NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

If more guns =- more accidents, as you argue, what other meaningful rate is there?

An almost indescribably tiny % of gun in the US are involved in an injury accident; you have no sound argument here.

 

What i say is that more people with guns more often implies more accidents

Think if it like this
If i can afford to have two cars, it does not impact the accident rate over having one car
If i sell my extra car, now you have some one else with a car and the accudent rate goes up

If i drive my car Around all day at work, the accident rate goes up
Which is like the difference between leavng my gun home, vs doing concealed carry

More people driving cars more often means more accdents
More people with guns in more situations means more injuries

 

Ok...
505 accidental deaths
~110,000,000 gun owners
1 gun owner in ~218,000 in involved in an accidental gun-related death.
Please compare and contrast this to "other similar countries"

 

What is a similar country?

 

You'll have to ask the person that originally used the term.
Oh wait! That's YOU!
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429585&page=9&p=1065533476#post1065533476

So, again:
505 accidental deaths
~110,000,000 gun owners
1 gun owner in ~218,000 in involved in an accidental gun-related death.
Please compare and contrast this to "other similar countries"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Lets compare us to uk

 

OK... get busy.

 

United Kingdom 0.26 .... 0.05 ....0.17 ....0.01 .... 0.02
United States .... 10.5 .... 3.55 .... 6.70 .... 0.16 .... 0.09

First number is total fa related death, then homicide, then suicide, then accidental,then unknown

As you can see, uk is much lower in all

 

I'm sorry.. you'll have to do better than that.

In the US:
505 accidental deaths
~110,000,000 gun owners
1 gun owner in ~218,000 in involved in an accidental gun-related death.

How many gun owners in the UK?
How many accidental deaths?

 

An absurd comparison, as fires happen by accident (barring arson, which is a whole other story). Fire does NOT mug you, or B&E when you're not at home (or in some cases when you are at home), or rob stores, etc. Now before you dance and wail, " you're making my point!" you must remember something. Noir's little screed implies that there is a plot afoot to deny a law abiding citizen a weapon to protect themselves. Not true. If you meet individual state and federal laws, you can have that gun. I have NO problem with people getting guns for protection.....I do have a problem with folk wanting guns without any state/federal regulation or oversight where they can buy any and as many weapons they want, sell them to whomever they want, and carry them anywhere they want. Been there, done that as a nation, which resulted in the evolution of state and then to federal gun laws.

Noir says, "when you need it, stats don't matter"....but that implies that YOU will be in a situation where a gun will either prevent you from being robbed or killed. As Noir's own research tells, the chances of that are extremely low to non-existent, depending upon where you live, work and travel regularly. Paranoia in the weapons industry translates to sales, as the "obama is coming for our guns" rallying cry by various right wing punditry raked in the bucks in the last 8 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said anything about banning the 2nd amendment? I didn't, and surely Noir didn't in his contradictory passage. So essentially, you're making stuff up.

 

Of course - no you just want to see guns regulated to the point no one can have them - well except for government and cops which is weird because democrats clearly have an issue with cops given their whole BLM position..

 

Your opinion is to laugh at, as you seem unaware of the due process of law.... case in point your "example". For your clarification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California Take note of the section: "Legislative action on same-sex marriage"

 

True enough....but that in and of itself is NOT justification for the paranoia based assertions by the NRA that there should be little to no state and federal oversight/regulation of weapon purchases by civilians. That is the underlying message of Noir's video....which falls flat in light of his own contradiction.

 

And quite frankly no one give's a damn.....until someone like you decides to play cop or hero and either accidentally shoots an innocent bystander or gets themselves killed. Or they unwillingly sell the gun to some joker who may be unsavory. BUT....YOU WERE NOT DENIED THAT WEAPON OR TO CARRY IT, AS NOIR SUBLIMINALLY SUGGESTS IS THE INTENT OF GUN REGULATION IN GENERAL.

 

NEWSFLASH FOR YOU: THEY DIDN'T "ARGUE" IT, THEY WROTE IT THAT WAY IN THE FINAL DRAFT. The people make up the militia, and vice versa. Research the rules and requirements for the weapon back in the day and subsequent Militia laws.

And NO, "assault weapons" don't fall under 2nd amendment protection. Please provide the case law that says so.

 

1. We have an armed, trained police force that is a MAJOR deterrent to criminal behavior. Do some research as to the relationship between poor to little police presence and crime rate.

2. Please explain how a criminal determines political/social ideology of their targets? Also, do some research as to how many ARMED people are STILL victims of crime.

 

And the militia is REGULATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATE....in accordance with the Constitution (i.e., federal law).

 

And quite frankly no one give's a damn - I could care less which way the sheep feel. To each their own and I like mutton.
until someone like you decides to play cop or hero and either accidentally shoots an innocent bystander or gets themselves killed - Someone like me huh. If someone like me were to tell someone like you what to do with themselves after that ******* swipe they would probably get banned or a mod warning so I am hoping that there isn't someone like that on this forum who will tell someone like you that because I won't do it.. Not going to play cop, wouldn't play a hero - He Expired Rescuing Others. Only carry for family protection and YOUR ASS isn't family
Or they unwillingly sell the gun to some joker who may be unsavory - Haven't sold to a Hells Angel or Crip in awhile did turn down a Muslim though if that makes you feel any better. But they do pay better than most and cash is cash.

 

This is, of course, not true.
Not all of the people are in the militia; the right of the people is protected by the 2nd.

As they are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, and are neither dangerous nor unusual, the holdings of Miller and Heller disagree with you..

 

I need for you to read carefully and comprehensively your own source material, as it does NOT even suggest a "tyrannical" action on part of the Executive office....Peter King's opinion non-withstanding.

Again, despite periods some corrupt administrations, racial and social injustice, America has never had a true tyrannical government by the definition of the word or historical examples.

- - - Updated - - -

Take that to heart, son.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, you should thank Noir's own words for that. The OP merely points this out, logically. One has to suspend logic and critical thinking to accept Noir's subliminal message as fact, as gun regulation does NOT automatically equate with confiscation.

- - - Updated - - -

Note the following: "Shall not be infringed and state regulations....doesn't compute. Anyway, you don't need an explicit law to confiscate guns to do the same thing.

Eliminate or make it harder to obtain said permits...arbitrarily hinder the amount of ammo you can buy...the size of clips...trigger locks...reguations of storage...and whatever else they can think of.

All designed to hamper those people's guns and make their right to have them more of a headache."

Your words, not mine. If you don't mean to imply, insinuate, allude to or suggest otherwise, then I urge you to proof your responses before you post, as it will lessen confusion.

 

Not a good comparison, because as you age through life you will need some type of medical, whether it vision, dental or otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant, as I've stated above and previously on this thread.

 

An erroneous summation based on erroneous and juxtaposed assertions on your part.

 

Your absurd supposition and conjecture in light of the exchanges on this thread indicate an unwillingness on your part to actually comprehend what others post and subsequent valid documentation to support those posts.

 

Actually, Ardy's point was to the absurd analogy that having a gun is like an insurance policy (say against fire or natural disaster), since an insurance policy merely asses and makes monetary compensation. Your response is way off base.