8 ms·

A firearm, like a fire extinguisher, is one of those items which is completely pointless to have until it's the only thing in the world that matters. In my exp

A firearm, like a fire extinguisher, is one of those items which is completely pointless to have until it's the only thing in the world that matters. In my experience it wasn't a horde - just one man - but I needed it all the same.

nexuist 7y ago
"Statistics don't matter when it happens to you."
shrimp_emoji 7y ago
Even then, more wanted than needed (unless you're inform and/or immobile).
- Scramblejams 7y ago
  That statement implies a lot of assumptions that may not be correct.
lilyball 7y ago
The best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun. Owning guns is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, owning a gun is a negative.
- vturner 7y ago
  Replace "gun" in your sentence with say "power tool." Any powerful piece of technology in careless hands is dangerous. Goodness, even computers are dangerous in the hands of narcissistic hackers! That doesn't mean they are not perfectly safe useful tools in the responsible hands.
  - p1necone 7y ago
    Sure but you actually need the power tool for something.
    - urda 7y ago
      Remember when seconds count the cops are only minutes away. Seriously, Cops do not have a legal duty to protect you [1] [2]. No gun owner needs to explain why they need their firearms to you. You need to get over it and realize that it's a constitutional right. That's as if one was asking another to explain their "need" for their freedom of religion or freedom of expression. In a thread detailing Police abusing power, do you not see the benefit of citizens being able to arm themselves? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
      - p1necone 7y ago
        Have you considered that the answer to systematic failures in the governance of the United States might be better fixed at a systematic level, rather than just arming everyone?
        falcolas 7y ago
        Until those hypothetical fixes are in place, what do you do? Disarm everybody?
        lilyball 7y ago
        Yes. Individual citizens trying to fight cops with firepower is never going to work. Cops have much better equipment than you're going to have, and have the backing of the entire government. Unless you're literally planning on staging a coup, arming yourself to fight cops is not a viable strategy. On the other hand, if we disarm everybody, then we don't need to have such over-militarized cops either, and maybe we can finally get to a place where cops no longer automatically reach for their gun (or even carry one) and therefore stop routinely murdering citizens.
        7y ago
- Tallasatree 7y ago
  The best way to increase you odds of getting shot is to own a "power tool". Something is not adding up here.
  - vageli 7y ago
    The sentence was: > The best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun. Owning guns is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, owning a gun is a negative.
    - stronglikedan 7y ago
      The parent was just pointing out how silly the grandparent's sentence was by replacing the word "gun" with literally any other noun. The rest of the sentences didn't really matter, and were just as silly, not to mention just as inaccurate.
- pacala 7y ago
  Do you have data? This is an interesting case-study where political expediency may brush over confounding variables: * Own a gun and kill oneself with it. The primary risk factor being depression, not the gun. * Own a gun and be part of a criminal organization. The primary risk factor being rival criminal organizations, not the gun.
  - chowells 7y ago
    Depression is rarely the cause of suicide. Suicide is usually the result of one overwhelming moment + means. Having a gun in the household makes suicide significantly more likely. Without easy means, most people get through the tough time and go on with their lives.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      But most suicides are not accidentally caused by the presence of a gun.
- urda 7y ago
  > The best way to increase your odds of getting hurt is to speak your mind. Speaking out and exercising your freedom of speech is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, exercising your right to speech is a negative. See how crazy this seems typing this out? Few things to cover: 1) It's a civilian right in the US. No matter how you feel about that matter it does not change it. Attempting to remove someone's right should be treated as someone attacking all of our rights. Your feelings do not matter here. HN votes also do not change this fact. 2) Do you have data on your last point? Because honestly some of my fondest memories of my friends and family has been times we've spent at the range or out in the field together with our rifles and firearms. The training received can be applied to many aspects of life, and in some cases be life saving. This is a net benefit. 3) Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it needs to be pulled away from anyone. Owning a car is dangerous. Owning an oven is dangerous. Owning a knife is dangerous. The list goes on. 4) Cops are not required to protect you [1] [2]. I refuse to be caught as a victim just because I'm stuck waiting for police to arrive. I understand much like keeping a fire extinguisher at home for fire or flashlights for darkness, a firearm is a tool for protection. In a thread detailing Police abusing power, do you not see the benefit of citizens being able to arm themselves? At the end of the day it's my right to own my firearms. Myself and others will step up and defend that right to any who attempt to take it. It's also a net positive in my life, providing protection and peace of mind for myself and those I love. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
  - chuckgreenman 7y ago
    You're 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, those are some bad odds mate. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun-violence https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun...
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      Self-defense is only successful if you kill the attacker? That's a disgusting and inhumane perspective.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Do you know that you are quoting the junk science that Clinton via the CDC asked Kellerman and Hemmenway to produce as a lead up to the 1993/94 Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban? The same of power that lead the 1996 congress banning the CDC from promoting policy advocation. Among other issues such as full data never being released, the specific quote you have there was derived from police reports where someone was shot in their home. No other factors were considered like drug or spouse related, not if the home owner was shot by their gun, or any one of a number of other factors that would paint a better picture. Do you seriously think police reports where someone was shot no other questions asked is a good indicator for gun ownership in the USA?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Well, unfortunately, the CDC wasn't allowed to study the affects of guns for years and still may not be able to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Also incorrect. The CDC has been able to and has studied guns since that 1996 law. They have not been allowed to suggest policy changes. Interestingly when the ability to weaponize them went away, a lot less direction went into gun studies compared to the millions of dollars spent in the ramp up to 1993.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So if the CDC found asbestos causes cancer they can suggest policy changes but if they found guns kill people they can’t? Would you be okay if the CDC couldn’t suggest policy changes when it comes to nicotine? What’s the purpose of studying something if you can’t do anything with the results?
        SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        It prevents the CDC from being weaponized like it was by Clinton admin. Anyone pushing for policy is free to cite the CDC results of studies. As they have done. But if you notice, the narrative has been CDC isn’t allowed to study guns which is a lie. This was partially rolled back by an Obama EO (sorta, its complicated) and you know what ever CDC study since has found? No exact correlation to guns and crime. There have been some interesting results since 2013 like the fact that Assault Weapon Bans have not at all proven effective since less than 400 people have died per year in any recent time by rifles of all types let alone the subset of scary looking ones, that there are 500,000 to 3,000,000 successful defensive gun uses by citizens a year mostly where a shot isn’t needed compared to 10-15,000 homicides in the country of 330,000,000 are over 75% gang or drug related, and that rural areas of USA where the guns are have effectively the same homicide rates as rural Europe when you look at like for like causes of the violence. Specifically the CDC was barred from having tax payer money used to remove citizens civil rights. Last I checked there was no enumerated right to asbestos or nicotine.
- harshreality 7y ago
  In general, owning and shooting guns is like any other hobby, and is something to talk about or take part in with friends. Most gun owners will never use a gun in self defense, and most people will never be hurt by a gun either. Of people who do end up drawing a gun in self defense, most of the time they don't even have to shoot anyone. A great way to get a head or spine injury is to own a ladder. A great way to maim yourself is to own a circular saw. A lot of popular sports have a substantial risk of very predictable injuries, from CTE (caused by repeated head trauma) to joint damage. People accept all sorts of risks from sports activities or (mis)use of all kinds of tools. When the subject turns to guns there's this uncontrollable fear reaction certain people have and want to get rid of the object. They don't want guns. They don't want their family to have guns. They don't want their friends to have guns. They don't want anyone to have guns. Guns are evil and must be eradicated. They cannot be tolerated and anyone who has one is suspicious if not a verified homicidal maniac. There is no magical solution to the "gun problem", just like there's no magical solution that will keep everyone safe in sports or DIY home improvement. Every "solution" that would work involves some kind of extremely harsh and limiting regulation or outright ban that, if it could be enforced, would upset a lot of people. How do you know every single one of your friendly, stable, normal, and non-violent friends doesn't own a gun? 30% of adults in the U.S. own one. 50% live in gun households. If you don't live with them, you simply don't know.[1] [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  >The best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun The three things you can do which will reduce your odds of being killed by a gun by about 95%: 1. Don't shoot yourself. That reduces your odds by nearly 70% 2. Be Asian or Native American. This reduces your odds by another 70%. If you're not able to do that, being white or Hispanic still improves your odds substantially. 3. Be a woman (reduces your odds of dying by another 80%) If you are able to accomplish all 3, congratulations! You've reduced your odds being killed by a gun from .01% to around 0.0005% If you're able to understand basic safety rules, owning a gun is not that dangerous. Accidental deaths are incredibly rare (literally less than a one in a million occurrence), and have been trending down since gun safety has become more popular (the modern conception of trigger discipline has only existed for like 40-50 years). I think you're conflating the inherent danger of firearms with some confounding variables that lead certain people to be more likely to possess them.
  - otterley 7y ago
    > 1. Don't shoot yourself. That reduces your odds by nearly 70% You can't shoot yourself if you don't have a gun. > Be Asian or Native American. This reduces your odds by another 70%. If you're not able to do that, being white or Hispanic still improves your odds substantially. It doesn't matter what race you are, if you don't have a gun. 3. Be a woman (reduces your odds of dying by another 80%) If doesn't matter what sex you are, if you don't have a gun. > If you are able to accomplish all 3, congratulations! You've reduced your odds being killed by a gun from .01% to around 0.0005% If you don't have a gun, congratulations! You've reduced your odds being killed by a gun from .01% to around 0.0005%. And you have to worry a whole lot less about dying from a gunshot depending on your mental state, accident, or whether you are "unlucky" enough to have been born male or African-American, or have occasional bouts of severe depression.
chuckgreenman 7y ago
You're 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun-violence https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun...
- moduspol 7y ago
  > One study found that when a gun is present in the home, that gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than to kill an intruder. There's a world of difference between OP's own circumstances and a statistical household average. If s/he lives outside of an urban area and his family has no history of mental illness, the number drops dramatically. And s/he would know his/her own circumstances.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    One is an anecdote, the other is factual data. As someone else said, guns might be okay for someone's personal circumstances but on average they are far more likely to hurt you than help. Someone thinks they know their own circumstances until they become a number contributing to that average. Also I'm curious about your distinction between urban gun access and rural access and how that affects the stats here.
    - moduspol 7y ago
      > As someone else said, guns might be okay for someone's personal circumstances but on average they are far more likely to hurt you than help. The comment I was responding to did not say this. > Also I'm curious about your distinction between urban gun access and rural access and how that affects the stats here. It's no secret that the gun deaths and shootings are far more likely in urban areas than rural ones. I think both sides of the debate acknowledge that. https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-cities/ https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-cities/
    - jboggan 7y ago
      I'm not a number contributing to an average, especially when it comes to a defensive use of a gun, because I didn't pull the trigger and no police report was made. I kept myself from becoming a statistic because I know my own circumstances. My body, my choice. By the way, just s/gun/abortion/g and see if your arguments sound familiar.
throwaway87378 7y ago
The only thing anyone outside of the US needs to see to understand the insane situation we have with gun ownership can be found in this news story about Waymo driverless cars: https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2018/12/11/waymo-self-driving-vehicles-face-harassment-road-rage-phoenix-area/2198220002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2018/12/... "“Haselton said that his wife usually keeps the gun locked up in fear that he might shoot somebody,” Jacobs wrote in the report. “Haselton stated that he despises and hates those cars (Waymo) and said how Uber had killed someone.” Haselton's wife told officers he was diagnosed with dementia, according to a police report."

nexuist 7y ago

"Statistics don't matter when it happens to you."

shrimp_emoji 7y ago

Even then, more wanted than needed (unless you're inform and/or immobile).

Scramblejams 7y ago
That statement implies a lot of assumptions that may not be correct.

lilyball 7y ago

The best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun. Owning guns is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, owning a gun is a negative.

vturner 7y ago
Replace "gun" in your sentence with say "power tool." Any powerful piece of technology in careless hands is dangerous. Goodness, even computers are dangerous in the hands of narcissistic hackers! That doesn't mean they are not perfectly safe useful tools in the responsible hands.
- p1necone 7y ago
  Sure but you actually need the power tool for something.
  - urda 7y ago
    Remember when seconds count the cops are only minutes away. Seriously, Cops do not have a legal duty to protect you [1] [2]. No gun owner needs to explain why they need their firearms to you. You need to get over it and realize that it's a constitutional right. That's as if one was asking another to explain their "need" for their freedom of religion or freedom of expression. In a thread detailing Police abusing power, do you not see the benefit of citizens being able to arm themselves? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
    - p1necone 7y ago
      Have you considered that the answer to systematic failures in the governance of the United States might be better fixed at a systematic level, rather than just arming everyone?
      - falcolas 7y ago
        Until those hypothetical fixes are in place, what do you do? Disarm everybody?
        lilyball 7y ago
        Yes. Individual citizens trying to fight cops with firepower is never going to work. Cops have much better equipment than you're going to have, and have the backing of the entire government. Unless you're literally planning on staging a coup, arming yourself to fight cops is not a viable strategy. On the other hand, if we disarm everybody, then we don't need to have such over-militarized cops either, and maybe we can finally get to a place where cops no longer automatically reach for their gun (or even carry one) and therefore stop routinely murdering citizens.
        7y ago
Tallasatree 7y ago
The best way to increase you odds of getting shot is to own a "power tool". Something is not adding up here.
- vageli 7y ago
  The sentence was: > The best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun. Owning guns is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, owning a gun is a negative.
  - stronglikedan 7y ago
    The parent was just pointing out how silly the grandparent's sentence was by replacing the word "gun" with literally any other noun. The rest of the sentences didn't really matter, and were just as silly, not to mention just as inaccurate.
pacala 7y ago
Do you have data? This is an interesting case-study where political expediency may brush over confounding variables: * Own a gun and kill oneself with it. The primary risk factor being depression, not the gun. * Own a gun and be part of a criminal organization. The primary risk factor being rival criminal organizations, not the gun.
- chowells 7y ago
  Depression is rarely the cause of suicide. Suicide is usually the result of one overwhelming moment + means. Having a gun in the household makes suicide significantly more likely. Without easy means, most people get through the tough time and go on with their lives.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    But most suicides are not accidentally caused by the presence of a gun.
urda 7y ago
> The best way to increase your odds of getting hurt is to speak your mind. Speaking out and exercising your freedom of speech is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, exercising your right to speech is a negative. See how crazy this seems typing this out? Few things to cover: 1) It's a civilian right in the US. No matter how you feel about that matter it does not change it. Attempting to remove someone's right should be treated as someone attacking all of our rights. Your feelings do not matter here. HN votes also do not change this fact. 2) Do you have data on your last point? Because honestly some of my fondest memories of my friends and family has been times we've spent at the range or out in the field together with our rifles and firearms. The training received can be applied to many aspects of life, and in some cases be life saving. This is a net benefit. 3) Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it needs to be pulled away from anyone. Owning a car is dangerous. Owning an oven is dangerous. Owning a knife is dangerous. The list goes on. 4) Cops are not required to protect you [1] [2]. I refuse to be caught as a victim just because I'm stuck waiting for police to arrive. I understand much like keeping a fire extinguisher at home for fire or flashlights for darkness, a firearm is a tool for protection. In a thread detailing Police abusing power, do you not see the benefit of citizens being able to arm themselves? At the end of the day it's my right to own my firearms. Myself and others will step up and defend that right to any who attempt to take it. It's also a net positive in my life, providing protection and peace of mind for myself and those I love. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- chuckgreenman 7y ago
  You're 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, those are some bad odds mate. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun-violence https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun...
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    Self-defense is only successful if you kill the attacker? That's a disgusting and inhumane perspective.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Do you know that you are quoting the junk science that Clinton via the CDC asked Kellerman and Hemmenway to produce as a lead up to the 1993/94 Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban? The same of power that lead the 1996 congress banning the CDC from promoting policy advocation. Among other issues such as full data never being released, the specific quote you have there was derived from police reports where someone was shot in their home. No other factors were considered like drug or spouse related, not if the home owner was shot by their gun, or any one of a number of other factors that would paint a better picture. Do you seriously think police reports where someone was shot no other questions asked is a good indicator for gun ownership in the USA?
- scarface74 7y ago
  Well, unfortunately, the CDC wasn't allowed to study the affects of guns for years and still may not be able to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Also incorrect. The CDC has been able to and has studied guns since that 1996 law. They have not been allowed to suggest policy changes. Interestingly when the ability to weaponize them went away, a lot less direction went into gun studies compared to the millions of dollars spent in the ramp up to 1993.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So if the CDC found asbestos causes cancer they can suggest policy changes but if they found guns kill people they can’t? Would you be okay if the CDC couldn’t suggest policy changes when it comes to nicotine? What’s the purpose of studying something if you can’t do anything with the results?
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        It prevents the CDC from being weaponized like it was by Clinton admin. Anyone pushing for policy is free to cite the CDC results of studies. As they have done. But if you notice, the narrative has been CDC isn’t allowed to study guns which is a lie. This was partially rolled back by an Obama EO (sorta, its complicated) and you know what ever CDC study since has found? No exact correlation to guns and crime. There have been some interesting results since 2013 like the fact that Assault Weapon Bans have not at all proven effective since less than 400 people have died per year in any recent time by rifles of all types let alone the subset of scary looking ones, that there are 500,000 to 3,000,000 successful defensive gun uses by citizens a year mostly where a shot isn’t needed compared to 10-15,000 homicides in the country of 330,000,000 are over 75% gang or drug related, and that rural areas of USA where the guns are have effectively the same homicide rates as rural Europe when you look at like for like causes of the violence. Specifically the CDC was barred from having tax payer money used to remove citizens civil rights. Last I checked there was no enumerated right to asbestos or nicotine.
harshreality 7y ago
In general, owning and shooting guns is like any other hobby, and is something to talk about or take part in with friends. Most gun owners will never use a gun in self defense, and most people will never be hurt by a gun either. Of people who do end up drawing a gun in self defense, most of the time they don't even have to shoot anyone. A great way to get a head or spine injury is to own a ladder. A great way to maim yourself is to own a circular saw. A lot of popular sports have a substantial risk of very predictable injuries, from CTE (caused by repeated head trauma) to joint damage. People accept all sorts of risks from sports activities or (mis)use of all kinds of tools. When the subject turns to guns there's this uncontrollable fear reaction certain people have and want to get rid of the object. They don't want guns. They don't want their family to have guns. They don't want their friends to have guns. They don't want anyone to have guns. Guns are evil and must be eradicated. They cannot be tolerated and anyone who has one is suspicious if not a verified homicidal maniac. There is no magical solution to the "gun problem", just like there's no magical solution that will keep everyone safe in sports or DIY home improvement. Every "solution" that would work involves some kind of extremely harsh and limiting regulation or outright ban that, if it could be enforced, would upset a lot of people. How do you know every single one of your friendly, stable, normal, and non-violent friends doesn't own a gun? 30% of adults in the U.S. own one. 50% live in gun households. If you don't live with them, you simply don't know.[1] [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...
Rebelgecko 7y ago
>The best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun The three things you can do which will reduce your odds of being killed by a gun by about 95%: 1. Don't shoot yourself. That reduces your odds by nearly 70% 2. Be Asian or Native American. This reduces your odds by another 70%. If you're not able to do that, being white or Hispanic still improves your odds substantially. 3. Be a woman (reduces your odds of dying by another 80%) If you are able to accomplish all 3, congratulations! You've reduced your odds being killed by a gun from .01% to around 0.0005% If you're able to understand basic safety rules, owning a gun is not that dangerous. Accidental deaths are incredibly rare (literally less than a one in a million occurrence), and have been trending down since gun safety has become more popular (the modern conception of trigger discipline has only existed for like 40-50 years). I think you're conflating the inherent danger of firearms with some confounding variables that lead certain people to be more likely to possess them.
- otterley 7y ago
  > 1. Don't shoot yourself. That reduces your odds by nearly 70% You can't shoot yourself if you don't have a gun. > Be Asian or Native American. This reduces your odds by another 70%. If you're not able to do that, being white or Hispanic still improves your odds substantially. It doesn't matter what race you are, if you don't have a gun. 3. Be a woman (reduces your odds of dying by another 80%) If doesn't matter what sex you are, if you don't have a gun. > If you are able to accomplish all 3, congratulations! You've reduced your odds being killed by a gun from .01% to around 0.0005% If you don't have a gun, congratulations! You've reduced your odds being killed by a gun from .01% to around 0.0005%. And you have to worry a whole lot less about dying from a gunshot depending on your mental state, accident, or whether you are "unlucky" enough to have been born male or African-American, or have occasional bouts of severe depression.

chuckgreenman 7y ago

You're 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun-violence https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun...

moduspol 7y ago
> One study found that when a gun is present in the home, that gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than to kill an intruder. There's a world of difference between OP's own circumstances and a statistical household average. If s/he lives outside of an urban area and his family has no history of mental illness, the number drops dramatically. And s/he would know his/her own circumstances.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  One is an anecdote, the other is factual data. As someone else said, guns might be okay for someone's personal circumstances but on average they are far more likely to hurt you than help. Someone thinks they know their own circumstances until they become a number contributing to that average. Also I'm curious about your distinction between urban gun access and rural access and how that affects the stats here.
  - moduspol 7y ago
    > As someone else said, guns might be okay for someone's personal circumstances but on average they are far more likely to hurt you than help. The comment I was responding to did not say this. > Also I'm curious about your distinction between urban gun access and rural access and how that affects the stats here. It's no secret that the gun deaths and shootings are far more likely in urban areas than rural ones. I think both sides of the debate acknowledge that. https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-cities/ https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-cities/
  - jboggan 7y ago
    I'm not a number contributing to an average, especially when it comes to a defensive use of a gun, because I didn't pull the trigger and no police report was made. I kept myself from becoming a statistic because I know my own circumstances. My body, my choice. By the way, just s/gun/abortion/g and see if your arguments sound familiar.

throwaway87378 7y ago

The only thing anyone outside of the US needs to see to understand the insane situation we have with gun ownership can be found in this news story about Waymo driverless cars: https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2018/12/11/waymo-self-driving-vehicles-face-harassment-road-rage-phoenix-area/2198220002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2018/12/... "“Haselton said that his wife usually keeps the gun locked up in fear that he might shoot somebody,” Jacobs wrote in the report. “Haselton stated that he despises and hates those cars (Waymo) and said how Uber had killed someone.” Haselton's wife told officers he was diagnosed with dementia, according to a police report."