Note that I said I drove them to church. I left out the part where I went home, took a shower, took a nap, and went back to pick them up from church because I thought my day without giving you a first, much less a second, thought was boring enough.
Don’t know. Do you?
Don’t know. Do you?
So you shot a person without first identifying him or her and fired without first verifying that the bullet would not strike anyone else? So you did not “Know your target and what is beyond?” It could’ve been anybody hitting you with that 2x4; based on what you are like here, there could be enough suspects to fill an Agatha Christie novel, some of whom you might not want to shoot.
About goddamn time. Shoulda done that BEFORE you started shooting people.
I’ll go somewhere in the middle and estimate 500,000.
I’ll estimate less than 1%.
Wow, you sound one of those people who likes to blame the victim. The guy struck me 3 times with a 2x4. That was good enough for me to evaluate that he wasn’t a friend. I shot at his midsection as well as I could at the time and I was reasonably certain there was nobody else between us. It was dark but not pitch dark. And I completely agree that a weapon light would have led to earlier threat identification. Live and learn I say.
I knew the target well enough. Beyond him was an empty bathroom then an exterior wall. Would you have done something different?
I don’t expect you to know anything about it and to be fair, you changed your tune on a few things after the facts became clearer to you. But the folks driving the gun control agenda know better but they seem more interested in making a point than making a difference.
They are aware of history. They know how silly an AWB is. They know that the most effective thing we can do (consistent with the second amendment) is licensing and registration. But they keep trying to get an AWB. I can only conclude they are retarded.
Its not NRA tactics that are winning, its that the hysteria is dying down and the idiocy of an AWB is seeping in and since the gun control folks made the AWB the crown jewel of their push, the demise of the AWB undercut their credibility on everything.
Be careful who you get in bed with.
It didn’t have to be this way but the gun control folks just don’t know what the fuck they are doing.
I’ve seen firearm prices come down to near pre-Newtown levels. The problem is you can’t get any ammo to shoot through them. Some idiots somewhere are hoarding them to fight off zombies or something. I literally don’t have enough rounds to fill my magazines.
I know its not the same thing but I have picked up a few laser targets and laserlyte trainers to dry fire. On the plus side, practicing has gotten veeerryy cheap, on the minus side, its just not the same without the bang.
A lot of gun control advocates go through a phase when they think insurance would be the answer until they realize that what they are proposing is requiring simply excess liability or umbrella insurance for gun owners. When you get this insurance, the incidence of accidental/negligent discharge is so tiny compared to the incidence of auto accidents that exceed the auto insurance cap that gun ownership doesn’t even show up as a blip. If you wanted insurance JUST for gun accidents and negligence discharge, then I suspect that the insurance would be indifferent to the number or types of guns you have and focus on demographics and locality. I also suspect it would be fairly cheap considering that something like 100 million gun owners produce something like 15,000 accidnetal/negligent injuries per year, of which 600-700 are fatal. A LOT of these injuries are self inflicted.
You seem to be saying we should disarm the police too;):eek::eek::eek:
Now you are going a lot further than elucidator (at least as I understood him). You are advocating an insurance program where gun owners would pay for the criminal acts of others. We don’t do this in any other arena.
The liability insurance thee NRA sells is simple umbrella insurance, its marketed as gun insurance but its much more likely to end up covering you if you have a bad car accident.
They lost the initiative. They chased an AWB and wasted their opportunity.
Are you confusing life insurance and liability insurance?
quite the opposite.
Accidental shooting is a valid statistic for comparison. Contrasting the danger of owning a gun with the benefit of owning a gun makes sense.
Homocides are not a useful statistic for comparisonl. Comparing homocides committed overwhelmingly by criminals who shouldn’t have guns to begin with to defensive gun use to justify taking guns away from law abiding citizens is fairly useless.
The intro paragraph talks about gun injuries and the article references several cases of guns being lost in bathrooms and shit like that.
It probably doesn’t really move the actuarial data very much compared to things like pools, trampolines and teenage drivers.
Its just umbrella insurance marketed as “gun liability insurance”
I wonder where Kable reported his supposed incident of DGU. He keeps asking for numbers. Maybe the organizations he reported to has records/stats.(LOL!)
Here’s another nice article Hentor, I know Fear Itself just made something up, but since you are into statistics maybe you can say how you got 5000. Or is it just the lowest number you have heard so for an irrationally “anchored” to it?
It’s as reasonable an estimate as those derived from very flawed methods. I already showed you from a cite you yourself provided how those methods result in very questionable data.
What is needed are data derived from a method that helps to reduce inflated responses. At this point it is indisputable that gun owners are easily frightened and paranoid people. They are more likely to perceive a threat when one is not present, so asking them to estimate how many times they have successfully repelled a threat when one was not present is going to generate overestimates - sometimes outrageous overestimates.
It’s just that the successful curtailing of gun related research by the NRA reduces the likelihood that we will have this data any time in the near future.
“He” who? You’ve linked to an article summarizing the primary literature, not to any new literature. The number one conclusion of the article you linked to is that we don’t know how often guns are successfully used in self-defense.
If by “he” you mean David Hemenway, here’s an article of his:
He finds that people are threatened or intimidated with a firearm far more often than they appropriately use one in self-defense.
Further, here is some discussion of the problems with asking gun owners about their “successful” defensive gun use:
So, you get people who fire off rounds at the feet of people who may or may not be breaking in to a business, or someone who successfully uses his gun against someone who interrupted his movie watching. You get people who claim 50 successful gun uses or who use their gun “successfully” as the escalation of the conflict that they may have started.
We need research that can help to address these obvious problems. Otherwise, it’s garbage in, garbage out.
I don’t know. I’m having a hard time figuring out who would sell such insurance. From a homeowner’s perspective, it would seem to be a liability issue but if I “accidentally” clubbed someone with a baseball bat, I wouldn’t expect my homeowner’s policy to cover it because AFAIK, they don’t cover behavior.
If a gun on the premises greatly increases your chances of hitting a family member (who would often be covered under the gun owner’s medical policy), then it would seem that health insurance would charge more for gun owners. Again, either the risk is neglible, it is offset by the likelihood of an intruder harming a covered party or they just don’t want to stir that pot. ISTM that some company would at least look into it.
Of course we don’t know, so we estimate, and nobody is estimating 5000 except you and fearitself. Even Hemenway came up with estimates far higher than you got and far higher than the number of homicides and accidents in a year. But I agree we really do need to educate people in public schools regarding safe gun use and defensive use, else guys like Joe Biden will continue to advocate defense techniques that are illegal.
That’s quite a concession, surely it shows how reasonable you are and amenable to persuasion. Which “gun grabbers” have advocated the public school education in proper firearm safety that you are agreeing with?
The intro paragraph talks about gun injuries and the article references several cases of guns being lost in bathrooms and shit like that.