If a person is attacked and injured or killed but did not have available a firearm or other weapon, they would not be considered a SDGU in the link you provided. That would be a scenario where there was a need but no occurrence of an SDGU. Unless of course you’re using the term “need” in a non-standard way. That’s why I’ve asked you to clarify it multiple times but you seem to be avoiding it. Are you avoiding it on purpose?
So no evidence of your claim then?
What claim am I arguing against? I AGREE that getting struck by lightening is more probably than being killed in a mass shooting.
I posted more in post #156.
I am not avoiding anything on purpose. I guess I don’t understand your question.
My main question is if you have evidence to support your claim. Do you? I have others, but multiple questions seem to be confusing so I’ll stick with this one for now.
I also suggest you read the study again, and come back when you figure it out. The study shows that SDGU was no better at protecting against injuries or property loss than NOT, uh, using SDGU (not sure how to say that last part better)
So, to me, it seems to be saying using a gun for self-defense is no better than other measures that DON’T involve a gun.
That’s not your claim at all, and I’ve read the study. Did you think this was evidence to support your claim?
Still haven’t watched that video huh?
No matter. My claim is that being in a situation where a need a gun to defend myself has a probability so low that I don’t worry about it. Is it as low as a meteor strike? I don’t know, but I’m not really stuck on that anyway. It is low enough that I don’t care.
Now, I would ask you to cite some evidence that having a gun results in statistically better outcomes for people, but I’m almost 100% positive you would say something like “I don’t have to justify carrying a gun it’s my right”
And you don’t, of course. Because you won’t be able to bring yourself to admit the real reasons for carrying a gun around, whatever they might be. And therefore ripe to be mocked for simply using “Because I can” as a reason for doing something.
If you read the study, you wouldn’t have so grossly misstated what it was about the first post you made on it.
It supports my claim, yes. According to that study, SDGU was no better in protecting against injuries or property than not. So there is no need to have a gun in those situations. Therefore, they are situations where I don’t need a gun. Therefore, they contribute to the growing list of times where having a gun would not be helpful. Therefore, the times I need a gun grow smaller lowering the probability of needing a gun.
So, you’re logic is based entirely on the statement “The odds of using a gun defensively are actually so low that it is difficult to accurately measure the number of defensive gun uses that occur each year.” … and this means conclusively the odds are zero … all based one a single poorly worded NRA video.
Odds of 1 in 52[sup]52[/sup] is not infinitesimal … it doesn’t matter how hard it is to accurately measure, you do have to measure it before you can claim it is zero.
I must commend your earnestness - it only took you what, 17 posts to determine that you don’t care (ignoring the one you deleted through edit). **So to clarify, are you retracting your claim, or refusing to support it? **
This wasn’t my claim - cost/benefit remember? The cost of carrying is very low. It’s almost as if the benefit need merely exist to overcome it. And I would not say that carrying a gun is my right because that right is not recognized in California where I live.
But no matter, here is what the CDC said:
When you say you are almost 100% positive, is that like 90-99%, or more like the chances of a meteor strike?
Hey, if you can’t trust the NRA when it comes to firearms, who CAN you trust?
CDC comes to mind …
Huh … men are four times more likely to be killed by lightning than women …
I don’t care actually, I could have told you that at the beginning. I again reference the NRA news video. I could type out the odds they give for needing a gun, but it is too long of a number and I don’t want to be accused of changing it :rolleyes:
But I don’t consider the cost low. Buying the gun, going through the steps to get one, buying stuff to carry it in, getting bullets, remembering to put it on, not losing it, not forgetting it, those are all costs that are not worth it to me.
Funny you don’t quote the rest of that paragraph:
Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary
across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the
crime, so further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies
and to confirm or discount earlier findings
I am 100% positive that the NRA believes the odds of me needing a gun for self defense are lower than the chances of a meteor strike. And if you can’t trust the NRA to tell us when we need a gun, who CAN you trust?
So, you’re sticking to 1 in 52[sup]52[/sup]?
NPR is reporting right now (On Point) this second that there 16 crimes prevented by guns than peoples killed in mass shootings … no link at their website yet.
Going to class at Berkeley? Pretty much zero. Being a waitress coming off the night shift, walking home at 3 AM in Detroit? Pretty damned high. Being a minority single mother living in a rough neighborhood in inner city Baltimore? Ditto.
One thing about guns - they are a great equalizer of physical power. How would you feel about being a small woman with an ex-husband who is threatening to kill you? Do you think maybe, just maybe a gun might be useful in that situation? Forget about the cops helping you - they show up in time to evaluate the crime scene, not in time to actually stop the crime.
Why do you want to deprive women of the means for self defence against larger men? Do you want them to remain helpless in the face of violent men? Why should people under threat from anyone be forced to remain helpless?
When I was a child I lived on a farm in Saskatchewan. We were watching TV one night and a bulletin came across announcing that a man had shot two RCMP officers on his farm, and had vanished with their cruiser. This farm was just a few miles north of us. A bulletin came across the radio for our area, saying that we should stay in the house, lock the doors, and under no circumstances approach any stranger who might appear. We were one of maybe 5 or 6 farms that he might go to.
That was a long night. My grandfather got down his Remington 1897 shotgun and dug out his old Lee Enfield rifle, and he and my older brother went out armed, to lock down the buildings and vehicles. Then they came back, and we sat until late at night listening to the radio for news. I can tell you, the presence of those guns made us all feel a lot better - like we had at least a bit of control over the situation.
The guy was found in the spring, propped against a tree and dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. But at the time, so far as we knew he was skulking around looking for shelter or transportation, ready to kill anyone who got in his way.
Lightning is sexist 
When you say “pretty damned high”, what sort of chance are you talking about? Personally speaking I’m not really sure what kind of percentage I’d take as “pretty damned high”, and I wouldn’t expect a fine line accuracy on that from anyone. And of course it’s the kind of situation where a % is “higher” because it’s such a bad situation; a 30% chance that I’m going to see a red car today is fine, but a 30% chance I’m going to get hit by a red car today is too damn high.
What sort of percentage chance does “pretty damned high” mean to you in the two sorts of situations you outline have that chance of being robbed in the street/need in public to have a gun?
I have to confess I’m not familiar with Canadian law enforcement, let alone the RCMP, so I have to ask; would these (very unfortunate) officers have been armed?
A trillion trillion trillion times higher than one in 52[sup]52[/sup].
So not retracting your claim. I’ll chalk this up to refusing to support it then.
Fine with me - no one is forcing any other person to carry.
In what way do you think this changes the meaning? You asked for “some evidence” and I provided it.
This is funny for a couple reasons. First, you’ve shifted who the 100% applies to now. First you were almost 100% sure I would say something like “I don’t have to justify carrying a gun it’s my right”. When that gambit failed, you’ve shifted to the NRA for some reason. The other reason is you seem to want to take what the NRA says at face value - and you are using a 1:14 second promotional video as support, as if it’s persuasive. And third, there’s more to the video than you are focusing on. For example, here is a quote:
So what are the odds? You seem to thnk it’s the figure being displayed in the video, but instead, the quote says “not that much better”. What does that mean? Who knows.
In any event, I don’t necessarily subscribe to this line of reasoning - do you? Because he’s saying 100%. That doesn’t seem very accurate to me - and it calls into question the accuracy of the rest of the statements. Let me know if NRA promotional videos are acceptable evidence and we can go down that rabbit hole too.
According to this, the chance of being a victim of violent crime in Berkeley generallyis 1 in 249. This doesn’t isolate the scenario you posit - that of going to class. To find that, I look at the violent crime rate on campus as a proxy and from there I seeit’s approximately 4.8 per 1000. That’s not a great number. Berkeley has the 2nd highest rate of campus crime (all crime, not just violent) in CA. I couldn’t locate Detroit’s rate of crime by time of day - they don’t seem to publish that data like NY or LA does.