And the only downside of a smoke alarm is the cost very unlike a gun. You understand that’s a really lame analogy to counter with, I’m sure.
I never said they didn’t. I said accidental deaths outnumbered self-defence/stopping a crime deaths. The first cite I quickly find is only for Wisconsin. People can argue that it’s wildly unrepresentitve if they like but it’s apparently one of the few that includes non-fatal hospitalizations:
There’ve been more detailed studies than looking at Wisconsin hospitalization rates, look here if interested.
The vast majority of defensive gun uses don’t involve the hospitalization of anyone. If you restrict your analysis of utility to that small subset, then they come out looking more useless than they are.
Whoopdidoo for ideal scenarios. My point still stands you can’t measure these unquantifiable goods anymore than I can support the unquantifiable bads. It’s a wash.
I’m sure it’s plenty safe. It would be safer without the guns, of course.
Oh, and CarnalK, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about guns and crime statistics. I don’t care if guns increase crime or decrease crime. I suspect the latter is true, but like I said, I really don’t care. I am armed, and will remain armed.
I’m not sure what the formal name of this fallacy is - anyone want to help out?
You’re essentially saying that if something isn’t precisely quantifiable, then it’s just as likely as any other thing that isn’t precisely quantifiable. Since precise numbers of DGUs can’t be measured, then it’s just as likely that magical fairies intervened to prevent as many crimes, right?
No, what you’re saying is that the negative effect of the presence of guns counts, because those effects are far more likely to be quantifiable, and yet the positive ones don’t count, because they’re more difficult to quantify.
That link I posted earlier is of a peer-reviewed (I think, if I have the right one) study using valid scientific methods to give reasonable estimates on defensive gun uses. You can’t simply throw that out and declare you’re the winner.
Justify? I don’t care if (statistically speaking) guns make our home *more * dangerous or *less * dangerous. I don’t if guns *increase * crime or *decrease * crime. I do not justify being armed based on statistics.
And for what it’s worth, guns don’t get up on their own and go shoot people, intentionally or unintentionally. It seems like we’re phrasing our arguments in such a way that the guns are the actors, rather than the people.
As for unintentional gun deaths, “accidental” gun deaths very rarely happen. Guns are very precise machines built with redundant safety mechanisms. No, “negligent” gun deaths are far more common. You cannot kill someone unintentionally without violating one of the four fundamental rules of gun safety. Negligent use of dangerous things is an unfortunate fact of life - but we don’t speak about drunk drivers in terms of the car being at fault for killing people, for example.
You’re making the logical fallacy of “not getting it”. I’m saying your hypothetical benefits are just as valid as my hypothetical harms. If I wave my gun around to clear up a traffic jam, nobody is hurt but it sure doesn’t help society. Why are we all supposed to accept that all this crime stopping with guns is any more frequent than bad shit? That’s why I said “It’s a wash”.
Tell it to the CDC. Sheesh, this really is like arguing with creationists.
Excellent point, SenorBeef. Accidents do happen, but they are exceedingly rare. Here, I am defining “accident” as a bad outcome even when all 4 rules are followed.
A bit OT, but I had a firearm accident a couple of years ago. I was shooting my FAL in the backyard, and a round went off when the bolt was not fully locked. The root cause was a broken firing pin. My face got sprayed with high velocity, hot propellant. I received thousands of small blood dots all over my face. Didn’t feel good, I’ll tell ya.
Yes, there are bad uses of guns that don’t involve someone’s death. Yes, there are good uses of guns that don’t involve someone’s death. Just because you cannot precisely quantify these things does not mean that they are equal and cancel out.
Your entire argument on this subject has been “Welp, not that many people are sent to the hospital by defensive gun uses, therefore guns are useless in a defensive role”. You made no effort to read the peer-reviewed study that I linked you to.
What relevance does that have? The CDC counts people dying due to drunk driving as an accidental death too, right? Does that mean it’s not negligent?
[/quote]
Go fuck yourself. I give you valid science to read, you discard it and declare whatever your gut feeling is true. I’ve been polite and rational with you, and you insult me in this manner. It is YOU who are ignoring the facts, making proclamations based on your preconceptions. YOU are the one who’s arguing like a creationist.
So what is your suggestion for keeping guns OUT of the hands of people who are too friggin’ irresponsible to have them? I count myself firmly in this camp, and have ever since I nearly shot my brother when I was sixteen and he was being a fourteen year-old prick. I was raised with guns and taught to shoot. Supposedly I should have known better. But I was feeling powerless and I knew where the pistol was. Instant power!
People lose their tempers. They go nuts. They get scared of noises in the middle of the night and shoot their kids who were trying to sneak back in after a night of mischief. They get drunk out of their gourds. They get depressed.
Smoke alarms are annoying when they go off accidently. Seat belts might bruise you if they lock without real reason. Guns are much more dangerous. So are cars. We all have to pass a test and be licensed before we can drive, but I sure see an awful lot of those rules from the drivers’ manual being broken out on the roads. If everyone were armed, even if they had to pass some kind of test first, I think entirely too many people would throw the rules right out the window as soon as they were done with the test.
