4 ms·

> So what happens if I'm wearing gloves? Don't wear gloves on the shooting stand > What happens if I lose the ring or it comes off while I'm drawing? You sec

> So what happens if I'm wearing gloves? Don't wear gloves on the shooting stand > What happens if I lose the ring or it comes off while I'm drawing? You secure the gun, pick up the gun and continue practicing. > handgun out of my nightstand A handgun should be stored securely in a safe. All those questions were answered on the assumption that you aren't specially threatened in some way. Except for those very few persons that are specially threatened, weapons actually lead to a greater risk than the security they can provide. Even in the case you are going to get robbed at home, it's more likely that the robber takes control of your guns and uses them against you than that you can use the guns against them.

67726e 11y ago
> Even in the case you are going to get robbed at home, it's more likely that the robber takes control of your guns and uses them against you than that you can use the guns against them. Care to back up that claim?
- legulere 11y ago
  Sorry I'm currently unable to find the source where I got this from under the tons of statistics how having a gun at home is actually making you more unsafe. Maybe I'm just not using the right vocabulary because English isn't my native tongue.
- Frondo 11y ago
  I don't know about robbers wrestling your gun from you and using it against you, but the data suggest that your idea about "I'm going to protect myself with guns" is a fiction. Here's one thing worth reading: http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/ http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with... (though I suspect it'll make you uncomfortable and you'll just look for ways to discredit it, because it's a heck of a lot easier to hold onto a John Wayne-esque "I'm a big man with a gun" self-identity...)
monochromatic 11y ago
> you aren't specially threatened in some way So only people with some special justification are allowed to defend themselves? > weapons actually lead to a greater risk than the security they can provide Wrong, although this "fact" is bandied about depressingly often. > it's more likely that the robber takes control of your guns and uses them against you than that you can use the guns against them Completely wrong.
- legulere 11y ago
  > So only people with some special justification are allowed to defend themselves? In many countries the legislation is like that. For most of the rest, if there's no extraordinary risk of someone targeting you you're actually putting yourself and those around you in an unnecessary risk.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    > In many countries the legislation is like that. That may be. But of the many worthy things other countries have that we might emulate, this is not one. > you're actually putting yourself and those around you in an unnecessary risk This is just 100% wrong.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      It isn't wrong. The data show so very clearly that guns are far, far, far more likely to accidentally (i.e. negligently) injure someone than to be used in self-protection. You might feel better to carry one with you, but that is a feeling. Reality does not reflect that personal feeling.
      - monochromatic 11y ago
        Please link to the particular "data" you're referring to, so that I may eviscerate it.
        11y ago

67726e 11y ago

> Even in the case you are going to get robbed at home, it's more likely that the robber takes control of your guns and uses them against you than that you can use the guns against them. Care to back up that claim?

legulere 11y ago
Sorry I'm currently unable to find the source where I got this from under the tons of statistics how having a gun at home is actually making you more unsafe. Maybe I'm just not using the right vocabulary because English isn't my native tongue.
Frondo 11y ago
I don't know about robbers wrestling your gun from you and using it against you, but the data suggest that your idea about "I'm going to protect myself with guns" is a fiction. Here's one thing worth reading: http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/ http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with... (though I suspect it'll make you uncomfortable and you'll just look for ways to discredit it, because it's a heck of a lot easier to hold onto a John Wayne-esque "I'm a big man with a gun" self-identity...)

monochromatic 11y ago

> you aren't specially threatened in some way So only people with some special justification are allowed to defend themselves? > weapons actually lead to a greater risk than the security they can provide Wrong, although this "fact" is bandied about depressingly often. > it's more likely that the robber takes control of your guns and uses them against you than that you can use the guns against them Completely wrong.

legulere 11y ago
> So only people with some special justification are allowed to defend themselves? In many countries the legislation is like that. For most of the rest, if there's no extraordinary risk of someone targeting you you're actually putting yourself and those around you in an unnecessary risk.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > In many countries the legislation is like that. That may be. But of the many worthy things other countries have that we might emulate, this is not one. > you're actually putting yourself and those around you in an unnecessary risk This is just 100% wrong.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    It isn't wrong. The data show so very clearly that guns are far, far, far more likely to accidentally (i.e. negligently) injure someone than to be used in self-protection. You might feel better to carry one with you, but that is a feeling. Reality does not reflect that personal feeling.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      Please link to the particular "data" you're referring to, so that I may eviscerate it.
      - 11y ago