Not really the larger question, though, is it? True enough, some of them might approve a lifting of the ban. Does that mean they would like to emulate America in regards to guns? Would “Hey, let’s be just like the Americans and their guns!” be a popular slogan? Or would it cause people to speak in soothing tones and back away slowly, glancing around for the nearest exit.
Why would anyone want to be like Americans and their guns anyway? Everyone brags they’re ready to stop crime but the number of gun owners who do is right up there with the number of people who get bopped on the head by meteors.
Mostly you get drunk accidents & suicides.
Putting aside the suicides, the accidents probably don’t outnumber the incidence of preventing crime.
The number of people who get accidentally killed by guns are about twice as frequent as people who get hit by lightning. The number of criminals who get killed by civilian who have guns is a similar number.
We’ve just done this. Literally just a few months ago you tried to compare firearms incidents to lightning strikes in a way that was favorable to firearms. I did note of course your deceitful attempt to compare all lighting strikes to fatal firearms injuries. However, a more honest representation is as follows:
US annual number of people killed by lightning: 26 (2011, per WISQARS).
US annual number of people killed by accidental firearms injuries: 606 (2010, per WISQARS)
US annual number of people injured by lightning strikes: 400 (est. average, per What Is Lightning Crotch Pain During Pregnancy?)
US annual number of people injured by accidental firearms incidents 14,675 (2011, per WISQARS)
Now, note that neither of those two pairs of numbers represents a ratio of 2.
Here, by the way, is the 20th installment of GunFAIL: GunFAIL XX
Note that this week’s update includes a 2 year old who gets to wear a “Lumpy says: ‘Shit happens’!” t-shirt at his funeral, and an incident in which a woman attending a 3 year old’s birthday party was shot in the arm by someone at a gun range over a mile away.
Yes we did. We also concluded that you don’t know how to read.
I’m not comparing firearm deaths with lightning deaths. I am comparing firearm deaths with lightning strikes. There’s nothing decietful about it unless you don’t know how to read.:rolleyes:
US annual number of people killed by accidental firearms injuries: 606 (2010, per WISQARS)::US annual number of people injured by lightning strikes: 400
You’re right, its closer to 1.5 than 2 but why you would complain about that?
The fact remains that there are still very few accidental gun deaths every year and there are many more people who use a gun for self defense than people who get bopped on the head by a meteor.
It is deceitful, because you know that comparing the same outcome (deaths) from the two mechanisms would show a greater disparity than the factor of 2 you prefer. So you intentionally compare non-fatal incidents for lightning with fatal incidents for firearms.
When you compare apples to apples, you find that there are about 23 times as many accidental deaths in the US from firearms as there are from lightning strikes, or about 37 times as many nonfatal firearms injuries as there are nonfatal lightning strikes to humans in the US.
I’ll leave it to others to come to their own conclusions about your honesty and integrity.
Really, DA? Really? Someone identifies the exact point you’re making and then explains why it’s irrelevant, and your rebuttal is to claim that they didn’t grasp the point you were making?
Who’s got the reading comprehension problem here?
To be fair, she could just as well have been injured by a pool over a mile away.
That’s a helluva long way to throw a pool.
Obviously you don’t throw pools.
You have to use a trebuchet, or something.
But the point stands: she could have been struck by a falling pool, or bucket or knife or rope or baseball bat or a falling alcohol too. Nothing about someone shooting a person at a toddler’s birthday party a mile away should suggest anything about the safety of gun strokers.
Remember, their are four weird tricks that prevent these kind of things from happening.
I can’t remember: is the first one “assume every pool is full” or “assume every pool is empty”?
Are these like the “Three questions that will make any women have sex with you”? Because I’m never clicking one of *those *ads again.
It turns out the questions are:
- Will you have sex with me?
- How about if I give you a million dollars?
- Okay, what if I agree to put the knife away and let you go afterwards?
And note as well, there are no recorded instances of someone being fatally struck by lightning while defending themselves with a firearm! Checkmate, gun-grabbers!
That will change when lightning piercing bullets are banned.
Actually, number one is “Never assume that the brown thing floating in the pool is a random, loose Baby Ruth candy bar”
You seem to think that comparing lightning deaths to gunshot deaths is apples to apples in a way that makes it deceitful to compare accidental gunshot deaths to lightning strikes.
Are you under the impression that people will read me writing “lightning strikes” and think “lightning deaths”? That I am intentionally trying to foster that image in people’s minds?
The post I was responding to implied that accidental deaths were common (I wonder whose “deceitfulness” has created that impression). I pointed out how rare it is by comparing it to a rare event, and you think it is deceitful because I didn’t compare it to an even rarer LETHAL event.
Who am I trying to fool and how am I trying to fool them?
Seriously?
Really? Why is it irrelevant? Because he said so?
How about you read Hentor’s sentence before the one you quoted. He is generalizing firearm incidents to lightning strikes as if I am trying to analogize lightning to guns rather than comparing rare event sot illustrate how rare accidnetal gunshot deaths are. So I bring it back to what I said not how he reframed what I said. I could just as easily have compared accidental gunshot deaths to some other extremely rare event but I guess my point was irrelevant, huh?
:dubious:
Do you think that accidental firearm deaths are a common event?
Lightning strikes are kind of a benchmark for rare events, aren’t they? So I compare accidental firearm deaths to lightning strikes to illustrate how rare accidental firearm deaths are and Hentor basically calls me a liar because I didn’t compare it to lightning fatalities. WTF?
Do you think I was trying to make the point that accidental gunshot deaths were rare events or that do you think I was trying to trick people into thinking that guns were not much more dangerous that lightning?
Where I saw a comparison of two rare events, Hentor saw deceit because he thinks I should have used a diffeent benchmark rare event. Why? Are lightning strikes not rare enough to make my point or do I have to pick an event so rare that accidental firearm fatalities seems relatively common by comparison?
If you are also having trouble understanding my point then maybe its not Hentor’s reading comprehension, perhaps I am not writing clearly enough, I don’t know how I could have made my point any clearer.
By way of our good friends at ThinkProgress:
Maybe this is more like stupid gun laws, but whatever. The guy’s defense boils down to he thought his wife was being raped, so he killed the guy. He walks.
This particular “stupid gun law” is a fairly common law that permits the defense of others with anything from a gun to a baseball bat. It really depends on whether or not the jury believes you. This jury decided to believe him. I don’t think this result is particular to states with stand your ground laws.
Of course it does not protect you from civil suit if it turns out you were wrong.
Those depraved four-year-olds are at it again:
Yea right, a citizen having a legal right to open carry is an idiot. I guess it’s up you to decide where that is. The hell with your state constitution right? You know better.
QUOTE=Der Trihs;15951285] And I don’t care in the slightest that it was legal, legal and moral aren’t the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
And you seem to be the arbiter of both.
QUOTE=Der Trihs;15951285] For that matter it isn’t legal any more here in California; that kind of stunt instigated the passage of a law against it.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm two paragraphs above you inferred that it was legal. Which is it?