You must have quoted the wrong one.. As that makes perfect sense

"Regardless of whether there are responsible gun owners, having a gun in the home makes you statistically less safe."

.....

Read Master3004's post above. Your argument basically amounted to single round is bad because regular folks are in an arms race with criminals.

It was very logically pointed out that this doesn't make sense when owning a gun rarely protects you from criminals and more often puts you in danger in some other way, by accidental shooting, suicide, etc.

Do you ****ing understand what statistically means?

What do you not understand about this statement?

You don't have to swear at my buddy. I support fairly strict gun control.

You, on the other hand, support others suffering CTE for your own personal enjoyment. So to be honest, you are kind of morally reprehensible and should probably check your tone.

Huckabee putting someone on blast for being "ignorantly inflammatory" is rich.

You haven't answered the question though, do you actually understand what 'statistically' means?

so which previously banned poster is this one?

that guy re-banned for admitting he'd been banned plenty of times before?

This guy goes against everything Lorewalker Cho stands for.

Don't think they covered that one in my courses in probability theory, machine learning and neural networks :/ I will look into it though.

Oh I see you are super smart!!!

I think you are saying this because I am a football fan, but I'm not entirely sure. Maybe wrestling? Either way, I am 100% in favor of taking steps to reduce head injury in these sports as quickly as possible.





I know, right? Disgraceful.

What's the gun nut reason not to mandate all guns only fire if the designated owner is the one firing (smart guns)?

Too expensive. Something about FREEDOM probably too.

because sometimes auto-pilot fails in 2009

Sure it's possible, just like it was possible to be a responsible pill user and not need a child proof lid but even then there was a problem with children getting into pills. When taken in the totality the US has a gun violence problem, responsible gun owners or not.

I agree, hence my support of fairly strict gun control laws.

Why do you keep saying this and then making really dumb arguments for the opposite side?

Maybe he is Lorewalker Cho the Hearthstone card: useless and trollish.

This is somewhat true, but a better analogy would be the blood of all of the 40- and 50-year olds with CTE, etc. who die young. Also many people support better helmets, protocols, etc.

A lot of this is fair, but I don't know how many lies are coming from the anti-gun side. Not very many. Cringe? Sure, the guy saying let's ban all guns that don't need to be reloaded after one shot is pretty cringe worthy and irrational... But using him to represent the anti-gun people is like using a guy who says he needs his glock in case Putin invades to defend the homeland to represent the anti gun control side.

People are taking "you," as if the study is directed individually at them, as opposed to the collective "you." In reality, probably 70% of gun owners are less safe as a result of their gun ownership, 10% are well-trained and use gun safes and are equally safe, and 10% are also tactically trained/aware enough to be more safe. There's a big difference between "I keep my gun locked up and know how to prevent accidents," and "When the bad guy breaks in, I will be alert enough to recognize the situation and get to my gun before he gets to me, taking a safe defensive position with cover and engaging him before he's aware enough to engage me, thus keeping my safety equally high while also engaging."

Of course, those numbers are a guess and I'm not sure of the exact percentages. I'd bet that the percentage who THINK they're tactically aware enough to be safer is probably like 80% or higher.

Funny aside - I knew a gun owner who talked about some "bad" people who moved into the neighborhood, and how if they tried to rob him or break in, he'd drop 'em on the spot. He ran his mouth about this all the time, and how he just couldn't wait. About six months later someone broke in, went past his bedroom, picked up his ~40" TV, lugged it outside and left. I asked him how this could have possibly happened without him shooting this intruder. His version involves a lot of excuses about time, not having a good shot, etc, but if they ever come back he's going to pump them full of lead. His wife's version is he was scared and stayed in the bedroom, which is fine, that was probably the smart play.

What the pro-gun lobby doesn't like to discuss is that bad guys who break in with guns are STILL very unlikely to kill you if you just hide or allow them to take what they want without posing any threat to their safety. However, when you pull a gun, it's on, and your odds of survival are not 100%, no matter how good you are with your gun. I would say there are probably more scenarios where someone's odds of survival were 100% in a home invasion until they pulled a gun, and then they plummeted regardless of their training, than scenarios where someone's odds of survival were less than 50% and increased when they pulled a gun... Obviously this isn't something we can "know" or study accurately, though.

All that said, if there is no change in gun laws, I will likely buy a gun at some point in the future and undergo some training, although I wouldn't consider it automatically part of my plan if someone did break in. The circumstances would have to be very specific.

At this point we could also make guns with GPS transponders that were activated and transmitted the location to police whenever they were fired outside of a set radius from a gun range, hunting zone, etc.

That combination makes people safer, but of course, the gun lobby would argue that it's an invasion of privacy and "they'll just track the location all the time and come take our guns."

Just because we have the right to bear arms and the right to privacy and all sorts of other rights, does not mean that they are all absolute, or that they are absolute in relation to each other. In my opinion, the trade off to exercise the right to bear arms should include a loss of some privacy.

When you get a driver's license, you are giving up some privacy, but 99% of people are not going crazy about that.

Exactly this. If you give me the choice of going into a bad neighborhood where I'm likely to be robbed with or without a gun, I choose no gun all the time. If a bad guy wants to rob me, so be it, I'd rather walk out with my life and without my possessions. But gun nuts have hero fantasies.

We saw the carjacking video posted previously. A gun nut looks at that and thinks "awesome!" I just see unnecessary escalation of the situation in which you are now MORE likely to be killed rather than less.

cuserounder, I appreciate your post.

Oh my God that is incredible. And yeah, totally over my head. The Onion's dark stuff is their best.