I live in the US and don’t hear those things either.
I swear, the water supply in Australia must be contaminated with heavy metals.
A one-time co-worker once held off an intruder in his home with a putter.
I would not advise anyone else to do this. Underclubbing can be hazardous.
:golf clap:
Regards,
Shodan
I lived in Lansing, and I did. As to water supply, I’ll compare Brisbane’s, with, say, Flint’s, any old time.
Must suck living in Michigan, glad I got out.
I expect the people of Michigan are glad, too.
Well, there’s the occasional impulse, but I’ve successfully resisted it for 30+ years.
But you never know what may happen tomorrow. 
Kellerman again? Seriously?! My family has been gun owners for generations; are we cheating death? Beating the odds? Or is Kellerman’s analysis flawed?
Because someone coined the phrase in the early/mid 80’s iirc. Before then it had no legal (Constitutional, historical) or statutory meaning.
Because the no-fly list is a fucking regulatory/bureaucratic nightmare with 4-year old kids on it due to their having similar names to other no-fly listees?
Because the legal framework (and thus the necessary government database cross-linking) doesn’t exists due to privacy and due-process considerations that violate people’s rights?
I think you are confusing the meaning of “the odds are 2.7 times greater” with “it’s 100% guaranteed that everyone will”.
Besides that, the OP said nothing about Kellermann. How do you know he or she wasn’t referencing one of the multiple different studies that have found similar results to Kellermann?
What are the odds before they are 2.7 greater? If I buy two lotto tickets, I double my chances of winning, but the odds are still overwhelmingly against my winning.
But do you know how to spell?
Right, but it doesn’t matter. Remember, the reason a lot of these people are buying the guns in the first place is safety. It doesn’t matter if it raises the miniscule chance of X happening by just 2%; they’re expecting it to lower the miniscule chance of X happening. Because beyond that, there’s not a whole lot of upside to the expensive, dangerous purchase.
I disagree. Outside of their value in self-defense, my guns have brought me a great deal of enjoyment from target shooting, hunting, and pissing off antis.
The Europeans will probably never get over the trauma inflicted when we had to make and transport a bazillion guns and gun platforms to their side of the planet for killing Germans and Italians. Canadians probably resent getting drug along for ride. Get over it.
Personally, in answer to OP’s original question, firearms are one of those type tools that is actually fun to practice with. That gives a distinct edge to the good folks who own and use them responsibly, should their primarily-intended application ever come into play.
Aside: The Japanese don’t even argue about it. Wonder why.
The comparison is to people who don’t have a gun in the house.
Yes, I know that. What are that person’s odds? Telling me that my odds are 2.7 times greater than his because I have a gun in the house is, at best, useless if I don’t know what his odds were. By having a gun in the house is my survival each day a coin flip? By having a gun in the house have my odds increased to where they now equal my chances of being struck by a meteorite?
Hoo-boy, where to begin:
-
Not as long as they’re left the choice.
-
There’s the old saying “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”. See this thread for that debate.
-
Because gun banners wanted to create a blanket ban for disparate firearms they thought looked scary. They couldn’t come up with an objective standard, they ended up having to write a list and saying “anything on this list is an assault weapon”.
-
The no-fly list is already infamous for its arbitrariness and lack of reason. It’s bureaucracy gone mad.
The only thing worse than a gun is someone else having one when you don’t
Anyway I see further comment is pointless.
John Oliver the comedian? He gets paid to tell jokes. Jokes his employers like. His show is entertaining but you have to understand that he can’t be held to the same standards of truth/fact as a non-comedian. I’m a comedian. I was telling a joke. Not all of my jokes are funny but they were meant to be funny. Sometimes people don’t laugh. You can’t sue me for slander, I’m a comedian.
Maybe you should put your shoes on?
Which is what makes it super depressing that his segments are more informative, accurate, and generally all-around better than competitors at, say, FOX News.
(post shortened)
You don’t have the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Thanks for playing. 