The “need” criteria. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
thanks for reposting that, I like rereading stuff.
I don’t consider “To defend my home” to be the same reason as “Because I can”
And if someone who has dozens of semi-automatic weapons and 30K ammo in their house uses “To defend my home” as their reason for having that many, I will laugh. At them. For being overly paranoid. But, as I said, I wouldn’t try to stop them from legally owning those weapons.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean here. Not being snarky or anything, but I don’t know, really.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim:
The follow up invitation about defining your parameters refers in part to the “need” criteria. I’ve bolded it above.
If I had to quote my post to ensure of my meaning I would bold this part:
I say the probability of a meteor strike on your house is the same as you needing your gun to defend yourself in a public place
I define “needing your gun to defend yourself in a public place” as being in a public place and needing your gun to defend yourself.
So do you have any evidence?
I guess I’m missing your point … almost all guns are kept in the home …
The statistics are certainly misleading, however that 1 in 5 chance over a lifetime may well be accurate. I’m sure 99.99% of these never result in violence of any kind.
From here:
There is also the video I linked to earlier.
That’s a start, I could probably find more if you need me to.
I do need more. First, what part of the linked article are you referring to? Second, this isn’t evidence of your claim… Because you made the claim that the probability of a meteor strike on your house is the same as you needing your gun to defend yourself in a public place. There is no discussion of meteor strikes in the link. Do you have any evidence for your claim?
And third, the link talks about incidents of SDGU occurring, not a need for defensive use. There could be a need for defensive use without an occurrence. This is why I asked you to lay out your parameters around “need”.
Bump-fire .It simulates it so much that I’m not comfortable with it. It basically makes the gun bounce back and forth from backward pressure on your trigger finger to forward pressure on your shoulder at the the fastest rate gas operation of an AR-15 can make happen.
Here’s another video. Yee-Ha! :dubious:
Q: What bear would you take down with this? What Elk? What deer? What human being needs 50 shots center mass in less than 30 seconds in order to stop being a threat to you?
My point started when someone stated “Mass shootings: are such infrequent events that you are about as likely to be hit (but not necessarily killed) by lightning as you are to be killed in a mass shooting”
My question was if they are so rare, why do we need to carry guns around to protect ourselves from them?
That led to probabilities of crime and probabilities of needing a gun to defend yourself while outside.
(post shortened)
You can’t stop them from legally owning those weapons.
Why you laugh is up to you. However, I don’t believe your laughing/mocking will convince anyone to change their minds. Logic and reason might. If presented correctly.
Bolding mine. This point seems to be constantly overlooked by the “militia=National Guard” crowd. If a muster of the militia meant people getting handed rifles out of a state armory and then turning them back in when they were done, a militia would be zero deterrent against potential tyranny, because the armories would be the first thing a despotic government would lock down. And while standing armies were in first place for being held in suspicion by English-speaking people in the 18th century, second place went to “select” militias- people vetted for loyalty to the current regime and given special permission to have arms denied the rest of the populace, to help maintain order. That’s today’s National Guard more or less.
Someone who has dozens of firearms has them because they’re an aficianado, not because a few guns wouldn’t suffice. And while 1000 rounds sounds like a lot, it’s a pretty typical amount of ammo to keep for each caliber of gun you own; it goes fast during range practice. 30K is on the upper end I’ll admit.
These bump fire devices are already illegal in CA. CA PC 12020:
Simple possession of one even not connected to a firearm would be a felony.
And ammo lasts for pretty much ever. If they find a good price, people will buy a lot.
This makes no sense.
What about this:
From here:
“The odds of you and me needing a gun to protect our lives is not that much better than Colion the Incredible putting these cards back in the exact order”
while flashing a sign with an extremely low probability on it.
I’m not trying to stop them from legally owning those weapons.
I’m not trying to stop someone from burning the US Flag as an exercise of their 1st Amendment rights either. But I do think they are morons and laugh at them, so there’s that.
Logic and reason cannot be used against “Because I can”
Nor do I want to actually try anyway. I get more enjoyment out of laughing at paranoid people and their stockpile of guns needed to “Defend against the government and tyranny”
Well, honey lasts a long time too, but I wouldn’t buy 30K jars of the stuff if it was on sale. 
n/m
It’s been pointed out it depends on the situation. The probabilities would range over quite a large margin, from almost zero sitting in Carnegie Hall to near certainty hanging on a street corner in the bad part of town flashing $100 bills.
NOAA reports 31 deaths per year from lightning strikes … that does seem to back up the claim you’re arguing against.