4 ms·

You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there.

You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

bsder 8y ago
> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. > And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around. As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. What a hilariously arrogant statement. >Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many. >As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved. You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.
  - bsder 8y ago
    > What a hilariously arrogant statement. Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. > Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. Your statements are not helping your case.
    - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
      >Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. No other statement is required to address yours because it's a naked assertion. >Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. What does that have to do with the safety of my family?
crispyporkbites 8y ago
> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much? I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence... but maybe that's because I don't live in america
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >Does that really happen enough to worry about? Yes, of course it does. There are literally millions of violent crimes in the US in any given year. >Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? I leave that to you to decide. I don't know you. Bringing a gun into your home might make you less safe if you are an irresponsible person or if you have psychological issues. If you are a responsible person with no psychological issues, but you live in an area that has virtually no violent crime, then it might just be a waste of money. >I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence There are estimated to be over 100,000 defensive uses of guns in the US each year. The widespread ownership of guns has had a clear influence on the behavior of violent criminals. Particularly, in the US, criminals avoid breaking into homes when they are occupied, because they know many occupants will be armed.
- hokumguru 8y ago
  I believe the CDC estimates the low-end of lives saved by guns in the USA each year to be 300,000. High end to be a few million. Dwarfs the number of gun deaths
  - ebbv 8y ago
    Hahaha uhh no. Not even remotely. This is completely pulled out of your ass. First of all the CDC has been banned from studying guns since GW Bush administration. Secondly deaths by homicide in the US aren’t even close to that. California had the most murders of any state in 2016 and it wasn’t even 2000, then it drops off quickly from there. Total murders in the US is less than 20k per year. For your number to be right guns would have to be stopping 93.7% of murders. Where did you even get that ridiculous number from? Insanity.
Markoff 8y ago
i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals, i am more afraid i will be hit by bad driver or about building fire than violent criminals, violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals Perhaps you are. I don't know where you live. >violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary I hope it stays that way. That's not how it is in many parts of the USA. And no, it's not that way because we have guns. It's because we have more people who are inclined toward violence. I'll leave you to guess why that might be.

bsder 8y ago

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. > And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around. As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.

sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
>You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. What a hilariously arrogant statement. >Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many. >As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved. You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.
- bsder 8y ago
  > What a hilariously arrogant statement. Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. > Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. Your statements are not helping your case.
  - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
    >Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. No other statement is required to address yours because it's a naked assertion. >Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. What does that have to do with the safety of my family?

crispyporkbites 8y ago

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much? I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence... but maybe that's because I don't live in america

sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
>Does that really happen enough to worry about? Yes, of course it does. There are literally millions of violent crimes in the US in any given year. >Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? I leave that to you to decide. I don't know you. Bringing a gun into your home might make you less safe if you are an irresponsible person or if you have psychological issues. If you are a responsible person with no psychological issues, but you live in an area that has virtually no violent crime, then it might just be a waste of money. >I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence There are estimated to be over 100,000 defensive uses of guns in the US each year. The widespread ownership of guns has had a clear influence on the behavior of violent criminals. Particularly, in the US, criminals avoid breaking into homes when they are occupied, because they know many occupants will be armed.
hokumguru 8y ago
I believe the CDC estimates the low-end of lives saved by guns in the USA each year to be 300,000. High end to be a few million. Dwarfs the number of gun deaths
- ebbv 8y ago
  Hahaha uhh no. Not even remotely. This is completely pulled out of your ass. First of all the CDC has been banned from studying guns since GW Bush administration. Secondly deaths by homicide in the US aren’t even close to that. California had the most murders of any state in 2016 and it wasn’t even 2000, then it drops off quickly from there. Total murders in the US is less than 20k per year. For your number to be right guns would have to be stopping 93.7% of murders. Where did you even get that ridiculous number from? Insanity.

Markoff 8y ago

i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals, i am more afraid i will be hit by bad driver or about building fire than violent criminals, violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary

sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
>i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals Perhaps you are. I don't know where you live. >violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary I hope it stays that way. That's not how it is in many parts of the USA. And no, it's not that way because we have guns. It's because we have more people who are inclined toward violence. I'll leave you to guess why that might be.