You think that sounds made up? Golly. Can’t get anything past you.
How about a cite that shows weapon lights reduce accidental shootings? You made the claim, after all. Back it up.
It might be difficult to get me to own up to, “I was going to shoot my Grandma until I saw her in the flashlight on my duck gun.”
Look sherlock.
You brought up these lights as a response to the SPECIFIC stupid gun news in post #423 wherin a famous athlete shot his girlfriend. You brought it up because you assumed that he had accidentally shot her, and a gun light would have been a good idea in that SPECIFIC instance.
When it was pointed out that he actually has been charged with murder, and a gun light would have served merely to help him carry out her murder, you then pivoted (rather awkwardly) to the GENERAL use of lights on weapons.
Sorry sunshine. I’m not biting. Were your debate skills honed in junior high or something?
I know you’re joking and all, but I’d like to use this to make a point. Asking people if they’ve ever used a gun light to avoid shooting grandma might be fun journalism, but it’s not science.
No, all you’d need to do is find two populations, population A who has handguns for home defense with gun lights mounted, and population B who has handguns for home defense with no gun lights mounted. Control for factors like age, socioeconomic status, location, etc, and see which population accidentally shoots more people. There’s no reason to ask anyone anything except some basic questions and demographic info. There’s no reason to believe anyone’s “stories.”
You can extend this argument to defensive gun use as a whole. Population A has a handgun for home defense, population B has no handgun. Control for the above mentioned factors, and see which population is safer. No need to ask people if they’ve ever used a gun to scare off an intruder, or defend themselves from an intruder, or whatever. Just ask basic questions and look at the numbers. Anecdotes are pointless. Youtube videos are pointless.
The problem for people like Kable is that when you do those sorts studies, you find that you’re safer without the gun. And that hurts their brains.
What in the world makes you believe this guy made it that far?
I didn’t assume anything, I just took the story as presented by one of you gun-grabbers.
If it was murder, she probably wasn’t shot in the dark. But that does not change the fact that illumination can prevent accidents by helping to identify if a person causes bumps in the night is friend or foe.
I understand. You know I am right but you don’t want to admit it.
That would be a good study. How do you think it would turn out?
Studies are good but anecdotes (this thread is all about anecdotes) are not pointless and neither are youtube videos. By the way are we talking about banning and confiscating handguns now? I thought today’s gun grabbers were only interested in banning “assault weapons.”
I suppose I could dodge this by claiming I’m not a psychic, but honestly I think that such a study would be inconclusive, given the incredible small sample size that would necessarily be involved. I also think that people would be safer if they didn’t have a handgun on which to attach a silly little flashlight in the first place.
Who’s this “we” horseshit? Did I mention banning or confiscating anything?
Ah, once again the Rubber v. Glue gambit.
Yes, Junior High was shooting a bit high for this amusing bit of fluff.
OK, I tend to agree the sample size would be small, and I don’t doubt you think people would be better off without handguns. However, given that handguns are used for home defense, conditions for such are sometimes dark, do you think having a light on your gun might at least help to avoid accidents of shooting friends or family members in the dark.
I’m asking because you didn’t mention it. Do you think we should ban or confiscate handguns?
Sorry, the NRA does not like research into gun deaths.
Those studies reveal things they don’t want to know. So… NO STUDIES!
Absitively posolutely! How come the guy didn’t stop shooting when the perps started to flee? Is that “proactive” self-defense? You know, make sure they’re shot so that some liberal judge can’t turn them loose again?
Did you notice the part where bullets were striking other houses in the neighborhood? But that’s cool, right, because “self-defense”? For my two bits, if the perps are fleeing, you aren’t in “self-defense” any more, you’re into Judge Dredd territory. And if his bullets had actually struck anyone else, he should have been charged with a crime of negligence and bone-head stupid.
You get this video from a NRA approved website? You know, one of those that offer pre-packaged links for you to fling on message boards? Same place you got your news story above?
Got some questions. How was the suspect that was named, how was he identified? From surveillance cameras? And they know that all four were “Hispanic”? From the video cameras? And what were they after? Why this guy, and not his next door neighbor?
And if an innocent neighbor had been injured, would you still be offering this to us as proof positive?
Upon review, one question answered. The viewer is invited: “For more stories of armed self-defense, visit www.gundefense.net” Did you notice the date, by chance? Feb. 14, 2009? Wow, one solid anecdote every four years, you are bound to win!
I mean, in the same way that people who claim that nitrogen filled tires is a safety feature. Because it keeps the pressures more consistent, see, which makes the car more predictable. In the grand scheme of things, though, it’s an insignificant difference.
So I’m going to treat your suggestion of affixing tiny flashlights to handguns to avoid shooting a relative the same way I’d treat someone who says that people should fill their tires with nitrogen to avoid crashing their 911s on wild canyon runs. It’s not seeing the forest for the trees.
No.
You say “tiny flashlights” such that you think they might not be effective. Are you aware of the advances in flashlight technology? Those tiny lights put out a lot of lumens.
Good to hear. So if banning and confiscation are out, and accidental shootings do happen, maybe it would be good to look for options to lessen them. Like flashlights. Lot’s of cops use them, if you didn’t know.
Things happen a lot more often then they are caught on film. But I got lots of videos cued up for this thread. I’ll keep em coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WV6Bq8xeQrU#!
Warning. Video contains a death.
This is a video taken during a 2010 Utah police raid. The victim’s name was Todd Blair and the police were executing a no-knock warrant. The warrant was for his ex-roommate who wasn’t in the building. The police shot and killed Blair from 20 feet away because he was holding a golf club, which the officer thought to be a sword.
Oh. And there was a light mounted to the officer’s firearm so that he could easily distinguish friend from foe.
I mean, that’s one option, even though you have no statistics to support it. Or people could just voluntarily get rid of their handguns, which is statistically proven to be effective at increasing one’s safety. You don’t have to legislate smart behavior, you know?
Lumens. Heh.
Well, I got one. This is me, sitting in my house. I’ve no gun. This is me not being invaded or bothered. Except for what may be a disgruntled postal worker. She comes here every day, so I got my eye on her.
No doubt. Victory through anecdote. Gonna comment on the stray bullets hitting the neighbor’s houses, by any chance?
What statistics are you referring to?
Why is that funny?