Thread: Trading with a sane president...

Originally Posted by Miguels244

I know right...
Having a gun around increases the chances you will be shot or shoot someone.
Or a kid will shoot his friend.
Weird and totally unexpected.

More has to do with the fact that it's impossible to be shot when there isn't a gun.

I only mention it because just like "gun murder rates" I don't care what tool was used to harm. I'd rather fight to prevent the harm. The very framing of "likely to be shot by a gun" eliminates the entire population that doesn't have a gun in the house - but the conclusion is used to paint a comparison across all peoples. It's disingenuous data reporting.

The only real, logical truth that can be drawn is that the chance of being shot when there is no gun is zero. The chance of being shot when there is a gun around is greater than zero. That's it.

And I don't think anyone disagrees. Framing it as "likely to be shot" or you saying "more like to be.." without providing a "more likely ... THAN WHAT" is the deception. Than a house without a gun? Then I say "no shit" because it's comparing non-zero to zero. It could be 0.0001% vs 0.0000% in which case both are near-zero and what I would deem "acceptable" for living.

Originally Posted by JNieman

More has to do with the fact that it's impossible to be shot when there isn't a gun.

I only mention it because just like "gun murder rates" I don't care what tool was used to harm. I'd rather fight to prevent the harm. The very framing of "likely to be shot by a gun" eliminates the entire population that doesn't have a gun in the house - but the conclusion is used to paint a comparison across all peoples. It's disingenuous data reporting.

The only real, logical truth that can be drawn is that the chance of being shot when there is no gun is zero. The chance of being shot when there is a gun around is greater than zero. That's it.

And I don't think anyone disagrees. Framing it as "likely to be shot" or you saying "more like to be.." without providing a "more likely ... THAN WHAT" is the deception. Than a house without a gun? Then I say "no shit" because it's comparing non-zero to zero. It could be 0.0001% vs 0.0000% in which case both are near-zero and what I would deem "acceptable" for living.

Last year as many people died in car accidents as gun shot.
I consider that to be a significant number.
The DOT did, that's why cars and roads and ownership are tightly regulated.
Clearly we accept the risk of the roads, those risks are in exchange for commerce.

The odds of being bitten by a poisonous snake go up for both you and your neighbors if you keep them.
If your gun kills my kid we have a problem.

Miguels has a point about accidental deaths and guns. We lose a lot of children who shoot themselves or another child. We also lose a bunch of folks to suicide. This could be resolved by legislation requiring a gun safe as in Denmark. Of course, it would be difficult to enforce. Some countries require storage off-premises. This has obvious disadvantages too.

I looked at several published studies reported by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre the journal, Accident Analysis and Prevention.

It looks like episodes of accidental shooting, suicide etc. occur with significantly greater frequency than do instances of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.

My wife owns guns. I am not "anti gun". It does seem to me, though, that gun storage needs some regulation. Moreover, as I suggested in an earlier post, we need to find better ways to weed out people who want firearms for the wrong reasons. I'm not suggesting any particular gun regs. Rather, I'm saying we need better regulation.

Squire

Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK

Good luck.

Originally Posted by Scottl

You completely misunderstand. It's only OK to shoot BACK if the government ever devolved into a true tyranny,

What country do you live in? Disneyland?

You are going to shoot back at the largest military in the world? You as a citizen either have that military for you or against you.

Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke

but speaking for myself I couldn't imagine living in any country where I felt that having to own a gun for self (or family) protection was necessary.

How else are you supposed to kill the rattle snake behind the refrigerator??



When they are out in the open, 8 feet from your(my) desk, you can squish them, but
when they get behind the frig... Got to shoot 'em.



70 lb slab of 4340, all that was sticking out was his tiny little rattles.

A couple of .22 shot shells is far cheaper than this mess cost me.



And if I was a real wuss, I guess I could have shot this guy too.

Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke

What country do you live in? Disneyland?

What country do you live in? One where you have no right to defend yourself?

I carry a gun for at least 12 hours a day, and no, I'm not a cop. I live and work in one of the most dangerous cities in the USA. My employer compels me to carry--I drive a truck&trailer loaded with 300k worth of company tools, equipment, and material into some of the worst ghettos in my country. Ever been to North College Hill? It isn't a collegiate atmosphere. I hear gunshots every day in that area.

FYI, I am state licensed to CCW (with reciprocity in 30+ states), am a NRA certified instructor, have a federally issued 03 C&R FFL, and I own firearms listed in the NFA registry.

You know nothing of firearm ownership, and should keep your mouth shut when it comes to discussing matters of the 2nd Amendment of the COTUS. You're completely out of your lane. You'd likely shit your pants at a Knob Creek shoot.

Knob Creek Night Shoot - Spring 217 - YouTube

You are going to shoot back at the largest military in the world? You as a citizen either have that military for you or against you.

Given that I have 2 stepsons in the military, have served myself, and have countless friends in uniform, again, you are talking out of your ass with no leg to stand on. Go back to fellating Denmark and quit trying to speak intellegently about the USA and our rights here. Ours is a civilian military, and would not fire on American citizens.

I couldn't imagine living in any country where I felt that having to own a gun for self (or family) protection was necessary.

Gordon, when ever I see you get into gun discussions, I notice you always state this, or state something like this. And I agree whole heartedly with you. But I get the impression that you're starting to believe the U.S. is a place where one feels it's necessary to own a gun for protection. I'd bet there are some bad areas incertain cities where that might be the case, but for the vast majority of the U.S., owning a gun for protection isn't a necessity, just an option. Many who have it for protection are doing it because they believe they will have a better chance, should someone come crashing into their house in the middle of the night. Again, that happens to a very rare amount of people. But if you talked to most gun owners in the U.S. you'd find most of them are not feeling it's necessary, but an option that they are engaging in. I for one, own a couple hand guns. I just enjoy the sport of shooting them at the range. I have a ccw license also, but I don't carry a gun because I just never felt the need, I feel very safe in most places I go. But I'm damn glad that if I ever went into an area that I did not feel safe in, my government affords me the right to have that gun to protect myself.

Originally Posted by Gewehr 98

What country do you live in? One where you have no right to defend yourself?

I carry a gun for at least 12 hours a day, and no, I'm not a cop. I live and work in one of the most dangerous cities in the USA. My employer compels me to carry--I drive a truck&trailer loaded with 300k worth of company tools, equipment, and material into some of the worst ghettos in my country. Ever been to North College Hill? It isn't a collegiate atmosphere. I hear gunshots every day in that area.

FYI, I am state licensed to CCW (with reciprocity in 30+ states), am a NRA certified instructor, have a federally issued 03 C&R FFL, and I own firearms listed in the NFA registry.

You know nothing of firearm ownership, and should keep your mouth shut when it comes to discussing matters of the 2nd Amendment of the COTUS. You're completely out of your lane. You'd likely shit your pants at a Knob Creek shoot.

Knob Creek Night Shoot - Spring 217 - YouTube

Given that I have 2 stepsons in the military, have served myself, and have countless friends in uniform, again, you are talking out of your ass with no leg to stand on. Go back to fellating Denmark and quit trying to speak intellegently about the USA and our rights here. Ours is a civilian military, and would not fire on American citizens.

For someone carrying a gun you're coming across as intolerant and quick tempered.

I'm not "discussing" the 2nd amendment. I'm stating a personal opinion. You don't believe in free speech?

We live obviously in very different environments and what you describe is simply beyond my imagination.
If for example I was stopped for whatever reason by say a traffic cop I'd never in a thousand years expect to be told to get out of the car with my hands visible or anything like that. Chances are he wouldn't even be armed.

Originally Posted by Dave K

Gordon, when ever I see you get into gun discussions, I notice you always state this, or state something like this. And I agree whole heartedly with you. But I get the impression that you're starting to believe the U.S. is a place where one feels it's necessary to own a gun for protection. I'd bet there are some bad areas incertain cities where that might be the case, but for the vast majority of the U.S., owning a gun for protection isn't a necessity, just an option. Many who have it for protection are doing it because they believe they will have a better chance, should someone come crashing into their house in the middle of the night. Again, that happens to a very rare amount of people. But if you talked to most gun owners in the U.S. you'd find most of them are not feeling it's necessary, but an option that they are engaging in. I for one, own a couple hand guns. I just enjoy the sport of shooting them at the range. I have a ccw license also, but I don't carry a gun because I just never felt the need, I feel very safe in most places I go. But I'm damn glad that if I ever went into an area that I did not feel safe in, my government affords me the right to have that gun to protect myself.

Dave, nice to read a sensible post on the subject. Having been to the US many times (my parents moved to and lived there) I know it is safe and I've never experienced anything to make me think otherwise.

What I don't get, and probably never will, is how fanatic some are towards how they interpret the 2nd amendment. My personal opinion of course but I doubt very much that your founding fathers could have imagined the weaponry available today when it was written.

What I've always written about guns has always been my personal opinion but it might be interesting to hear if there is any non American would like their country to have a 2nd amendment clause and interpreted as is done in the USA.

Originally Posted by Gewehr 98

Ours is a civilian military, and would not fire on American citizens.

Well, this part has proven to be false on several occasions four dead in o-hi-o ...

Originally Posted by michiganbuck

People going crazy more than normal..

Actually, violence has been more common on many occasions in the past. It's quieter now than it has been many times in US history. They just squeal about it in the papers more. Plus people are cowards now.

Originally Posted by Miguels244

Having guns in your home makes you less safe.
Your family is far more likely to shoot itself or a friend.
Those are the numbers, like it or not.

Hi Miguels

regarding firearms in the home I hand no problem if they are secured from me,my family , and especially young Gand children. I have one revolver in a biometric and key entry. Having said that the small two gun safety only one right now will flip open by itself no unlock,no biometric print and obviously I need to take it back in to get expert attention. I have locked ammo in a different locale and the revolver is empty. I understand if this safe worked properly it defeats the purpose of having it yet I feel safer. Y'all buy good safes and make sure they work and avoid a possible accident and a broken heart to boot. Be safe my friends.
Spinet.

The old West often firearms were needed and the government relied of individual owners for protection in war. Being the rabble we are we knew govern could turn out real bad too so to a much less worry about our government going bad. Imho today in crisis citizen rifle owners, a lot of veterans, and civilian trained users are fine. We cherish freedom and fire arms protect when society temporarily goes nuts like those riots in California where Korean store owners protected their stores from fire bombing. I don' know if y'all know this buy most Koreans served in the military at least first generation. Back in Korea they teach their young on the firearm dept or allow them to volunteer for the military- these guys are ROK hard and honor MacArthur with high reverence.

back to the old west ( I ramble sometimes my boss boss says) they needed for robbers and road or trail ambushes, included were hostile Indians and dangerous wildlife. I do not have any problem with Dodge having the Sheffif lock up all firearms in a city as they did not have enough to do their job. Poker players and others would conceal Derringers and other boot guns. Hopefully they had good sense and could handle winning or losing. Interesting article for your kind consideration.

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? | HuffPost

dispite it being from the huffington post it does document the open carry of firearms. Personally I have no problem with conceited especially if your life has been threatened and as a general right good has come from it. Now even though there is open carry it would freak me out for three to come into a restaurant I was at.texas has signs and law to prevent that as illegal business owners have property rights. Also business like the factory which is my pride and joy has sighs against firearms in the building it makes me feel safer along with security cards for entry. We did those security measures as mgt. would meet up with those who wandered in where we have proprietary information strictly protected. It was a shocking thing yet my company always will quickly solve any type problem as we live and breathe continuous improvement. At a concert,school, or any other place who legally do not want them I agree. On the flip side there are several businesses who welcome conceialed and open in their place of business. It also says don't hold me up. My firearn
m training was given me by my oldest brother a Marine with special attention to the rifle. If we lived in the same time we would be at the range right now. S

Originally Posted by Spinit

I do not have any problem with Dodge having the Sheffif lock up all firearms in a city as they did not have enough to do their job.

Like Little Bill ?

Who's the fellah owns this shithole ?

Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke

Dave, nice to read a sensible post on the subject. Having been to the US many times (my parents moved to and lived there) I know it is safe and I've never experienced anything to make me think otherwise.

What I don't get, and probably never will, is how fanatic some are towards how they interpret the 2nd amendment. My personal opinion of course but I doubt very much that your founding fathers could have imagined the weaponry available today when it was written.

What I've always written about guns has always been my personal opinion but it might be interesting to hear if there is any non American would like their country to have a 2nd amendment clause and interpreted as is done in the USA.

I guess it's a matter of opinion as to where the line is drawn for what's supportive of guns, and what's fanatical. My guess though, is those that might be more toward the fanatical side, are the people who are also gun enthusiasts. It's such an enjoyable hobby for them, that the 2nd amendment helps feed that hobby, and the enthusiasm. As for the forefathers, yes, I agree. They had no idea what the future held as far as technological advances in weaponry, but I'm amazed at the foresight they did have, in setting up a government that has checks and balances in place to keep everyone in check. And I think that's also why some defend that 2nd amendment so adamantly.

Originally Posted by Scottl

Typical of the propagandist BS you spout. If that were true a high percentage of the people I know would be dead.

Doubling a low chance is still doubling it.
The numbers are real.
If you have a gun your family and friends are more likely to be shot than an intruder.

Originally Posted by Miguels244

Doubling a low chance is still doubling it.
The numbers are real.
If you have a gun your family and friends are more likely to be shot than an intruder.

Yeah, but that's kinda an obvious statistic. It's like saying, you're more likely to have a drowning accident if you have a pool in your yard. You're more likely to have a motorcycle accident if you own a motorcycle. You're more likely to get hit by a car, if you ride your bicycle in the street. Isn't that mostly, captain obvious information, thus useless?

Originally Posted by Dave K

Yeah, but that's kinda an obvious statistic. It's like saying, you're more likely to have a drowning accident if you have a pool in your yard. You're more likely to have a motorcycle accident if you own a motorcycle. You're more likely to get hit by a car, if you ride your bicycle in the street. Isn't that mostly, captain obvious information, thus useless?

Your more likely to have your gun kill a frien than an intruder.

Originally Posted by Scottl

Actually it's a fake statistic, partly distorted by including thugs with illegally owned guns as "gun owners". Plenty of members of the non gun owning public have been shot, stabbed, beaten or raped during the commission of crimes. In one of the most tragic cases I've heard of the robber said "break yourself" and when the victim didn't understand that the phrase meant turn over anything of value the teen shot him for resisting.

Not fake at all...
If you have a gun in your home you are more likely to shoot yourself, a family member or a friend than an intruder.
Further you are more likely to die from gun shot.
Guns do not make you safer.

Originally Posted by Miguels244

Your more likely to have your gun kill a frien than an intruder.

Again, meaningless information, even if it's correct. I'm going to have my friends over much more often than I will have intruders. To have this information put out there just seems idiotic to me.