax dollars going to rich people and corporations, either by tax cuts, tax loopholes (often now written by the corps) and the like or by going to poor working people to subsidize their sub-poverty wages while the corporations record record profits. Ummm, wrong. Several nations with strong socialist programs actually show that it works. There are also scientific studies that show providing a minimum living base improves life for all -- even the rich. And we also have the examples of places that have instigated a $15/hr minimum wage and are now showing an improved economy from the bottom up.Compare Wisconsin and Minnesota. Objective empirical data: republican Gov Scott Walker and democrat Gov Mark Dayton, each elected about the same time. Scott went whole hog with the republican pogram of cutting taxes, cutting benefits, cutting schools, busting unions etc etc etc -- and has made record inroads into state debt. Mark went whole hog with the democrat pogram of minimum wage, increased benefits, school funding etc and raising taxes on the rich, and has a surplus now when he inherited debt.Don't take my word for it:
http://www.minnpost.com/...h governor has the better economy
In the economic game, Minnesota is pulling away from Wisconsin
Minnesota or Wisconsin: Which economy is doing better?So I would say that the data shows that if you do the opposite of whatever the republicans propose you will do better. Typical republican talking point used to get gullible people to let them strangle social programs while they feed their corporate hogs. The problem is not so much what the programs are but what your priorities are and how do you pay for them. Then don't vote for them. Get involved in primaries and get vocal.Enjoy

Most "real people" also ignore endogenous retroviruses when making their minds up about creationism and evolution, but that doesn't mean that they ought to be ignored and that it would be illegitimate to bring them into an argument on these forums.

Good thing I'm not advancing any such nonsensical ideas.

Correct.

Exactly. Nobody who fires a shotgun out the window thinks he'll hit anybody. When people don't think about the consequences of their actions, society needs to protect itself from their stupidity.

Then what is your point? You are presented with a set of facts. You reply that most people ignore the facts. Did you simply intend this as a non sequitur?

In the US, guns are clearly under-regulated.

This is of course nonsense. Based on your analysis, we might well spend the day playing Russian roulette.Of course the gains and risks are important.

Seriously. I thought Jon was the naive poster boy on EvC. Aren't you actually defending guns as useful for defense? If so it would seem to be a problem if they actually hurt the people they were defending more often than they served as a defense.Everybody with a gun thinks they are a responsible gun owner. Nearly every time a toddler gets killed or shoots someone, the local sheriff is waxing away about how responsible the parents are.Overall, guns kill more innocent people in the home than they do criminals in the home. Statistically it is pretty clear that we'd be better served with fewer of them in homes.