So you're saying that you're okay with children being denied their constitutional rights?

If i meet a complete stranger, i can do nothing other than use the only information available to me, how is this hard?

To be consistent, you must think that it is "vile" to posit that any given felon is more likely to commit a crime than generic person A, because you can't take generalized facts and apply them to individuals, amirite?

This, again, betrays a complete lack of understanding of the issue. To avoid the butthurt, I'll use myself rather than you. In the (hopefully always hypothetical) event that my wife or any of my kids are missing, it is mathematically correct to consider me a suspect until I show that I couldn't have done it. That's what the police actually do in these investigations and I'm not special.

Your race example as an analogue to this is just incorrect.....there is no strong preference for a random crime to be committed by 1 random person over another based on race. Conflating the 2 is simply WRONG....not racist, insensitive, insulting to the parent, un-pc etc. If you can't get this difference you're going to continue to be butthurt by random facts.

MD, i don't read your posts because they are nonsense. you literally just make stuff up about people's positions and then argue against it.

Like you just did. A "well known state's righter" - seriously? I'm a well known anarchist in this forum. I haven't talked about states rights for probably 2 years. I don't even believe in individual rights let alone states rights, I think the concept of rights is hilarious and anyone discussing them is wasting their time. I think discussing the second amendment is a waste of time.

I don't read Dvaut's posts because they are too long.

I read everyone else's posts.

+1 This covers the math side

And from the social science side- I'll repeat that its extremely relevant that there are numerous well studied plausible mechanisms to explain why essentially all intimate partners are more likely to be killed by each other than by strangers.

When you have situations where both math and social science/psychology point to the same conclusion then things are looking pretty good for the conclusion.

Ha, the General read this post.

tl;dr

This whole statistics discussion bs about me killing my family is lol but,

I've read no statistic on this issue so Ill go with what you guys are saying, Wouldnt statistics actually say: gun does no harm to anyone>killed by family member or suicide> gun is used to kill or stop intruder?

So guns are actually safe because most dont kill good people or bad people?

Theres a very low percentage of it happening so dont worry about it...

Yeah

Depends, windows break pretty easy if I remember correctly. Therefore you invest in both.

This thread is to the point where I'm pretty sure I'm done. We have different beliefs and mindsets about life and government.

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

So in your hypothetical when you take the weighted average of outcomes, you have the vast majority of the time the gun ownership is neutral, a small percent of the time you have a negative outcome and smaller percent of time its a positive outcome. Which makes gun ownership to have an "expected value" of increasing risk to your family. Not sure what your point is?

Saying something is safe because most of them haven't harmed someone yet is a bit silly IMO.

So the gun owners like to claim gun control people are motivated by fear and emotions.

But then in the same breath they talk about how scared they are that a stranger is going to break into their house and kill them.

What gives? It seems like the guy with a gun on his nightstand is more fearful given they are willing to spend money on what their fear motivates them to do, while not many gun control supporters are willing to spend equivalent money to try to ban handguns.

lol, you really think that you could get a ban to go through and be executed that takes away all Semi Auto guns? You say you dont want to ban guns but thats effectively what that is.

What do we do about schools? You dont think that people will still get their hands on guns?

Facebook post from a guy I went to HS with:

the idiotic/annoying facebook statuses thread is in OOT suzzer

Ha, I almost put 'In before the gun nuts cannibalize the reasonable ones (aka gun owners)'

The stupid thing about that post is his complete ignorance about Assault Rifles. Assault Rifles account for less than 2% of murders while the handgun he bough accounts for 50%+ of murders and is less accurate if someone were to break into his home.

You think he is reasonable because he supports what you want.

How many mass murders have ever been prevented by a civilian with an assault rifle? How many home invasions have ever been prevented by assault rifles where a pistol or shotgun wouldn't have done the job?

Assault rifles are good for feeling like a badass blowing **** up at the gun range, and fantasizing about the end of days, and that's about it. Oh yeah - and the occasional bank robbery shootout or mass murder.

when has the term assault rifle meant anything?

Haven't you all been clamoring about how assault rifle has a very specific definition?

It does have a specific definition, and that definition is complete nonsense.

Oh Lawdy we can't instantly define something with a casual knowledge of the subject and 4 seconds of thought. Whatever shall we do? All legislation should be 4 sentences at most and written in crayon.

You got them mixed up, Ike. It is "assault rifle" that has a specific, military definition (a definition that requires burst mode or full-auto, which civilian AR-15s do not have.)

"Assault weapon" is the made up term that Feinstein and Obama like so much.