Gun Control III

I didn't say you were acting illegally. I said you were placing yourself and those around you in greater danger.--Percy

I'm having keyboard problems, so I'll jus have o cu-n-pase, which forunaely is sill he appropriae reply: I didn't say you were acting illegally. I said you were placing yourself and those around you in greater danger.--Percy

If you listed the ways people are killed by guns from most common to least common, you couldn't call even the last item irrelevant. They are ways that guns kill people, and they are all relevant. Check this out from mid-2017: And that's just children in half a year. Children are only 25% of the population, so extrapolating means that 600 people total were struck by stray bullets in the first half of 2017, and extrapolating to the end of year would yield something in the neighborhood of 1200 people struck by stray bullets. I don't know how many were fatal.Stray bullets are yet another compelling reason for calling for removing most guns from society.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix link.

By carrying those weapons you are placing you and those around you in greater danger. Almost no situation is made safer by the introduction of guns.In a short while I will be going to the grocery store carrying my keys, my phone, my wallet and my grocery list. That's it. That's all I'll have, nothing more other than clothes. My presence in public will not place people in any danger. Since you included images of what you're packing so will I: The wallet has half a clip, but the iPhone X is fully loaded. The grocery list is light this week.There's the driving part, of course, but given that I've never caused an accident I think I must be at least an okay driver. The absolutely least expensive and most effective way to increase handgun safety is to own no handguns at all.--Percy

When one has no facts or valid arguments on one's side then one attempts to level the playing field by turning the discussion into a pissing contest. I'm not taking the bait.The fact of the matter is that research shows that the presence of a gun places the people in the vicinity in greater danger, not less. When you walk out of your home with your arsenal then you become a public menace.--Percy

Much of the country stupidly gives that right to people regardless of the training, competence or quality of their judgment. Self-appointed vigilantes make the country less safe, not more. Nearly half of people murdered were not at the hands of criminals but of someone they knew. The law-abiding citizen in the "Before" picture is more likely to find his guns used against family, friends or himself than against any criminal.--Percy

Are you operating under some weird notion that statistics don't apply to you? That the risks of planes, trains, cars and guns don't apply to you? That your descriptions of constant honing of skills, eternal and masterful vigilance, and superior focus on carefulness and safety, are real rather than just vanity and braggadocio?It is not an opinion that the presence of guns makes one less rather than more safe. It is not just a conclusion of research but also of plain old deductive thinking. No guns, probability of injury or death by gun is zero. One or more guns, probability of injury or death by gun is non-zero.Since I'm talking of facts it is important to note that open carry of a gun can act as a deterrent to criminal attack. But the fact remains that a gun is far more likely to be used against oneself, friends or family than against a criminal. Not opinion, just the verdict of research.It is clear from the way you write about them that you like guns because of how they make you feel and not because they are necessary or make you safer.--Percy

Over in the Police Shootings thread I'm on record as saying that rank and file police should not have guns, only special police units.--Percy

Why do you constantly repeat the content-free accusation that the arguments of those discussing with you are stupid? You seem to have no actual data or reasoned arguments? You're fooling yourself, always the easiest person to fool. You're again making a content-free response and ignoring the reprehensibility of placing not just yourself but more importantly those around you in greater danger.--Percy

If your claims are just obvious expressions of your vanity and braggadocio and have no basis in fact, why make them? I think you don't understand statistics. So if the odds of dying in some activity were, say, 90%, you'd still do it because "statistics apply to populations and not individual events." We all do, but that's no excuse for placing those around you in greater danger, even if you don't care about yourself.--Percy

You are correct that I haven't shown any evidence for things about which I made no claims. That doesn't change the fact that marching around in public with guns unnecessarily places you and those around you in greater danger.This isn't the original gun control thread, it's the third. I don't know why it got closed and restarted twice, but it makes searching for links to research in the predecessor threads inconvenient since they have to be located first. But here's an article on a related topic, Statistics on Guns in the Home & Safe Storage:

quote:

---

Rather than conferring protection, guns in the home are associated with an increased risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

---

This is a a little more directly related to gun ownership in your state, Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries:

quote:

---

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

---

Research supporting this claim comes from Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, which says in the abstract:

quote:

---

Of the almost 30 000 people who died in unintentional firearm deaths over the 19-year study period, a disproportionately high number died in states where guns are more prevalent.

---

--Percy

This is just you writing words - we've seen no facts. Maybe everything you've bragged is true, maybe not. Maybe you faithfully store your guns securely and no one else has access, and maybe you're always extremely careful, maybe you're a crack shot, maybe you never get sad or crazy and never will, and maybe you never ever forget anything like leaving a bullet in the chamber or forgetting whether the safety's on. But I doubt it, especially given the reckless disregard for the lives of those around you that you've expressed here. Sure I have. You participated in the first gun control thread I started after Sandy Hook, Gun Control Again, where I posted lots of evidence. Plus, as noted earlier, it's simple logic that the presence of guns increases the danger: no guns present means zero chance of gun death, while guns present means a greater than zero chance of gun death.--Percy

Again, all you offer is empty claims about yourself, not facts or even any acknowledgement of other people's facts. Of what possible relevance are all your lofty claims about your wonderful self? Maybe they're true, maybe not, how could we know, and who cares anyway? Even if you're as wonderful as you say, what does it matter given all the people with guns in their nightstands, closets, dresser drawers, all the people who can't clean their guns without shooting the next door neighbor, all the jurisdictions that don't care how responsible or trained or sane people carrying guns are?What we do know is that the presence of guns places people in greater danger, not less. This is because the chance of encountering an armed criminal intent on doing you harm is smaller than the chance of your own gun doing someone harm. This is irrelevant to the discussion, but on what are you basing this claim? I think you're making this up. In any case, motor vehicles are essential to any modern economy and have become increasingly safe with time. Aside from gun and ammunition manufacturers, guns contribute little to the civilian economy and have become increasingly deadly with time.Of the two of us, I am the one less likely to murder someone with a gun while out in public, so don't talk to us of how safe you are with guns. Follow the facts, apply some common sense, and find a new hobby.--Percy

Thank you for bragging about how great you are with guns, but however great your inflated opinions of yourself make you feel they have no relevance to the dangers of guns. Even if true, that one guy in Texas can carry guns safely (however unlikely that is) is a drop in the bucket of the national problem of guns. Is it impossible for your guns to discharge and harm someone? Is it impossible for a gun to be taken from you? Is it impossible that you would ever be overcome by sadness, depression, insanity, etc? Is it impossible one of your guns could malfunction? Is it impossible you would ever misjudge a situation and harm an innocent person?And what is the point of carrying a gun if it's impossible it could ever do someone harm?Are you perfect? You actually provided an answer to that question in Message 301: Carrying your guns in public is a danger to yourself and everyone around you.--Percy

I don't think that's true. It could only be true if gun advocates in the national gun debate also ignore arguments that touch on facts, and also think their personal opinions of their gun skills are relevant to what national statistics say about the gun problem. An earned right? How? To get a driver's license you need to receive training and pass a test. What are people who bear arms required to do to earn that right? Right now any adult who decides they need a gun can go down to Walmart and buy a gun despite having no training or expertise nor any proof that they have proper and separate storage for both guns and ammunition. That adult did nothing to earn the right to own that gun. I think the main issue is that one side refuses to acknowledge the inherent dangers of firearms. For just a single but extreme example see Shooting of Charles Vacca, an incident where an expert instructor at a shooting range was killed while instructing a nine year old girl how to fire an Uzi. That firearms are inherently dangerous is a fact, not an opinion. Jar introduced himself into the discussion. That was his decision. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him that his personal opinions about himself aren't relevant. You'd have to ask him why he thought it appropriate to describe the details of his gun strolls about town in this thread. Guns aren't dangerous because of anything I say. It's just a fact. Independent of gun laws, guns are still dangerous. Laws can't change that. What laws can change is how much damage our society suffers at the hands of that danger. One of the most common human qualities is an overinflated opinion of our own talents. As a well known boxer said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." That is, Jar might think he's got all possibilities accounted for as well as being able to handle them, but he's fooling himself. Of course we disagree. One side is blind to realities because they like guns so much, the other side is paying attention to the facts.--Percy