How was the intruder able to get into your house? Did he have to defeat any alarms or get past a dog? Or did he slip in unnoticed and startle you as you were sleeping? What would you have done if the intruder was armed and pointing his gun at you when you first noticed him?
Just because something worked doesn’t mean it’s a good solution. There are other solutions which work better and don’t introduce the same risk of lethal accident when the grandkids come over to visit.
Of course we’re allowed to collect data on gun violence. The government does it all the time. The CDC is the only outfit that isn’t allowed to conduct research on it because some people don’t like how they conduct and present their research.
I don’t have any problems with the CDC doing research or funding research but I understand why people were annoyed with the CDC “public health” approach to gun violence rather than the FBI “criminologist” approach to gun violence.
My understanding is that the public health approach focused on banning guns as an effective method of reducing gun deaths, but the prevented gun deaths were almost entirely suicides. They also presumed that these suicides would be replaced by the typical “attempted” but unsuccessful suicides rather than other equally lethal methods of suicide. The CDC also doesn’t place very much weight on the increase in crime victimizatiojn that might occur in a disarmed citizenry with armed criminals unless people will die as a result. So if the CDC starts looking at this from more of a criminologist’s perspective, I don’t see why anyone could reasonably object but the suspicion is that these people aren’t built to look at these problems in that way.
About what?
You assumed I would, then you couldn’t name the difference between that and a normal pistol. Its not my fault you’re redundantly naming off the same thing, if they are the same
Its a good strategy. People should have their guns limited, licensed, and registered, and they should be trained to handle it
Its reducing it for everyone and drying up the supply
It is clear you do not know the difference between data and anecdotes. You are expressing your opinion only, not facts on which others can base an informed decision about gun control.
Tell me how your law works so that it won’t end up reducing firearms among law abiding citizens without having much if any impact on firearms owned by criminals?
Is firearm ownership by anyone a value we are obliged to protect and promote? Clearly, we would prefer that criminals did not have weapons. But does that mean we have some obligation to encourage “law abiding citizens” to arm themselves? Isn’t that why we have armed policemen in the first place? We defer our right to self-defense to a group of trained professionals, don’t we? In a similar manner, we place the responsibility for national defense on trained soldiers, and supply them with the weapons appropriate to their duty. Is there some reason that similar weapons should be available to civilians?
He is referring to studies by McDowall and Kleck which pin the number of times that guns are used in self defense at 65,000/year and 2,500,000/year respectively. These two numbers are the bookends of estimates and the real number is probably somewhere in between.
A DOJ survey estimates the number at over a million per year.
Protect? Yes. Promote, probably not anymore but there was a time when it was required by law.
Policemen are armed more to protect them than us.
Maybe you do, I don’t.
Yeah, because there is a constitutional right of the people to bear arms.
If that isn’t good enough for you (and I would ask WHY thats not good enough for you), then the natural right to self defense.
If that isn’t enough for you then because we cannot depend on the police to be there when crime is occurring, only to try and catch the criminal after it has occurred. Heck, I have seen cops drive right by (heck they were parked and they drove away from) criminals in the middle of the commission of a crime on their way to protect people in wealthier neighborhoods. I don’t blame them but I don’t think I can depend on them either.
When seconds count the police are only a few minutes away.
That’s not the goal. The goal is to reduce it for everybody. Of course the ones who comply will be hit first, but that’s ok, there are other guns available that allows them to defend themselves just fine. The fallacy is assuming that only these guys allow the law-abiding to defend themselves fully. It would not be a loophole if 100% of law-abiding citizens cannot own these while making a marginal impact on the criminal. You guys still have handguns and shotguns, good enough for self-defense. You don’t need an illegal weapon just because criminals have it. You may as well ask why the law-abiding can’t own rocket propelled grenades because how are you going to defend yourself from criminals with RPGs? The answer is that you use a different gun and we dry up the supply for assault weapons as much as possible
How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research
Read more: How the NRA Kills Gun Violence Research - Business Insider
And another: Blackout: How the NRA suppressed gun violence research
It’s science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It’s all part of the War on Science.
It’s simply incorrect to say that “you can collect any data you want.” There are scientific, ethical, regulatory and pragmatic concerns that dictate what and how data can be used in answering research questions.
Of course, the people saying this sort of thing are just being flippant and don’t actually care about the real world.
It has happened for centuries; When knowledge contradicts pre-conceived belief, then knowledge must be crushed.
After all, if actual scientific studies were done, then how on earth could folks like Kable continue to post tripe along the lines of “guns are good, because here’s a story about a granny that scared a bad man away.”
Have you ever noticed that when people debate car safety, or pool safety, or ladder safety … no one ever bring the, “yeah, but what about guns?” side of the argument to the table?
You kidding me? I see it all the time, most recently in the “Should Everclear be banned?” discussion.
And you earnestly believe Kable is simply arguing in favor of responsible drinking in that thread?
I think he’s arguing that we should apply the same rules to guns that we do to drinking, just as people keep trying to say that we should apply the same rules to guns that we do to cars, even though they’re completely different products. I think the gun rights advocates are starting to get concerned that there might be enough of a ground-swell of interest in lowering the body count a little that the power of the NRA may not be enough to maintain the status quo, and he’s trying to deflect as much attention and energy as he can.
That, and, he’s a thread-shitting troll.
I’d be interested in determining whether gun owning women are less likely to be raped (this article reports such a study, but doesn’t cite it). I know most rapes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, but there are still a considerable number of rapes committed by strangers. Of course, we couldn’t determine causation, but surely the gun proponents would be interested in knowing?
A light-hearted look at a gun rights rally: Idaho Gun Fondlers Bravely Resist Tyrant Hussein Obama’s Imaginary Gun Confiscation Orders
WARNING: contains barrelfuls of snark, but is actually relatively kind to the subject matter considering the website.
My intruder broke down my front door, awakening me in the process. I keep all my doors and windows locked so there is no way I can think of for him to “slip in.” If I saw him pointing a gun at me, I would have shot him also. I keep a surefire weapon light on my home defense gun now to make identifying threats easier.
In my case I don’t have grandkids and I do have a safe. I think alarms and dogs are both great ideas, but I would not trade my gun for either or both. Ideal for some might be all 3, and now that alarms act by cellular technology I’m considering getting one. I do think that people should be able to assess their particular situation and take whatever security precautions they see fit, how about you?
Jesus, you are a dumb fuck.
I assumed correctly, and the uzi pistol is the same as a normal pistol. You thought it should be outlawed because it looked “military” but was just a handgun.
I think gun safety is an important issue and think they should teach it to all children in public school. How do you like that idea?