Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle Association says

[Boiler 43,452]

Just got an email from Ruger.

For anybody not on their list they have announced the LCR in 9mm!

[Sousuke 1,214]

Probably the most disputed statistic in the argument for or against firearms is the use of a firearm in a defensive manner without a shot fired. Because these generally do not get reported there isn't a hard data on the subject.

Depending on what side of the fence you are on, this statistic is as low as 100,000k a year vs I believe 1,000,000. Depending how how its interpreted will affect the studies of the OP. I suspect the OP either uses the lowest possible number or omits the data all together.

If you include an average estimate of non reported defensive uses of a firearm, I suspect the stats will fall dramatically.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Probably the most disputed statistic in the argument for or against firearms is the use of a firearm in a defensive manner without a shot fired. Because these generally do not get reported there isn't a hard data on the subject.

Depending on what side of the fence you are on, this statistic is as low as 100,000k a year vs I believe 1,000,000. Depending how how its interpreted will affect the studies of the OP. I suspect the OP either uses the lowest possible number or omits the data all together.

If you include an average estimate of non reported defensive uses of a firearm, I suspect the stats will fall dramatically.

That's what Kleck and Lott tried to demonstrate but they fell onto their faces.

[Sousuke 1,214]

That's what Kleck and Lott tried to demonstrate but they fell onto their faces.

Thats fine, I accept that their estimates are probably on the extreme end. I think they are pushing the 1 million.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Sousuke

[rlogan 2,036]

Cause changing the words in someone's post and quoting it as if they wrote it is the mature thing to do.

I believe there was a cartoon made about your real life.

Perfect again, thanks. Proof again you have no response but childish taunting to people who successfully defend themselves:

Ridicule is not an argument, and in a thread about people defending themselves with guns I am precisely in the right for speaking to it.

The first time I had to shoot a grizzly was actually two of them. I had a moose down and was hiking back to the supercub to sleep in the back of the tail on a gravel bar in the Alaska Range. Wood River.

So I had the guts out already and the rib cage open with a stick and was going to finish it in the morning. I was hiking on a dry river channel so it had sides that were 3-4 feet high. Suddenly three grizzlies burst out of the woods into the draw, barreling for me. My first thought was to lean up against the edge of this dry channel bank and sort of pretend I wasn't there. Maybe they'll blow by me.

But no, they're looking straight at me. I was yelling "you better stop!" as I laid that rifle scope down on the one in front, the smallest one. I was surprised how well I could see through the scope on account of the low light, but I let him have it, and he summersaulted. ka-plop. The second and third blew by him so I took out the second. Much bigger, a female, and State Fish & Game put her at 3/4" shy of Boone and Crocket. I still have the tag from that one. She was wearing a radio collar that Fish and Game wanted back. They had been tracking her for years.

The third - my God. Talk about a whopper. The darkest grizzly I have ever seen too. Well, he stopped and I didn't shoot him. But he watched me skin up the other two most of the night, sitting up on the bank above me. Pretty spooky. So I had a .44 on my hip and the .375 laying on the bear I was skinning the whole time.

People live like this here, and it is you who are out of line for trying to make a whole state full of people out to be cartoon characters for the way they live.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I think a case could be made for taking Gary's guns based on his mental stability.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Perfect again, thanks. Proof again you have no response but childish taunting to people who successfully defend themselves:

Ridicule is not an argument, and in a thread about people defending themselves with guns I am precisely in the right for speaking to it.

The first time I had to shoot a grizzly was actually two of them. I had a moose down and was hiking back to the supercub to sleep in the back of the tail on a gravel bar in the Alaska Range. Wood River.

So I had the guts out already and the rib cage open with a stick and was going to finish it in the morning. I was hiking on a dry river channel so it had sides that were 3-4 feet high. Suddenly three grizzlies burst out of the woods into the draw, barreling for me. My first thought was to lean up against the edge of this dry channel bank and sort of pretend I wasn't there. Maybe they'll blow by me.

But no, they're looking straight at me. I was yelling "you better stop!" as I laid that rifle scope down on the one in front, the smallest one. I was surprised how well I could see through the scope on account of the low light, but I let him have it, and he summersaulted. ka-plop. The second and third blew by him so I took out the second. Much bigger, a female, and State Fish & Game put her at 3/4" shy of Boone and Crocket. I still have the tag from that one. She was wearing a radio collar that Fish and Game wanted back. They had been tracking her for years.

The third - my God. Talk about a whopper. The darkest grizzly I have ever seen too. Well, he stopped and I didn't shoot him. But he watched me skin up the other two most of the night, sitting up on the bank above me. Pretty spooky. So I had a .44 on my hip and the .375 laying on the bear I was skinning the whole time.

People live like this here, and it is you who are out of line for trying to make a whole state full of people out to be cartoon characters for the way they live.

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that this conversation is geared towards human interaction, rather than killing bears.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Perfect again, thanks. Proof again you have no response but childish taunting to people who successfully defend themselves:

Ridicule is not an argument, and in a thread about people defending themselves with guns I am precisely in the right for speaking to it.

The first time I had to shoot a grizzly was actually two of them. I had a moose down and was hiking back to the supercub to sleep in the back of the tail on a gravel bar in the Alaska Range. Wood River.

So I had the guts out already and the rib cage open with a stick and was going to finish it in the morning. I was hiking on a dry river channel so it had sides that were 3-4 feet high. Suddenly three grizzlies burst out of the woods into the draw, barreling for me. My first thought was to lean up against the edge of this dry channel bank and sort of pretend I wasn't there. Maybe they'll blow by me.

But no, they're looking straight at me. I was yelling "you better stop!" as I laid that rifle scope down on the one in front, the smallest one. I was surprised how well I could see through the scope on account of the low light, but I let him have it, and he summersaulted. ka-plop. The second and third blew by him so I took out the second. Much bigger, a female, and State Fish & Game put her at 3/4" shy of Boone and Crocket. I still have the tag from that one. She was wearing a radio collar that Fish and Game wanted back. They had been tracking her for years.

The third - my God. Talk about a whopper. The darkest grizzly I have ever seen too. Well, he stopped and I didn't shoot him. But he watched me skin up the other two most of the night, sitting up on the bank above me. Pretty spooky. So I had a .44 on my hip and the .375 laying on the bear I was skinning the whole time.

People live like this here, and it is you who are out of line for trying to make a whole state full of people out to be cartoon characters for the way they live.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never ridiculed anyone for defending themselves with a gun.

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that this conversation is geared towards human interaction, rather than killing bears.

Dude's got stories to tell Marv.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never ridiculed anyone for defending themselves with a gun.

Dude's got stories to tell Marv.

So do I, but at least I try to frame them in context with the OP.

[Teddy B 17,251]

So do I, but at least I try to frame them in context with the OP.

Most normal folks would.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The big bad librul gubmint - I bet he monitors the skies for them black helicopters.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

LIB, we all know that you're on the lookout for them black helicopters. They featured you in a cartoon even...

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Most normal folks would.

That leaves out the majority here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We should review lifetime odds of dying by:

Poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances 1 in 123

vs:

Firearms discharge 1 in 7,059

We should ban firearms and ensure that every household has a readily available supply of gas!

You are making what point? Odds of a gun owner being killed by his own gun are 1:514.147. Odds of freezing to death: 1:474,844. Odds of a bicycle owner being killed on his bicycle: 1:340,845. Odds of someone with stairs in their house being killed by falling down their stairs: 1:157,300. Odds of dying by post-surgery complications: 1:117,519. Odds of being hit and killed while walking: 1:54,538. Odds of being assaulted by a firearm: 1:24,974

So yes: Absent a criminal act owning a gun increases the likelihood of being shot with a gun but that likelihood is lower than freezing to death or dying on a bicycle or buying a two-story house or going to the hospital or going out on a walk.

the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas is a reasonable conclusion for a study that was carried out in a city that has 6x the national murder rate. A study that excludes rural areas with higher gun ownership rates but lower gun incident rates is not driven by a search for accurate or balanced data.

Lots of people are killed by bicycles and stairs. No interest in those lives?

On this issue we're always back to this - other things are more dangerous, why the concern about guns.

The simple answer is that it isn't simply about cold statistics. If it were, I could argue that I should be allowed to buy a rocket launcher because the odds of being killed by rocket launcher in the USA are probably infinitely less than they are guns, cars, cold weather, excessive masturbation or anything else.

That in itself doesn't make for a convincing argument as to why I should be able to buy a rocket launcher - the reasons for that should be obvious. As should the reason why the issues pertaining to the ownership of firearms are different to the issues pertaining to the ownership and operation of motor vehicles.

What is interesting to me about this article is that it is explaining in very specific terms the social problems arising from owning and using firearms. That's an uncomfortable fact that noone wants to address - hence we always go back to this 'if you ban guns, you should ban <<insert household object of choice>>

I think you need a new argument.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that this conversation is geared towards human interaction, rather than killing bears.

You noticed that too, eh?