• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I don't know how to answer this issue...

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Citation, please, to refresh my memory as I have and have read all of his popularized writings and a good bit of his professional academic stuff and do not recall this, your factoid.

Really? He wrote a book about it, after all. By his own admission, he was against gun ownership when he started researching, and was pro-gun ownership by the time he was ready to publish More Guns, Less Crime.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--
Most anti-gun people who start studying the answers to those two unasked questions wind up pro-gun. John Lott is a good example of this.

Citation, please, to refresh my memory as I have and have read all of his popularized writings and a good bit of his professional academic stuff and do not recall this, your factoid.

Ahh, thank you for your citation.
Poor choice of word.....most = some, in this case.

Think we can accept the rest w/o undo discourse.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Sometimes in casual conversation, a person will state something similiar to the following:

Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

<snip>

Their point is that since a gun exists in the area,
it's technically possible that it could come out of the holster (how doesn't matter), and be fired.
If it were not there, that would not be possible.

Well.... yea... that's true.
I sure would like an intelligent, concise, logical answer.

Can anybody help?

Obi Wan

Response "so you're telling me that with tens of thousands of guns at the last gun show in Puyallup there were dozens or thousands of injuries? One injury?"
 

Running Wolf

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
391
Location
Corner of No and Where
Wow. A personal attack.
I certainly didn't expect that.

It is a valid question that has come up twice in my conversations in the last 2 months.
I thought that this would be a good forum to get some excellent, well thought out answers.
I guess I was wrong.
I apologize.

Obi Wan

This was not a personal attack. Unless you are the argument you've made. As I understand it you've even made this argument rhetorically, or hypothetically, further removing you from your words.

It's also incorrect to say this is a "valid question:" Saying that if guns were not present nobody could be hurt by guns is accurate. Accuracy does not indicate much of anything in this case. It's just as accurate to say that if there were no cars there would be no car-related fatalities. It's true, but what do we gain by stating it? Nothing. It's also accurate to say if there were no humans, no people would ever get hurt. True, but stupid. If there were no shoes nobody would ever trip over their shoe laces. So (TF) what?

There's absolutely no point in spending time addressing ridiculous statements. Fortunately I spend most of my time engaging in pointless activities, so I don't actually regret making this post . . .
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Ban water, no water, no drownings.

Ban air, no air, no fires, no fire related deaths.

Ban food, no eating, no choking related deaths.

Ban electricity, no elec
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Sometimes in casual conversation, a person will state something similiar to the following:
Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

These statements aren't concise and bait people. A blanket statement requires a blanket answer. "That's like, your opinion, man." IF and COULD are not grounds for legislation (although that's exactly what happens.)

When people mention the numbers, and start playing that game, you can retort with "Over 500,000 people die of cancer a year. Almost 30,000 people die from accidental falls. We're talking about what, 10,000 people killed by guns, either criminally, negligently, defensively, or in the line of duty." Put it into perspective. Seriously. 30,000 people die from being unable to navigate steps, sidewalks, or a stepladder. Shouldn't we be worried about the bigger numbers, rather than the .15% (death by rifles) of the .0051%(death by firearm)? (whatever those deaths come out to be, percentage-wise).

I know the usual cliches:
when seconds count, the police are only minutes away;
it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it;
that gun is not going to hurt anybody that doesnt need hurtin';

Their point is that since a gun exists in the area,
it's technically possible that it could come out of the holster (how doesn't matter), and be fired.
If it were not there, that would not be possible.

Those retorts are just as cliched as the original statements. Rather than responding cliche to cliche, just reply "You don't know what you're talking about." End the conversation. Hyperbole and ignorance is no reason to get into a debate unless the person really wants to be made a fool of.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
If people didn't have swimming pools, we'd have less drownings every year,
If people didn't have bath tubs, we'd have less broken bones every year,
If people didn't have cars, there would be less traffic deaths every year,

The simple fact of the matter is that all those things mentioned, and firearms as well, provide a greater benefit than they do damage.
 

Bernymac

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
415
Location
Las Vegas
Humans have caused this planet incalculable damage and is the source of so much strife and grief. Our extinction will not be unwelcome. So there!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Humans have caused this planet incalculable damage and is the source of so much strife and grief. Our extinction will not be unwelcome. So there!
See this cow?
cow.JPG

See those horns?

Yeah, if all the humans die, then how's that cow gonna defend itself against wolves, big cats, packs of dogs, and coyotes?


And they say we won't be missed, Hah!
That cow depends on us!:p
 

dakatak87

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
46
Location
Livingston County
From what I understand this post was originally about some one(i.e. spouse, kid, parent, dog..) getting hurt because a firearm was present. Whether it be the daily carry pistol on the hip or a rifle being cleaned on the table, or any possible firearm. Any way that a firearm may be handled in an unsafe manner has/will cause injury or death to an innocent person. That is an issue each person owning a firearm becomes responsible for.
My wife has expressed her concern that the chances of an accident happening in the house are greater than needing a firearm to protect yourself from someone. I have been teaching my 8 year old firearm safety and have recently taken him to the range to shoot a pistol.


My answer is this;
Accidents happen in all ways of life ("each day we face 1000 ways to die"), it is unfortunate that firearm accidents happen. I will take responsibility to teach and enforce firearm safety with my family and in my home. With safe carry or in home practices, the risk of having a firearm around is worth the chance that you may need it. Having a firearm is each person choice, in a partnership the choice is from all involved.


Be safe and help others be safe around you.
1: All guns all ALWAYS loaded.
2: NEVER point the gun at something you do not wish to destroy.
3: Keep your finger OFF the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4: know your TARGET and what is beyond it.

Negligent discharges can be avoided with safe carry and storage practices.
Don't assume safety and train, train, train.

"Accidental Discharges" occur when the firearm malfunctions and causes a round to fire.
True "AD" are very rare and the majority of unintentional discharges are ND's
 

hovercat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
57
Location
Texas
Being around irresponsible people is what causes death/ injury. There are far more rules for safe food preparation than safe firearm handling.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Being around irresponsible people is what causes death/ injury. There are far more rules for safe food preparation than safe firearm handling.
I'm confused as to your point in the second sentence.

Unsafe practices in any arena can result in death or injury, the number of rules notwithstanding. I suspect that there are far more illness/injury related to improper/unsafe handling of food than guns.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
LOL Don't give the controllers, particularly FLOTUS, any ideas. I can see it now, mandatory FDA training as a prerequisite to an EBT card license to eat.

During the holiday season the MKE JS ran at least two articles on Cannibal Salad as a death sentence. I likely ate a pound that I didn't need to. Is eating beyond subsistence a privilege and not a right? Will they argue that sashimi is too harmful to be allowed to eat.
One man's poison is another man's......death by attrition.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Sometimes in casual conversation, a person will state something similiar to the following:

Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

I don't see how that's an argument for anything.

If vulnerable LACs didn't have a gun, they'd have been killed. Many times.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
If it were not for trolls, provocateurs, antis, CC only, politicians, and those making innocent mistakes, there would be nothing left for some of us to do.

Nothing but to OC as we go about our normal everydays lives.
 
Top