Since you own a gun...

[Spexxvet]

Thank you for your candor, mr-mo-fucking-hammed-noodle.

[mrnoodle]

anytime

But seriously, we have this assumption that ANY unlawful use of firearms ALWAYS trumps the lawful possession and use of them. If 1 million people use guns without incident, but 2 people get killed either criminally or accidentally, we want to eliminate all guns. We don't apply that logic to any other aspect of society. Why? Because it's faulty logic.

[NSFW]

OK, I'll acknowledge it. Here are several stories (updated pretty much daily) of people being killed by guns:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefe...g/blogger.html

It's unfortunate, but sometimes shooting beats the alternative outcomes.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by NSFW

OK, I'll acknowledge it. Here are several stories (updated pretty much daily) of people being killed by guns:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefe...g/blogger.html

It's unfortunate, but sometimes shooting beats the alternative outcomes.

Absolutely. So how many times have had to shoot someone rather than suffer the alternative outcomes?

[warch]

http://www.carthagepress.com/article...03%20rifle.txt

From MO: 7th grader knows home gun safe combo and gets access to (legal I'm guessing) home weaponry including assault rifle. Takes guns, ammo and bomb stuffs to school, threatens, but thankfully no one is killed.

Adding to the statistic that correlates multiple gun ownership with probability of involvement in gun crime.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Did they happen to mention how many children didn't gain access to gun safes

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Did they happen to mention how many children didn't gain access to gun safes

What ratio is acceptable?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

Adding to the statistic that correlates multiple gun ownership with probability of involvement in gun crime.

"Statistic" isn't the plural of "anecdote".

[warch]

Damn my colloquialism!

[warch]

Do people shooting guns cause gun shot wounds? If not, what causes gun shot wounds?

[xoxoxoBruce]

People getting in the line of fire.

There is no acceptable or unacceptable ratio.
Parents being stupid is somehow an imperative for me to divest myself of guns? I don't think so.
Some parents have been being stupid forever, I don't see than changing.
Nor do I see that as a particular problem I can do anything about.
I'd be much more worried about the damage the stupid parents allow their whelps to do with automobiles.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

Do people shooting guns cause gun shot wounds?

Not always. Or there'd be hell to pay every third Saturday in Southampton PA.
However, gunshot wounds are always preceded by gunfire.

For some reason, this discussion always seems to have problems with logical fallacies (especially affirming the consequent and errors of composition and decomposition) and causation.

Since the gungrabbers here are so fond of hypotheticals, here's one for Spexxvet:

Consider a sealed room with two people in it. Obviously if the room contains no guns, no shootings will occur. If the room contains two guns, each in the posession of one of the people, I maintain that shootings are less likely to occur than if there was only one gun.

Of course, if most of what you know about firearms has been gleaned from watching television and movie drama, and you believe that guns are implicitly eeeevil, tend to go off at random on their own, and cause agressive insanity in people touching them, you won't accept that assertion.

On the other hand, if you've actually been around guns and noticed that none of those three propositions is true, you'll probablyfind the assertion more plausible.

But I say the idea that there's an implicit positive correlation between the mere number of weapons in existance and their criminal use is mistaken.

Interesting post at NRO:

Originally Posted by Davel Kopel

Our nation has too many people who are not only unwilling to learn how to protect themselves, but who are also determined to prevent innocent third persons from practicing active defense. A person has the right to choose to be a pacifist, but it is wrong to force everyone else to act like a pacifist. It is the policies of the pacifist-aggressives which have turned American schools into safe zones for mass murderers.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...Since the gungrabbers here are so fond of hypotheticals, here's one for Spexxvet:

Consider a sealed room with two people in it. Obviously if the room contains no guns, no shootings will occur. If the room contains two guns, each in the posession of one of the people, I maintain that shootings are less likely to occur than if there was only one gun. ...

Utter foolishness. Unlike UG, I'll explain why.

Ok, not utter. If there were no gun at all, there would absolutely be no shooting.

If there was one gun, and you had it, then I would surrend, lay face down on the floor, do whatever you told me to do, and you would only shoot me if you were a nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch. So that's one shot, probably. If I got had the gun, I would only shoot if you didn't surrender, after trying less lethal solutions.

If there were two guns, I would shoot you right away, so that you couldn't shoot me, knowing that you would do the same. If I didn't kill you, or you got a shot off at the same time I shot, you would still get a shot off. That's two virtually guaranteed shots.

Ha!

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Utter foolishness. Unlike UG, I'll explain why.

Ok, not utter. If there were no gun at all, there would absolutely be no shooting.

If there was one gun, and you had it, then I would surrend, lay face down on the floor, do whatever you told me to do, and you would only shoot me if you were a nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch. So that's one shot, probably. If I got had the gun, I would only shoot if you didn't surrender, after trying less lethal solutions.

If there were two guns, I would shoot you right away, so that you couldn't shoot me, knowing that you would do the same. If I didn't kill you, or you got a shot off at the same time I shot, you would still get a shot off. That's two virtually guaranteed shots.

Ha!

The assumption that if guns are present, they WILL be used to kill someone, is one of many failings all antis share. Why do you think that just because you're both armed, you have to try to kill or overpower each other? No wonder you guys don't like guns.

And why aren't you fighting the nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch? With or without a gun, you're just going to lay there and let her kill you?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The assumption that if guns are present, they WILL be used to kill someone, is one of many failings all antis share. Why do you think that just because you're both armed, you have to try to kill or overpower each other? No wonder you guys don't like guns.

I've read in one of these threads that you have to assume that an armed person is going to kill you - if you wait to analyze the situation, it's too late, you're dead. That was said by a pro-gun poster. BTW - what else is a handgun used for, besides killing someone? Big game hunting? Pu-leeze.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

And why aren't you fighting the nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch? With or without a gun, you're just going to lay there and let her kill you?

In that situation, what is your measurement of success? Getting out alive is mine. That means I will do what it takes to be successful, including laying face down. If you want to fight in that situation, go ahead, I'll send flowers to your widow and tell stories of you to your kids "yeah, he cooda been a contender, but his pride was more important than raising his kids".

Maybe that's the problem. If someone with a gun broke into my house, I would say "take my stuff". It's only stuff. Try to hurt me or my family, and I'll do my best to kill you - gun or no gun. But staying alive and unhurt is my primary goal.