Adding another gun to my collection

[i like guns 10+ year member]

Intelligent response...but I will bite. As my response says..not antigun...hunting is great. But carrying a gun makes it MORE likely you get hurt/killed..right? right.

WRONG. If you carry concealed then why would that make you more likely to get hurt/killed? If a bad situation arises then having a means of self defense will only INCREASE your chances of survival.

And lets be real, Canada is tougher on guns...and FAR lower crime/gun crime rate. Interesting correlation there..lol. So lets look at the Wild west man..everyone had a gun there...and tons of crime. Then we look at places with few guns, and lower crime..espescially violent. Go figure.

And Switzerland and Holland have almost NO gun control at all, yet they have less crime than both Canada AND the United States. There are just too many variables to form any conclusions about guns when comparing different countries or areas.

I got nothing against guns, love hunting, target shooting. The point at which you "need" to carry to feel safe...that is a serious problem. If you have anything INTELLIGENT to say..love to hear it...otherwise go back to sticking your head in the sand..and enjoy your life.

I live in an area with very little crime, and I carry because it makes me prepared. You cant say that youll never be attacked in an area with little crime because there is a chance you can be, and although its smaller it can still happen. Why not be prepared? Theres no downside to carrying, contrary to what you think.

As I said man...that is the statistics. Even when they account for area, crime rate and socio economic factors. If you carry a gun, you are more likely to be injured by one then if you don't.
This is not just from self injury, but carrying a gun often escalates a situation to where a gun is used. So where normally both parties would have walked away, or there would have been limited violence...it ends up with one party injured by the gun. YES...the criminals get injured more as well...but again..the bottom line is you are FAR more likely to be injured by a gun if you carry one. If you don't believe me, look it up. Don't just spout your opinion man... do some research. You may FEEL you are safer...but in fact you put you, kids, wife, family, etc. at greater risk by carrying one.

So in your scenario...the guy comes after your car with a knife...who the hell cares..let them have it..collect insurance...you are much more likely to ALL go home uninjured then if you pull the gun. You pull the gun...then what? The robber retaliates... you try to shoot...mabye you hit him...maybe he stabs you or your WIFE or KIDS in the process. Maybe he has a buddy with a gun on you. The history of such incidents tells the story man.

Carrying a gun does NOT lead to a situation where a gun more likely gets used. The ONLY time you should pull a gun is when your life is in danger. If you dont have a gun and your life is in danger, then good luck. If what you are talking about is a situation where you get into an argument and pull a gun, then that person should not be carrying.

And why dont YOU provide the statistics? I can guarantee that youll fine NONE that support your claim.

Say you have a daughter. A man with a knife comes up and tries to kidmap her right from you. Can you collect insurance on her, and make things right? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif Insurance cant even give cash back, nevermind LIFE.

Why dont you read up?

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

"Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives."

"Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, **** by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%."

And most importanty, for you at least:

"A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life."

If I didnt make you reconsider any of your previous arguments in this post then you are ignorant, simple as that.

 

[i like guns 10+ year member]

Merged.

 

[i like guns 10+ year member]

Merged.

 

[supraman1379 10+ year member]

Well I made the first payment on it. I should have it in just under two weeks

 

[supraman1379 10+ year member]

WRONG. If you carry concealed then why would that make you more likely to get hurt/killed? If a bad situation arises then having a means of self defense will only INCREASE your chances of survival.


And Switzerland and Holland have almost NO gun control at all, yet they have less crime than both Canada AND the United States. There are just too many variables to form any conclusions about guns when comparing different countries or areas.

I live in an area with very little crime, and I carry because it makes me prepared. You cant say that youll never be attacked in an area with little crime because there is a chance you can be, and although its smaller it can still happen. Why not be prepared? Theres no downside to carrying, contrary to what you think.

Carrying a gun does NOT lead to a situation where a gun more likely gets used. The ONLY time you should pull a gun is when your life is in danger. If you dont have a gun and your life is in danger, then good luck. If what you are talking about is a situation where you get into an argument and pull a gun, then that person should not be carrying.

And why dont YOU provide the statistics? I can guarantee that youll fine NONE that support your claim.

Say you have a daughter. A man with a knife comes up and tries to kidmap her right from you. Can you collect insurance on her, and make things right? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif Insurance cant even give cash back, nevermind LIFE.

Why dont you read up?

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

"Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives."

"Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, **** by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%."

And most importanty, for you at least:

"A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life."

If I didnt make you reconsider any of your previous arguments in this post then you are ignorant, simple as that.

I agree with him 100%. %f my life is in danger, or a family member, gf, or whoever,....that could be the situation where you need it. Better to have it and not need it , than need it ad not have it. Like stated earlier

And Ill be ****ed it someone breaks into my house and I dont have a gun. I dont take any chances when it comes to my life

And odds are, that if someone wants youre car or anything for that matter, they will probably shoot you because you might have seen their face or seen to much.

 

[CanadianDream 10+ year member]

Okay, there are a lot of "interesting" statistics floating around. The ones I trust are those that have been published in peer reviewed journals. This means it is a scientificaly controlled study, and annoymous, random scientists (ie pro or anti gun) are assigned to reviewing and approving the studies. Here are the findings of only studies.

1. If you have a gun in the house, there is 2.7 times INCREASED chance for murder by a gun when controlled for race, crime rate, criminal history, etc.

(Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091)

2. You are 43!!! times more likely to injury you or a member of your house when a gun is in the house then when was is not.

(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60)

3. The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

So...now tell me where your stats come from. Are they peer reviewed - or published by the NRA. Or you just quoting from a website called "gunowners" - can't be any bias there. lol.

So YOU CAN"T make the argument a gun at home, or on your person is increasing the safety - it simply isn't. 43 times man... 43 times more likely to get hurt by a gun yourself then hurt an intruder.

Now...the question is can you re-think your position or are you going to believe biased, non-peer reviewd data.

Thanks for playing.

Now for more important things...like hanging out with the g/f.

 

[mtdewelf 10+ year member]

as I was talking to my boss about getting a 870, and sliding stock, he ended up pissin me off, I told him I was gonna kill him, and got fired. he happens to be canadian //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

hrmm

 

[supraman1379 10+ year member]

The 870 is a nice model as well. Once I get this guns paid for I am going to get a few accessories for it prolly

 

[mtdewelf 10+ year member]

got a buddy with 2, one black, one Stainless.

sliding stock, with heatshroud, and mounted mini maglite would be what I'm hopin for, for christmas from the wife

 

[i like guns 10+ year member]

Okay, there are a lot of "interesting" statistics floating around. The ones I trust are those that have been published in peer reviewed journals. This means it is a scientificaly controlled study, and annoymous, random scientists (ie pro or anti gun) are assigned to reviewing and approving the studies. Here are the findings of only studies.
1. If you have a gun in the house, there is 2.7 times INCREASED chance for murder by a gun when controlled for race, crime rate, criminal history, etc.

(Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091)

2. You are 43!!! times more likely to injury you or a member of your house when a gun is in the house then when was is not.

(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60)

3. The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

So...now tell me where your stats come from. Are they peer reviewed - or published by the NRA. Or you just quoting from a website called "gunowners" - can't be any bias there. lol.

So YOU CAN"T make the argument a gun at home, or on your person is increasing the safety - it simply isn't. 43 times man... 43 times more likely to get hurt by a gun yourself then hurt an intruder.

Now...the question is can you re-think your position or are you going to believe biased, non-peer reviewd data.

Thanks for playing.

Now for more important things...like hanging out with the g/f.

Sorry, but those stats are absurd! Being a gun owner yourself, do you think it is THAT easy to kill yourself with a firearm? It may be 43 times more likely for an injury/death to occur if you are a RETARTED person with a gun! Those stats are BS, im telling you. HOW can you be 43 times more like to injure yourself rather than an intruder? I dont believe it, and if you base your opinions areounf false statistics than your beliefs are obviously going to be jaded. Those stats are OBVIOUSLY manipulated. It is 43 times more likely to injure yourself if the gun if sitting out in the open with little kids around. Maybe thats the case, and they left off the end of that sentence.

Having a gun in the home and being trained can not be safer than fighting an armed criminal with your bare fists or any other ineffective weapon, no matter what you say.

If an armed thug broke in you wouldnt want to have a gun to be able to protect your family? Youre going to get shot either way, why not shoot back? Im done arguing with you. Go to http://www.thehighroad.org and post a thread there with those stats and your belief and theyll educate you, because you obviously arent. Just THINK about this, get those false statistics out of your mind. Create a scenario in your mind and visualize how it may go.

 

[CanadianDream 10+ year member]

Dude...don't theorize what the study says..and say it is absurd. READ IT!!!!

There are several controlled studies. The point is I bet NONE of those people believed it could happen to them either. The point it IT DOES. There was no selection bias - huge studies of 25,000 plus gun owners from across the country. To only looking at about 1,000 cases of homes where someone was murdered in the house by a gun.

You have to explain HOW those stats are false. Education comes from reading BOTH sides..not one. Which I have....have you? Telling me those stats are absurd, or how could that be true says nothing.... try to suggest logical flaws in the study. If you can, good for you I will listen. If not, continue with the blinders on my friend.

You have done...and said NOTHING to discount, discredit those stats. You may not like them...you may ignore them...but they are the best studies to date.

Sorry, but those stats are absurd!

 

[i like guns 10+ year member]

Dude...don't theorize what the study says..and say it is absurd. READ IT!!!!
There are several controlled studies. The point is I bet NONE of those people believed it could happen to them either. The point it IT DOES. There was no selection bias - huge studies of 25,000 plus gun owners from across the country. To only looking at about 1,000 cases of homes where someone was murdered in the house by a gun.

You have to explain HOW those stats are false. Education comes from reading BOTH sides..not one. Which I have....have you? Telling me those stats are absurd, or how could that be true says nothing.... try to suggest logical flaws in the study. If you can, good for you I will listen. If not, continue with the blinders on my friend.

You have done...and said NOTHING to discount, discredit those stats. You may not like them...you may ignore them...but they are the best studies to date.

Give me a link and ill read it. You never did answer me though. Without providing more stats, answer honestly from your own brain.

Do you think defending yourself with your bare hands is more safe than defending yourself with a firearm?

 

[smd4life 5,000+ posts]

WRONG. If you carry concealed then why would that make you more likely to get hurt/killed? If a bad situation arises then having a means of self defense will only INCREASE your chances of survival.

it's like the matter thing....no gun...no one getting shot

 

[JunkTitleGolf 10+ year member]

I think the argument should be should uneducated people be allowed to have a gun? Rather than the risk of getting hurt while having the gun. In my hunters education class they told us to always carry the gun unloaded or with the safty on. And the safty to be one that blocks the trigger from being pulled rather than the factory safty on the gun. It's kinda like saying that people are involved with this many accidents a year so let's bash cars. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. I just think the arguement needs to be more defined.

 

[mattf 5,000+ posts]

You do not have a higher chance of getting killed with a gun near you. Period. You say you have a 43 times higher chance of getting shot if you have a gun.

If you believe that, you are a complete fool, no matter what any study says.

What if I own 30 guns? Does that mean I have a 1290 times greater chance of getting shot? I believe not.