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

Like Noir, you contradict your own conclusion....and compound it with the LIE that all gun control is akin to general prohibition and lends to confiscation.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, Korben:


The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck



“The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
“The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance – American Statistical Association, 1997
“Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
“The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000
“Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000
“Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use” Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009


The Kleck Study is a Running Joke: Gun Defenders Always Lie to Make Their Point


http://pleasecutthecrap.com/gun-defenders-always-lie-to-make-their-point/

 

Guns per 100 residents
Uk 7
Usa 112

More guns per resident and more resulting injuries in the usa

 

Still not there yet....

How many gun owners in the UK?
How many accidental deaths?
How does this compare to the US?

 

Having a swimming pool causes more deaths than having a firearm in the house. Because of this, a lot of people don't consider having a gun as dangerous. Therefore these same people consider having a firearm as analogous to have a insurance policy since they are both innocuous. Millions and millions of people have firearms and have had no accidents.

Another analogy is saying that having a gun is like having a seat belt. Yes, there are been lots of cases where wearing seat belts have caused injury or death.... but in the long run, it safer to wear seat belts.

Just like firearms. There are millions and millions of people who carry firearms. Most people will not use them, but when they are needed, it's good to have one. Just like seat beats.... or automated external defibrillator (AED) which most buildings now have... Things that can kill, but act like insurance policies against being thrown from a moving car or dying because of a bad heart. Firearms act like insurance policies for a lot of people. Some people just like to be prepared.

 

If this is what you would like to believe, then don't by a gun.

You have no right to make that decision for other people who choose to buy a gun.

 

And by this response you are obviously either incapable of decent reading comprehension or you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness with this silly accusation based wholly on supposition and conjecture. So there's no point in trying to have a further rational discussion with you. Adios.

 

I've got a couple of classics for you, too. The first one is from the Boy Scouts and the second one is from former NFL quarterback Steve Young:

1) Be prepared

2) Statistics are for idiots

I couldn't care less what Noir or gun-grabbing Chicken Littles have to say about gun ownership and my family members defending themselves with one if and when the need arises. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States upholds the right of American citizens to own firearms, and we will exercise that right to defend ourselves, if and when necessary, whether you like it or not.

No one buys a fire extinguisher, whole home generator or a gun because the odds of a fire breaking out in their homes, a prolonged power outage or the need to defend one's self with a gun are 100%. They do it to be prepared for any eventuality, regardless of its likelihood.

 

Did you miss the part where I said I rarely post facts cause it rarely helps, there's no reasoning with you people.

The issue here with all the gun grabboids isn't facts, there's no reason involved it's simple hoplophobia.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

EDIT.

We can go back forth, ohh yeah my stats say this, ohh yeah my study says that, blah blah blah.

Or I can leave you to your hoplophobia, say molon labe, and occasionally make fun of you.

 

My, but that was a load of irrational blathering and ranting on your part. Seems a simple, logical conclusion in my previous post left you with little else. Not surprising. But just to let you know, there are folk not as vigilant as you who have unknowingly sold there guns to folk who in turn sell to criminals, and those who have played cop or hero and damned near (or have) hurt innocents. A matter of fact & history that you can research yourself. That is why we need license and regulation of all guns in this country....the lesser crime with them the better.

Noir's subliminal message is to bunk....period. You haven't proved otherwise. So unless you've got something new to add, I'd say we're done here. You may have the last rant, if it makes you feel better.

 

Not quite, read this through...check the link regarding Heller: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...off-a-literal-arms-race-in-the-united-states/

 

See all above responses.

 

Ah...so hoplophobia is the clinical term that is used to describe the mental disorder that afflicts gun-grabbing Chicken Littles.

Thanks for posting that, Korben.

 

And you have no right to create an environment that would exacerbate gun crime...which is what Noir does when he implies that gun control = confiscation or general banning. Proliferation without regulation and licensing increases the ability of the criminal and unhinged element to obtain weapons.

 

Apparently you have meaningful response to my statement that: "Not all of the people are in the militia; the right of the people is protected by the 2nd.", which negates your proposition that "The people make up the militia, and vice versa".

As for your article -- an article full of supposition and half-truths - you'll have to cite the text that meaningfully responds to, and presumably negates, what I said, as I do not see it.

 

YES, they do, US v Miller 1939.

US v Miller was the first case to decide what arms were covered under the 2nd. While I and many disagree with the process and outcome of the case the majority opinion does hold some truths. That the 2nd protects at a minimum all ordinary military arms. This clearly includes what liberals refer to as "assault weapons". More so it includes true select fire assault rifles and submachine guns but we haven't won that case yet.

 

YOU are attempting "to create an environment that would exacerbate gun crime". You are doing this in three ways.

1. By advocating policies that would leave only the lawless armed.

2. By making average good people criminals.

3. By creating a scenario that can only eventually lead to civil unrest.

 

If that were true, Leftists wouldn't have the right to enact, support and promote the reckless social welfare policies that created the violent environment that Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us against 50 years ago:

"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos."

 

Availability of weapons does not make people homicidal.

 

The fact is the odds of using something in self defense are low, and we ought to possess the means to defend ourselves is a contradiction? Stupid.

When the Brits and Ausies get their repeating firearms back we will talk.

 

I don't believe I misspoke. Perhaps you missed the part in the Declaration of Independence where it states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The rights stated there and in the bill of rights are intended to set limits on what the government can do, and what they can restrict.

I can go through the bill of rights and you can explain to me how actions the government is currently making a mockery of these documents.

 

I still don't see why this would equate to me making some claims about a Law of confiscation that I need to document. This statement was only to show that there are ways to hamper gun owners WITHOUT any need to confiscate guns.

Those are my words, and I'm sorry you misconstrued them. I thought it was clear enough, but I'll try to pinpoint more in the future.

 

Your previous post was all about the very low odds of needing a gun to defend yourself and I pointed out that they were probably about the same as needing the fire extinguisher in your house. Once again I say feel free to throw out your extinguisher.

 

Self defense is nutty to you as a reason to own firearms? Which others do you consider "nutty"? You think firearms should only repose in possession of government officials? Do you have a picture of Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Che or Pol Pot or Hugo Chavez on your bedroom wall?

I need a few laughs today.

 

I've carried a concealed handgun for going on five years now. Never had to use it. Came close to a situation that had me put my hand on it when I caught a perp trying to steal my muffler. He did not come at me with his saw, but he could have. Having the gun would have been a advantage for me. Had I not had it and he attacked me, the police would have not saved a hair on my head.

These stories may be more numerous than you think and never heard of recorded. I really do not care if you wallow in hate for the 2nd amendment, I will fight to the death to preserve it.