maklelan wrote:Actually, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, it is a fact that has been demonstrated for decades that private gun ownership increases risk of death.
I have not bothered to respond to this line of thinking as with Kevin's conspiracy theory arguments, any one can counter every google search you are using to claim as true. It's a waste of time.
Note that Tator has already disproved your figures on the French and that America is currently at 3.6 per 100k and dropping not the 10 you fielded as the truth.
All I know is that the education and experience that came through 4 generations, and now being passed to a 5th of two lines of my family, there are zero instances of harm that has resulted.
I'm also unfamiliar with any gun owners that I have associated with over the years that have either.
Once again, there will always be those competing for Darwin Awards, It is not my business to try and legislate laws to try and keep them from winning one.
I wonder what the numbers are for cell phone owners per household that cause car deaths per 100k?
Over the years Utah has installed several Amber Alert signs on the freeways. I pass by several every day. Since these alerts are far and few between, they use the signs for other purposes ... mainly, please don't use your phone and drive, alternated with how many days its been since a highway death in Utah has occurred. This seldom makes it past what you can count on two hands.
Is there an outrage call for manufactures to disable texting on cell phones? Obviously these numbers are going to be significantly higher than gun deaths.
Of course not, this is an emotional issue, and easy for those whom don't care about this freedom/right to demand it to be taken away from those that do.
I wonder what the numbers are for cell phone owners per household that cause car deaths per 100k?
Over the years Utah has installed several Amber Alert signs on the freeways. I pass by several every day. Since these alerts are far and few between, they use the signs for other purposes ... mainly, please don't use your phone and drive, alternated with how many days its been since a highway death in Utah has occurred. This seldom makes it past what you can count on two hands.
Is there an outrage call for manufactures to disable texting on cell phones? Obviously these numbers are going to be significantly higher than gun deaths.
Of course not, this is an emotional issue, and easy for those whom don't care about this freedom/right to demand it to be taken away from those that do.
Don't know off hand. I've owned both, but I don't use either while driving. Doing so isn't safe.
In California it is illegal to drive while texting, and shooting a gun while driving is illegal too. Don't know about Utah laws.
Gun deaths exceed driving deaths in Utah. US wide it is very close with gun deaths expected to lead in 2015.
Then join the National Guard. They have the really big guns, and the training in how, and when to handle them correctly under authority of the state. by the way I carried for many a year legally under state licensing and authority.
What struck me while reading it was how similar the views might be between those defending the need to own military-styled weapons to safe-guard their freedoms from an oppressive or even evil government/society and those that apparently acted on a similar belief.
It's also striking that actions aimed at reducing the availability and legal status of such weapons would fuel the underlying angst that the government was the enemy that needs to be violently opposed...as evidenced by their trying to take away one's weapons. If radicalized individuals in every sense of that term are intent on conflict with the broader society and the government it represents, it leads me to wonder if the root problem isn't domestic radicalism of various stripes. The weapons are a symbol as much as a tool of the radical.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
What struck me while reading it was how similar the views might be between those defending the need to own military-styled weapons to safe-guard their freedoms from an oppressive or even evil government/society and those that apparently acted on a similar belief.
It's also striking that actions aimed at reducing the availability and legal status of such weapons would fuel the underlying angst that the government was the enemy that needs to be violently opposed...as evidenced by their trying to take away one's weapons. If radicalized individuals in every sense of that term are intent on conflict with the broader society and the government it represents, it leads me to wonder if the root problem isn't domestic radicalism of various stripes. The weapons are a symbol as much as a tool of the radical.
Apparently George Washington thought enough about armed insurrection enough to go after the Whiskey Rebellion members.
Lemmie wrote:I agree with you completely. Accuracy in placing a shot is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all the elements that would have to be in place to successfully use a gun for self defense.
So cowering underneath a desk, helpless waiting for you turn is a better choice?
Why would that be the only other choice? What is so hard to understand that those who want a gun for defense and saving lives might look at whether owning a gun increases the odds of them dying or lessens it. Mak and others have provided some evidence but you seem to not be interested in what the facts might be.
What struck me while reading it was how similar the views might be between those defending the need to own military-styled weapons to safe-guard their freedoms from an oppressive or even evil government/society and those that apparently acted on a similar belief.
It's also striking that actions aimed at reducing the availability and legal status of such weapons would fuel the underlying angst that the government was the enemy that needs to be violently opposed...as evidenced by their trying to take away one's weapons. If radicalized individuals in every sense of that term are intent on conflict with the broader society and the government it represents, it leads me to wonder if the root problem isn't domestic radicalism of various stripes. The weapons are a symbol as much as a tool of the radical.
Apparently George Washington thought enough about armed insurrection enough to go after the Whiskey Rebellion members.
To add to my thought, it seems there is an underlying issue with the gun debate that has drifted away from the tradition of weapon ownership and use in the US while redefining itself around the radical idea of the armed individual standing up to an oppressive society or government. The rhetoric starts to blend together even if the various details about why one might be opposed to western pluralism and the governments it embodies are varied.
In that context, discussions about the characterisics of weapon use, function, "knock-down" power, how none of the three witnesses denied the Book of Mormon, or whatever other detail one wishes to use to defend Joseph Smith against the broad issues with...sorry, wrong example of getting into the weeds to divert from the big picture. Bottom line, the ideologies being presented to defend military-styled weapons sound similar to those presented to justify attacking targets of opportunity in western society. I'd hope some people making them would step back and think about that for a moment.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Themis wrote:Why would that be the only other choice?
If I can't conceal carry, should I carry a knife, or baseball bat? what are my other choices that you see?
What is so hard to understand that those who want a gun for defense and saving lives might look at whether owning a gun increases the odds of them dying or lessens it.
Well I have, and have chosen to own and carry guns, and teach about them to my children, like my forefathers did for me. I have a long family history that with no issues, which I'm told is a Non-Sequitur.
Mak and others have provided some evidence but you seem to not be interested in what the facts might be.
I'm not interested in others facts and others making decisions for me as to my own safety. You known, those freedoms I keep talking about which many have died for to preserve and yet Mak/others view as naïve and stupid.
The CCC wrote:There are three things that are of paramount importance in shooting a weapon. Shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement. There is a reason for the (X) on target silhouettes. The bullets that miss their intended target still need to be accounted for.
Maybe you have not been following along. I've been speaking to one-shot-stops, triple taps and 6" patterns all along.
If case you missed the concept, the x is dead center of chest, with a 3" radius from that point.