In dim light you might not be able to see fixed sights. Also, if for any reason you couldn’t line up your pistol properly and had to shoot with your arm at an awkward angle, laser sights allow you to stay on target. And finally, someone seeing that little dot on their chest has amazing deterrent value.
“Hey, this guy has a huge friggin’ pistol aimed at me. Eh, no big deal, I’ll just…Christ Jesus, there’s a red dot on my chest! I surrender!”
And what else did the salesman tell you?
On a slightly different note, the gun industry effort to reach out to the youth market includes the magazine Junior Shooters, as noted here by my good friends at ThinkProgress
Featured articles include:* Glocks Are For Girls!*. Oh, goody.
Documentary evidence would seem to indicate otherwise, particularly when it’s a bad guy using the laser sight.
A similar article showed this $350 off coupon for Bushmaster Junior shooters, and this ad for girls saying “Make Dad Jealous” (with a 1911 reproduction .22LR pistol).
Lighten’ up Francis!
Are you implying girls and or junior shooting is wrong? Why?
No, I grew up doing junior shooting and hunting. Not sure I like the marketing approach though… but then I dislike quite a bit that Madison Ave does.
btw, did you mean for both your links to be the same?
No sorry second link was thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvbkCif-Ixs
Yeah well 98 percent of Marketing is awful what does this bring to the table on this topic.
It’s not really that much of a non-sequitur. It shows an armed invasion of several thugs against an old woman, who with a couple shots sends them running like the stooges. It kind of blasts the idea that the agressors always have the upper hand, which if I am not mistaken is the point elucidator was putting forth. It also illustrates that criminals really don’t want to face off against others who are armed. Those are often NRA talking points that you anti-gunners want to maintain are make believe, but there it is, caught on camera.
You dont see the relevance of a story of where a 65 year old woman chases 5 armed robbers from her store with a handgun as more relevant than a game show episode with actors from Dr. Who?
The NRA is its own worst enemy. That speech gave instant credibility to anyone that opposed them.
Yes, you’re right, you are mistaken.
First off, a single incident is not exactly staggering proof of anything. And my point is not that the aggressor always has the advantage, but its likely the aggressor will definitely tend to have the advantage, if for no other reason than the choice of timing.
You could counter that by maintaining a constant state of armed awareness, but I’m damned if I’m going to live percolating in paranoia ever damn day! Fuck that shit!
I personally think the whole “home invasion” scenario is a crock of shit, a pervasive fantasy that is symptomatic of the violent poisons that infect our culture. I don’t really believe that the fanatasy is manufactured by gun lobbyists and manufacturers, they are probably just as much infected by it as anyone else, and sincerely believe they are selling the cure for fear by selling more fear. Like chasing a dose of arsenic with a dose of cyanide hoping for an antidote.
On the other hand, they sure aren’t anxious for any contemporary research on the question. Got a nickle says if we could fund research that is vetted, transparent, and open to criticism and correction from professional researchers and statisticians, we’d find that myth would shrivel like a worm on a griddle.
Somebody, it appears, does not want that to happen. But its going to happen, because its something anybody can vote for. It doesn’t ban anything, it doesn’t regulate anything. And the guy who’s convinced that I’m dead wrong about it, well, what possible reason might he have not to applaud a chance to be proven right?
It’s staggering proof that the scenario is not, as you would put it, “a crock of shit.”
Agressors have some advantages. Defenders have certain advantages as well, such as being on your own turf, and firearms being of greater benefit to the defender. At least until people like you or Hitler take them away.
But it’s not a “fantasy” if it really happens though is it? Here’s my anecdote that proves you wrong. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15944124&postcount=228
Because the rabble that Mitch is trying to rouse are carefully parsing the statements they’re fed - “oh, they’re coming for my guns, well never mind, that doesn’t really mean anything.”
That’s serious what-color-is-the-sky territory. The notion that his efforts to manipulate his followers’ emotions might actually be successful in many cases doesn’t seem to cross your mind.
Really? You’re playing the “Hitler” card? Well, nice to know you’re taking the calm, rational approach here.
Oh come on, this is the pit where calm and rational debate isn’t really encouraged, and certainly is not being used by the gungrabbers. Also are you suggesting that Hitler really didn’t benefit from gun control, and he really didn’t forbid Jews from owning any guns before he killed them? Because that’s all kind of relevant to the debate. So much so, they make bumper stickers about it.
True, Hitler owned a gun, and put it to a noble and laudable purpose. Only a pity he didn’t think of it twenty years sooner.
First, you ask for studies showing defensive gun use, but the thirteen different studies performed are apparently outdated for reason only you can fathom.
Then, when presented with anecdotal evidence within the past year, now those are not relevant either and you still contend that home invasion is a crock of shit. Are you a Scotsman perhaps?
In 1994, the L.A. times study says 3,609,682 defensive gun uses, while Tarrance says 764,036. Are they both right? Seems to me that if both studies were done with the standard approved methods and scrupulously conducted, they should not be at such a wide variance. Unless there is some flaw.
My actual position, in case it escaped your notice, is that the proposed studies to be conducted by the CDC ought to be done. They should be wholly transparent in terms of methodology, data, analysis and conclusions. And, of course, they should be conducted by impartial investigators with all the professional accreditation we would expect from such a momentous investigation. Seems to me that the CDC, with its expertise in epidemiology is the ideal candidate.
And yet, oddly enough, we have considerable resistance to that. You’ve heard about it, I don’t doubt, the pressure brought to bear to prevent such an investigation.
Now, myself, I am a mathtard, statistical analysis is way over my mind grade. I don’t pretend to it. I have seen and attempted to digest some criticisms of these studies, but cannot personally attest to their veracity.
So, can we agree on that, then? That such a study as proposed is the ideal solution to the question? Can we further agree that there is something suspicious in resisting such investigation?
By the bye, take a moment to look up the “true Scotsman” fallacy. Its not quite what you appear to think it is.
Different studies with different methodologies will come up with different figures. In other news, bears shit in the woods. The point is not to pinpoint a precise figure. The point is to illustrate that no matter which way you slice the data, all evidence points to the conclusion that defensive gun use is substantial. Do you deny this?
All studies have shown that DGU occurs frequent enough to render your insistence that defense against home invasion is a crock of shit. And what makes the CDC any better than the DOJ for this purpose? You claim ignorance when it comes to statistical analysis or digesting the merits of the presented studies, but at the same time claim to know that the CDC is the best to perform such an analysis, and only if it’s done within the last 12 years. How convenient.
Does it really matter if it’s 700K or 2.5M instances? Compare that to the 10-15K non suicide firearm related deaths? Anyone who rails against gun violence without also looking at defensive gun use and their efficacy is disingenuous at best.
I’ve got to dash, more later. But just for the moment, “pinpoint”? Seriously? The difference between those two numbers is just finicky? Between several millions and three hundred thousand is a minor variation?
Expand upon your point. What differences in the methodologies account for this seeming discrepancy? How would you do it better?