I think the cops in the video shot too early, you want me to excuse that? The victim was not in the dark. The lights on the cops guns didn’t help or hurt. If it had been dark and the person not bent on shooting regardless then a weapon light could most certainly help. You really don’t think so? It would have helped in my situation for sure. You guys keep talking about tiny lights, or in your case increasing the lumens “a bit.” I’m talking about increasing them a lot, from dark to lit up.
Have you ever handled one of these lights in a dark room. They do a lot.
“De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[32] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods.”
It’s only the rate which changes. That’s just a percentage. If there are 10000 gun suicides and 100 hanging, then a similar 10% rate change means 9000 gun suicides and 110 hanging–a difference of 990. If gun and hanging suicides are the same, then the same rate change would mean that the handgun suicides are switching to hanging. But without knowing the details, it’s not clear if all the gun suicides switched to hanging.
(I’m unable to view that [32] link in the wiki page, so I’m not sure what numbers they used).
That’s a criticism, the pro is that in the dark they all but blind the bad guy. Also from the real life video’s from you tube it seems a lot of bad guys have knives instead of guns.
Seems odd to me that you gun-grabbers are so against technology with the potential to save innocent lives. I guess that’s really not what you are all about.
What? Your posts are very hard to parse sometimes.
Anyway, I certainly count suicides. I’m still in the worst demographic for them, after all. Statistically, I’m way more likely to kill myself than to be killed by a stranger. Why would I ignore that?
“Seems odd to me that you gun-grabbers are so against technology with the potential to save innocent lives. I guess that’s really not what you are all about.”
I don’t think you should bother, as you’d just have to pretend not to be able to understand what it says despite repeated explanations. Or you could just act as if you’ve never seen that cite before, no matter that you’ve already been referred to it.
Dave I’m not sure why you would say that now. I have a private message from you saying you liked my approach to the Kellerman study you often reference, but only I read.
I was impressed-- at first-- with your approach to Kellerman, which appeared to be surprisingly open-minded for someone who is clearly an advocate of sanctioned firearms homicide. That was before you started asking me to explain, repeatedly, things I’d already quoted to you and that were covered, plainly and at some length, within the article. I decided that you were being disingenuous. To be as stupid as you pretended I doubt you could operate a computer or mobile device.
Stupid? What you mean those questions you admitted in your PM to me that you couldn’t answer? Yeah, I thought I would ask them again, to give you the chance to admit IN PUBLIC you couldn’t answer them.
