Owning anything does not affect your safety.
I would bet that most people killed while carrying a gun didn't own them in the first place.
Carrying a gun quadruples your chance of being killed.
- Thread starter BrianNole09
- Start date
I would bet that most people killed while carrying a gun didn't own them in the first place.
It does not matter and you will never convince anyone to stop carrying....ever. I am not a gun owner and have no desire to ever be one. If I ever felt the need to carry I would move. All I can do is hope where I live is safe and the folks around me who are carrying or have guns in there home take the upmost precautions to be safe with the their firearms for the sake of myself and my family.
You're probably right that facts won't convince gun owners. All I hope is that they know owning and carrying a gun makes them more likely to be shot. It certainly is not making them safer.
Everything people own has potential safety risk. Cars, bathtubs, stoves, power tools, ladders, boats, swimming pools, dogs, horses, knives, stairs, Christmas decorations, etc., etc., etc. And yet, most things you own will not help you be more safe if an intruder is trying to kill you.
Your argument completely and utterly FAILS.
One I can. The other I cannot. It was an attempted robbery and another person beside the perp was involved.
The situation that I can talk about basically involved a drunk driver and his road rage after he thought I nearly created an accident that he actually nearly created. I called 911 from my vehicle. The perp drove off but went around the block and flanked me at a stop light. Next thing I know a couple stoplights later he is on my car. Didn't have time to safely get out and engage. The drunk tried my doors which were locked and next gave my window a hard rap. I drew my weapon and instructed him through the closed door to walk around and place his hands on my hood. Had he broken my window I would have fired. He ran back to his vehicle and drove off. I dialed 911 again and updated. Drunk was arrested by the IHP and charged with 2nd offense DWI plus it was a probation violation.
That study doesn't prove what you claim, as it does not exclude people with many other unaddressed risk factors (prone to suicide, involved in criminal activity, etc). Show us a study where those factors are excluded and that there is a negative correlation to safety and we might have something to talk about. Absent that, you're making invalid assumptions and wasting everyone's time.
You just hope people are safe with their shit. That goes for cars, power tools, guns, etc. my kids play at homes where guns are owned. I have had serious conversations with the owners about how they are stored etc. it's just a fact of life. You hear the stories about kids shooting other kids. You just want folks to be safe.
I'm making common sense statements that you continue to deny. It's not even debatable that gun owners are more likely to be shot than non gun owners.
This country is overly obsessed with safety. It's a group think mental disorder, really.
Last edited:
Wow! You really told him!
Amazing powers of deduction; and brilliant repartee.
Brilliant retort.
It's amazing how anyone could deny that owning a gun makes one more likely to be shot statistically, but I don't expect much logic from most gun advocates.
It really is. People are so obsessed they feel the need to carry a gun 24/7.
It probably does in a probabilistic sense. Just because I'm wearing my gold Rolex as I stroll through a bad neighborhood doesn't necessarily mean I will get robbed, but it's a good bet that it increases the odds.
Exactly. There is so much fear and paranoia among republicans. In reality, America is safer than it has been in decades. Riding around with a gun on your hip like George Zimmerman isn't going to make you safer.
Recent studies affirm the growing recognition that conservatives are much more fearful than progressives.
So that's 2 differences between cons and libs: cons score worse on empathy (they have diminished ability to put themselves in another's shoes) and they are pant-wetters.
So that's 2 differences between cons and libs: cons score worse on empathy (they have diminished ability to put themselves in another's shoes) and they are pant-wetters.
A valid study would include only those who legally possess firearms and should exclude suicides as there is no way reliable way to prove who would have killed themselves absent a gun. But these studies are biased from the get-go.
That's something completely different from what you said earlier. And, it really doesn't mean anything, because you haven't clearly defined "gun owner" and owning a gun is only one factor. Clean out the other crap (criminal activity, mental health diagnoses consistent with suicide victims, etc) and then look at it objectively. I don't think it would make a huge difference either way, but it's just as likely to lean toward more safe, given that we know that gun ownership leads to less crime overall.
Because people who illegally possess firearms are generally in another risk pool: violent criminals and gang-bangers. They distort the cited studies.
Link to "recent studies"?
In any case, it depends on what you're afraid of. Conservatives seem more afraid of terrorists, blacks seem more afraid of cops, liberals seem more afraid of guns, libertarians are more afraid of lawmakers....
I think people are arguing past each other here. I believe the original post wasn't about banning guns, it was a simple cost vs benefit note. As in, "If you buy a gun for the purposes of making yourself safer, you should weight the potential that it may save your life versus the accidentally getting shot." Some of you seem to think this is a 2nd Amendment issue, but it's not.
It's sort of like, if somebody started a post saying you shouldn't lie about yourself when you meet somebody new, because while you might impress them short-term you run the risk of losing their respect if you get caught; and then you respond by saying "The 1st amendment gives me the right to free speech!"
It sounds to me like there is a safety argument being made.
But, it is only being applied to guns.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/brain-difference-democrats-republicans
http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/sc...gure-out-why-conservatives-are…-conservative/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-prevalent-and-powerful-among-conservatives/
You wont convince people. They have more chance of an accident than they do of a home invasion living in most places. So be it. Yeah, I could get robbed...I could get hit by lightening too, but I am not going to carry a ground around....
Awwww...You can't even answer the simple question of why you own guns. You definitely are in the pant-wetter class.
Just hang around with taller friends (but don't stand too close in a thunderstorm).
I like hanging around with open carry types. While they are getting shot first, I have extra time to get away.
The Scientific American article didn't really say what you claimed it said, and the other three sources are liberal bastions unlikely to tell both sides of the story.
I did find it interesting that liberals would be more likely to eat their own dog for cash.
Right. Gun owners are more likely to be shot than non gun owners. That's the correlation.
Someone in danger of being shot at is more likely to carry a gun.
The claim the OP made is as dumb as saying having a life preserver makes you more likely to drown, which is every bit as true.
