Gun Rights Are Favored Over Gun Control For First Time In 20 Years, Poll Finds

[MDCCLXXVI]

You don't have a 7% chance of confronting an armed burglar. I think you misunderstood the stat.

It is only 7% of all burglaries end up with a confrontation with the burglar.

So if you are want a baseline chance of encountering a burglar its only 7% of your baseline chance of getting burgled. It will be less than 1%.

If you take into account 80% of burglars enter through open or unlocked doors and windows, your baseline chance of ever encountering a burglar with locked doors and windows is going to be way below 1%.
.

I was victim of home invasion last year.

Was taking a nap at the time and didn't hear a thing! Good thing my room door was locked.

The guy had a hammer and had broken a metal window cover over a bathroom window.



If I'd been awake and gone to see what the noise was, I'd definitely have wanted a firearm.


They caught the guy and he had already done time for being party to a murder and an aggravated assault.

He stole $1700 cash, a couple watches and raided the medicine cabinet

[MDCCLXXVI]

By the way guys, this 'Gun Lobby' is just democratic principles in motion. Lots of 'little people' feel strongly about something and throw a few coins and support to people who represent that. And yet, its for some reason? portrayed as this big powerful evil entity. Ummm haha, no.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Stories you don't read about often (if at all) in countries that have sensible regulations/controls on guns:

A woman has been killed when her toddler son pulled a handgun from her purse and fired it accidentally at a Walmart store in northern Idaho.

A statement from Kootenai County Sheriff's Office said preliminary investigations showed the 29-year-old woman was shopping with her two-year-old son and other family members when the shooting took place.

"Her son was seated in the shopping cart and accessed the victim's concealed weapon from her purse and discharged it, striking the victim," the statement said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-3...almart/5993946

[Mithridate]

I was victim of home invasion last year.
Was taking a nap at the time and didn't hear a thing! Good thing my room door was locked.

The guy had a hammer and had broken a metal window cover over a bathroom window.



If I'd been awake and gone to see what the noise was, I'd definitely have wanted a firearm.


They caught the guy and he had already done time for being party to a murder and an aggravated assault.

He stole $1700 cash, a couple watches and raided the medicine cabinet

I was victim of home invasion lasta few years ago.
Was taking a nap at the time and didn't hear a thing! Good thing my room door was locked.I snore, sometimes.
The guy had a hammerCrowbar and had broken a metal window cover over a bathroom window.in through the back door.

If I'd been awake and gone to see what the noise was, I'd definitelystill not have wanted to have a firearm.
They caught the guy and he had already done time for being party to a murder and an aggravated assault.
He stole $1700 cash, a couple watches andabout 500$ in valuables raided the medicine cabinet

The fear and adrenaline when having, or suspecting you have an intruder certainly makes the thought of having a gun very appealing. I'd much rather have a phone and a bat, possibly a knife to go with that. So, what is your point here aside from mild fearmongering and opinion?

[Lortano]

By the way guys, this 'Gun Lobby' is just democratic principles in motion. Lots of 'little people' feel strongly about something and throw a few coins and support to people who represent that. And yet, its for some reason? portrayed as this big powerful evil entity. Ummm haha, no.

Actually, all of the points raised on this board for no gun control are all perfectly valid for the 'little people' reasons for donating to the gun lobby. If you believe in your personal freedom, great. I'm all for the people being able to prevent change if they don't want. Clearly it's worked, as nothing has been done. Even though I personally don't agree with the idea of the second amendment, it's fine if people do believe in it and all band together to batter the big bad government.

However, it's also clear that a behind the scenes this lobby is being supported by gun makers who obviously wouldn't want to have gun sales impacted. These people are not on the side of the little man, they don't care about your freedom, the one thing they care about is the freedom to make green off selling weapons to the public. You really think that the NRA alone could stop a gun control bill? I'll put it this way, in the US there is an uncomfortably close relationship between money and politics, to the point where the interests of business comes before the opinion of the 'little people'. I'm not saying that these companies are the main reason for no change, but the people who call the gun lobby a 'big powerful evil entity' have a point. Except the lobby itself isn't the monster, it's backed by several of them.

[Vanoi]

Stories you don't read about often (if at all) in countries that have sensible regulations/controls on guns:



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-3...almart/5993946

Simple gun safety could have prevented this. I'm more than willing to bet she had the safety turned off her gun. She wasn't keeping it in a safe place either/

[Azog 150]

I've got to say, I feel pretty naked when I go to do my shopping without a gun.

[chilon]

That is not what you said earlier:
Is its only 7% to encounter a burglar or to experience violence chilon? I'd like to add you didn't source this statistic at all. seems like i was right when i said earlier you even read what you post.

Is this the source you get your info from?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

I gave you exactly the statistic as the FBI presented it.

You are right I assumed that when you declared "confrontation with a burglar" you meant what the FBI counts as as a violent confrontation with a burglar which is 7% of all burglaries as I explicitly said.

It does not say that only 7% of all burglaries end up in a confrontation with the burglar. It says that in 7% of all burglaries a household member experienced some form of violent victimization.

Sure, I put your phrasing together with the FBI. Not that much of a stretch based on what you said about a confrontation with a burglar. Not sure how you want the FBI to phrase their stats but however you phrase its going to be around that estimated number for what you are talking about.

Btw when you said that 80% of burglars enter through opened or unlocked windows, you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

Nope. I added up the percentage of burglaries that happen due to open or unlocked doors and windows. It was a loose estimate.

55% from just unlocked/open doors and windows and another 30% from opening the door to the burglar.

Thats 85% of burglaries could have been prevented from normal, everyday precautions.

Thats called making an assumption. Do i have to explain why it's bad to make assumptions? no one but you chilon seems to have mis-read what i said.

Its not "making an assumption". Its recognizing the LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of your statement. I realize now you have probably never taken a Uni course on logic otherwise you would see very clearly that the statements you made DO carry logical implications.

Go take your statement to any logic professor at your local Univ and see what he thinks.

Simple gun safety could have prevented this. I'm more than willing to bet she had the safety turned off her gun. She wasn't keeping it in a safe place either/

If this woman was not capable of "simple gun safety" then clearly she should never have gotten a CCW. Either way, clearly this women didn't need to carry a gun to the freaking supermarket with 4 kids. Absolutely stupid decision on her part.

[Dr Zoidberg]

... clearly this women didn't need to carry a gun to the freaking supermarket with 4 kids.

I think this is the part to focus on. For whatever reason(s), a significant proportion of the American populace feel unsafe in their own society without being armed.

It's a disconnect that I think many of us outside the US have trouble dealing with because we don't feel the same way about our own society.

[Vanoi]

I gave you exactly the statistic as the FBI presented it.

You are right I assumed that when you declared "confrontation with a burglar" you meant what the FBI counts as as a violent confrontation with a burglar which is 7% of all burglaries as I explicitly said.

Good now that we are on the same page here. Did you notice this statistic?

Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence
occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About
12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was
home faced an offender armed with a firearm.

And thats just a firearm, i wonder what the data is on other weapons like knives.

Sure, I put your phrasing together with the FBI. Not that much of a stretch based on what you said about a confrontation with a burglar. Not sure how you want the FBI to phrase their stats but however you phrase its going to be around that estimated number for what you are talking about.

Because there is a difference between a confrontation with a burglar that does not lead to violence, and one that does. I am sure there are times when a burglar is confronted, but no violent acts occur. Those are not counted into that 7%.

Nope. I added up the percentage of burglaries that happen due to open or unlocked doors and windows.

Do you remember what you originally said? You said that 80% of burglars go through unlocked or open doors so that chances of me encountering a burglar with locked doors or windows is 1%. You added in the percentages of when burglars break into un-occupied homes and that isn't relevant if your talking about me encountering a burglar in my home if my doors and windows are locked.

Its more like in the case of homeowners encountering burglars in their home, around 55% went through open doors or unlocked windows. The rest did not.

Its not "making an assumption". Its recognizing the LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of your statement. I realize now you have probably never taken a Uni course on logic otherwise you would see very clearly that the statements you made DO carry logical implications.

Go take your statement to any logic professor at your local Univ and see what he thinks.

No, its an assumption. Logic must escape you, since i am sure a professor would advise to use background knowledge and previous context to help determine what someone is saying. It makes no logical sense to take what i said as you did when you know in the previous arguments i made my position fairly clear.

If this woman was not capable of "simple gun safety" then clearly she should never have gotten a CCW.

Not all states require you to have one, but i am not sure in her case.

[The spartan]

Last night a very drugged out guy followed a neighbor here home and confronted her and her children calling them a "nice Jewish family" (they are not Jewish). Luckily for her, her very large husband was home and chased the guy off (police were called but there is that whole "response time" thing). The average home price in this area is over a million.

I understand liberals think that somehow being armed is silly, and violence isn't part of their comfortable lives, but it can happen anywhere at anytime. I'd rather the ability to protect myself then lose that right.

Let's just ignore the fact that 2/3rds of the time you are going to shoot yourself rather than a bad guy. Anecdotal examples are cute and tug at the heartstrings, but lets keep in perspective that those who proportionally own the most guns and worry the most about it are rural/suburbia whites who should be the least concerned.

[chilon]

That is not what you said earlier:

Is its only 7% to encounter a burglar or to experience violence chilon? I'd like to add you didn't source this statistic at all. seems like i was right when i said earlier you even read what you post.

Is this the source you get your info from?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Yes there is no agency that collects statistics that uses your individually specific wording so I took the closest thing I could to your specific wording.

It does not say that only 7% of all burglaries end up in a confrontation with the burglar. It says that in 7% of all burglaries a household member experienced some form of violent victimization.

Where is your evidence that the difference in your wording makes any difference?

Btw when you said that 80% of burglars enter through opened or unlocked windows, you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

Nope. I added the numbers. For the number I quoted "less than 1% chance" it is same for 80% or 55%. Both are way below 1% which is why I didn't get into more specific numbers.

The only difference in 85% and 55% is opening the door to the potential burglar. Both are along the same lines of simple, easy counter-measures to deter burglary.

Anyway the odds are still well below 1% for you to get violently burgled even without taking that extra factor into account. My point with even bringing that up was, you take basic, 10 second measures for safety and you decrease that 1% exponentially further. No need for guns.

Thats called making an assumption. Do i have to explain why it's bad to make assumptions? no one but you chilon seems to have mis-read what i said.

Ok, maybe you have never taken a University level logic course. Thats cool.

The reality is your statement as written absolutely 100% includes logical implications that obviously you are not aware of. You bring up "I am the only one to mention that". Well I am the only one to even comment on that. Not like anyone is posting supporting your position.

I stand by my first claim. Your first statement, as written (not as you might have intended), does have logical implications. That is logic.

Go take that statement to a logic professor and see what he thinks if you don't believe me.

Read it again ""Like i said, you can risk your family's life, i'll be content with my shotgun""

That statement carries logical implications.

If you really think I am the only one to see that, then find other people to defend your statement and claim it doesn't carry implications.

I think this is the part to focus on. For whatever reason(s), a significant proportion of the American populace feel unsafe in their own society without being armed.

It's a disconnect that I think many of us outside the US have trouble dealing with because we don't feel the same way about our own society.

You are absolutely correct.

Asians, Australians and Europeans I know do not even relate to that statement but for some reason, some Americans seem to not feel safe unless they have firearms. I honestly don't get it personally although I have tried to intellectually understand it for 2 decades.

Its a pretty damning statement on USA society, if people don't feel safe unless they are carry guns.

[Simon Cashmere]

Let's just ignore the fact that 2/3rds of the time you are going to shoot yourself rather than a bad guy. Anecdotal examples are cute and tug at the heartstrings, but lets keep in perspective that those who proportionally own the most guns and worry the most about it are rural/suburbia whites who should be the least concerned.

If you use the standard of people who shoot themselves unintentionally as the standard by which you decide that you, yourself should not have dangerous things - then forget guns, you shouldn't have matches, chainsaws, an oven, a lawnmower, a car.

There are careless and stupid people around - always will be, even in the Police and the Military. What they do has no bearing at all about how I conduct my life or my business. And it shouldn't for anyone else. It's like giving up on cars because people have auto accidents through carelessness.

[Vanoi]

snip

You replied to the wrong post chilon. Reply to post #190 this time.

[chilon]

You replied to the wrong post chilon. Reply to post #190 this time.

Meh I already wrote lost two long posts that I lost, I'm not trying anymore at the moment.

Here is key issue.

Your statement: ""Like i said, you can risk your family's life, i'll be content with my shotgun"

does indeed carry logical implications. It doesnt even make sense for you to say that if it doesn't include the hidden premise that "guns cause less risk to your family".

If you want to rephrase that statement to not include those implications , then fair enough, its not what you intended, but don't even try to argue that your statement doesn't linguistically and logically carry implications because it does.

[Vanoi]

Meh I already wrote lost two long posts that I lost, I'm not trying anymore at the moment.

Here is key issue.

Your statement: ""Like i said, you can risk your family's life, i'll be content with my shotgun"

does indeed carry logical implications. It doesnt even make sense for you to say that if it doesn't include the hidden premise that "guns cause less risk to your family".

If you want to rephrase that statement to not include those implications , then fair enough, its not what you intended, but don't even try to argue that your statement doesn't linguistically and logically carry implications because it does.

And i'll kindly point you to post #190 where i addressed this issue.

[The spartan]

If you use the standard of people who shoot themselves unintentionally as the standard by which you decide that you, yourself should not have dangerous things - then forget guns, you shouldn't have matches, chainsaws, an oven, a lawnmower, a car.

There are careless and stupid people around - always will be, even in the Police and the Military. What they do has no bearing at all about how I conduct my life or my business. And it shouldn't for anyone else. It's like giving up on cars because people have auto accidents through carelessness.

Yeah, everyone thinks they are the exception to the statistic until they end up being the statistic. I was not trying to compare guns to other dangerous tools (though, in suicide, guns are still the overwhelming method of attempt), I am just tired of hearing "I need my gun for the bad guys" and then don't realize that, again statistically, they are more likely to use it on themselves or a family member uses on themselves. That obviously isn't grounds by itself for an item to be banned, but don't pretend it is a beacon of protection, there are plenty of other devices which offer more protection while being less of a risk to own. A home owner that always keeps a couple of his magazines loaded up, just in case, but has non-functional fire detector in his kitchen comes to mind.

[Simon Cashmere]

Meanwhile in Sydney, where we have some of the strictest gun laws in the *supposedly free world*:

Jim said he only opened the door because he was expecting a delivery for his wife.


“I was expecting a delivery and was washing my car. He was bleeding a little bit. He said ‘call the ambulance for me...I was shot’, he was bit scared,” he said.


“He was heavily tattooed and looked Middle Eastern with a strong build. He was wearing a singlet and shorts.


“He did say please call the ambulance, please give me a bottle of water and he asked me for a cigarette but I had run out.


“It was a bit scary. He must have walked here. I didn’t hear anything.”


Living in the epicentre of the gun violence gripping Western Sydney Jim said the spate of shootings, 18 so far this month, did not worry him.


“You don’t think about it you just live your life. Living in this area I got used to it,” he said.

When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-...-1227171030598

Now I am shocked, just shocked that all of these criminals would disobey the gun laws and discharge firearms in residential areas, repeatedly so, much so it had become routine for this gentleman.

[The spartan]

Meanwhile in Sydney, where we have some of the strictest gun laws in the *supposedly free world*:

When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-...-1227171030598

Now I am shocked, just shocked that all of these criminals would disobey the gun laws and discharge firearms in residential areas, repeatedly so, much so it had become routine for this gentleman.

I know! I mean, it shocks me that murderers disobey murder laws, must be a stupid law if criminals don't follow it!

[Taiji]

More evidence of America's folly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

Allegedly a 2 year old boy shot his mum with her gun in a shopping mall.

But the yanks don't really care, do they? Since at least they have the weapons they need to overthrow their government if the worst comes to the worst - The right to bear arms being a vestige of the days before tanks, drones, IEDs, and let's not forget nukes.

When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.

Oh, so your Aussie police don't ever use firearms. Your frank and knowledgeable input is so valuable here.