Do you feel safer with a gun, or without?

[supraman1379 10+ year member]

So you are saying...NO responsible trained household has ever had an accident? Come on.
Without knowing it is just a probable that the trained households has all the incidents vs the untrained. We just don't know...so I make no assumptions and either should you.

But at 43x more likely... either the untrained gun owner is the VAST majority....or there are a few people haveing A LOT of incidents lol. Tell you what as neither of us know this answer, I have some connections in the science community will write the authors if they ever looked at training as a factor. When I know I will let you know and then we can answer that part. Without thet statistics, both of us would have to just guess at the effect of training.

You keep saying that you are 43x more likely to be killed by a gun in your household.

But what about the other 57x. It would be like 57x less likely to be killed in your own home by your gun. Youre only telling have the story here. Remeber, there is always two sides to statistics

 

[j3bus2k3 5,000+ posts]

So you are saying...NO responsible trained household has ever had an accident? Come on.
Without knowing it is just a probable that the trained households has all the incidents vs the untrained. We just don't know...so I make no assumptions and either should you.

But at 43x more likely... either the untrained gun owner is the VAST majority....or there are a few people haveing A LOT of incidents lol. Tell you what as neither of us know this answer, I have some connections in the science community will write the authors if they ever looked at training as a factor. When I know I will let you know and then we can answer that part. Without thet statistics, both of us would have to just guess at the effect of training.

I'd like to think not, or that would show the ignorance of our people or the ineffectivness of the training //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

 

[CanadianDream 10+ year member]

Hey man, yea things may change man. And you will never see me get rid of my guns without a hell of a fight. You seem like a total rational level headed guy, so who knows.

As I said in the beginning....if I lived somewhere it was so bad the statistics were so likely of a gun injury by robbery, etc.....dam man..move. No way I would let my kids go to school, the mall, etc. in a place like that. Its not like you can follow them around with your gun.

But I fixed your statement to show my point //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Yea the "statistics" are against me. Either way there is a risk. You have the GREATER risk of a family member being injured or killed by the gun that you have brought into the house. But you also have the LESSER risk of someone coming into your house and killing someone.

 

[CanadianDream 10+ year member]

No man...this is not percent but probability.

Lets assume the risk in a household without a gun of gun injury was 1 in 100. Then the risk in a household with a gun of gun injury would be 43 in 100.

So the 2 sides are:

1. Risk in a household without a gun = 1/100

2. Risk in a household with a gun = 43/100

Of course these number are just to illustrate the point. The other side of the story you speak of would be that yes...you still have a risk of gun injury without a gun in the home, it is just MUCH less then with a gun.

You keep saying that you are 43x more likely to be killed by a gun in your household.
But what about the other 57x. It would be like 57x less likely to be killed in your own home by your gun. Youre only telling have the story here. Remeber, there is always two sides to statistics

 

[supraman1379 10+ year member]

No man...this is not percent but probability.
Lets assume the risk in a household without a gun of gun injury was 1 in 100. Then the risk in a household with a gun of gun injury would be 43 in 100.

Ok. so 43 out 100 times you would be killed or injured. What about the other 57 out of 100 times?

 

[937DYTBOI 5,000+ posts]

Honestly this is a huge debate with my step-dad and I. He is a gun advocate and teachs concealed carry here in Ohio. He carries one all the time. I don't believe in it. A loaded gun is just not safe. If you feel unsafe at home, move. Or buy a BIG dog. I have 3 //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

where does he teach his classes at

 

[CanadianDream 10+ year member]

Man..me too bud...me too. First thing my kids got was hunter training, even taught them how to load their own ammo so they understand. Started them even with pellet guns to learn to respect ANY weapon. Then range shooting in a very controlled environment.

I will seriously email them and let you know. Would love to come back with a thread saying YOU HAVE TO HAVE TRAINING or you risk is huge. Also would love to feel safe again WITH a gun at home as the risk was small with training.

I'd like to think not, or that would show the ignorance of our people or the ineffectivness of the training //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

 

[CanadianDream 10+ year member]

Right the other 57 out 100 times you would be fine with a gun at home.

BUT

99 out 100 times you would be fine in a home without a gun.

Get it?

Ok. so 43 out 100 times you would be killed or injured. What about the other 57 out of 100 times?

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Canadian, I can tell you that you are an intelligent person. You are probably around intelligent people most of the time.

I just wonder if you realize that most people are really, really dumb. Those are the people that make up those stats you cited. They skew the results beyond belief.

It is okay. YOU can have a gun. Really. You are not going to shoot yourself in the mouth because you placed your gun next to your electric toothbrush.

 

[mattf 5,000+ posts]

Lets change this debate to cars. You have a much greater risk of getting injured or killed while in a car, but I'm willing to bet you still drive. Why take that risk when you don't have to?

 

[saywhat? 5,000+ posts]

Go see the quoted studies man....guess you are wrong twice at least tonight.
As to the purpose of the thread...read the first post...the purpose is a post for me. lol. You must be missing some of that there "edumacation". Done with you rant away with your blinders on.

if you believe all the studies you read, quoted, payed for, unquoted, unbiased, biased, researched, spoken, written, typed, whatever they may be.....your ignorant. they said the yellow in an egg is bad for you, then the white, then the yellow, then the white.....they dont KNOW!

these numbers change CONSTANTLY, change meaning fluctuate, fluctuate meaning go up and down.....not staying the same.....just making sure you understand NONE of what you say is worth saying more than 0 times. missing edumacation? how? why? because I dont believe magazine articles, and biased reviews from antigun communities? Because I see the reasoning behind someone carrying a concealed weapon? Because I would rather protect my family and chance that SMALL chance that I injure myself, rather than risk my life that SMALL chance of a robbery......and not having a gun?

Blinders? no....im just not gullable to the fact that it all depends on the person carrying the weapon. I carry a small metal pole in my car, usually on my lap when im driving. Why? just in case //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif I have been pulled over ONCE, searched, they found it, had the receipt in the car with me. asked me why i had it, and I said I forgot to take it out......no ticket, no problems, no weapon charges. Just because I carry a 2 foot long steel rod with me, doesnt mean im going to go beat someones brains out lol. Matter of fact, ive never used it.

My brothers girl had to stop at a CHURCH because he breaks were ****ed, a guy pulled up, tried to kidnap her, she had a small souvineer style wooden baseball "bat", why? Because of chances like that. Doesit put us in danger by her having it....not at all. Its under her seat, hidden but in reach in case. That guy is STILL recovering from what she did to him via that small little wooden bat. Why did she get away with it? Because it was self defense. So once again.....not arguing with blinders on....stating FACT over FICTION that you speak, by what I have seen in person.

 

[saywhat? 5,000+ posts]

Lets change this debate to cars. You have a much greater risk of getting injured or killed while in a car, but I'm willing to bet you still drive. Why take that risk when you don't have to?

theres a 2.7% higher chance you can die walking actually....

of course these ae random facts that i like quoting online to sound smart.

 

[937DYTBOI 5,000+ posts]

really imo i feel the same as if i didnt have my gun. i feel no safer but i never worry because i stay away from trouble and dont seek it, but i carry my pistol when i feel i need to, but i wouldnt be afraid to use it if i had to.

My pistol is not for show-n-tell

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

The rate of STD's is alarming. Does that mean I should not have a dick? Of course not. I just use my dick responsibly.

End of debate.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

crack > gunz