I wonder how many people will die if they decide to rescind the right to own fire arms here.

Karl, Good question.
Can you point out some that were saved?

Many.. for instance

https://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/

I like this one

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...ng-to-debate-having-a-gun-saved-my-life/

I'm sure they do. But they don't always list the reason for the death. I'd venture most are either suicide or accident.

But the overall number of firearm injuries/deaths pale in comparison to auto deaths (occupant, pedestrian, motorcycle or bicycle) and injuries.

And the reasons for most auto deaths are similar (accident/distracted driving).

In my opinion there are a large proportion of vehicle owners (and firearm owners) who really aren't responsible enough to be in charge of one... but that's the reality of our society.

oh, crap... you just opened another "Drill" thread... The NRA is happy to post in each of their magazine issues, many police narratives of self-defense related shootings (where the defender was in the right). I believe at least one or two pages of each issue is dedicated to recent events of self-defense.

I use those little narratives to determine where i DO NOT want to live (like certain parts of Atlanta, ALL of Detroit, and wherever Karl lives , for example)

I would also posit that for every responsible firearm enthusiast, there might be 2 "gun nuts" who see ownership as some form of empowerment. It's these twerps that cause most of the bad reputation.

Just like the USA driver license test being a complete joke, many conceal-carry training courses are wholly inadequate.

One of the top medical journals; I forget if it was NEJM or the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, had article on this a while back

#1 - Anger... on spouse shooting the other in a fit of rage... at least that is how the lawyers spin it.

I think suicide and accidents were #6 & #10.

I prefer my Schutzhund trained Belgian Maloniose and baseball bat...

I have no desire to own a gun... That said.. with 911 response times being more that 10 minutes.... and with a larger number of psychopaths and sociopaths running around... I have no qualms with those that do..

Ever see what a well trained K-9 can do in five minutes?

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.

Mine just licks his (former) balls, but I haven't exactly kept up with the continuing training for him.

I respect those who don't own firearms and those RESPONSIBLE folks that do. Like a hammer (on steroids), it is a tool that can be used and mis-used.

I've got nothing someone would want to kill for, and I don't present myself as a target (dark alleys, cash hanging out, soliciting hookers or meth) so I suspect my need to defend using lethal force is low.

But those flying scot sailors can be an unruly bunch so I should probably pack heat at the next regatta. You got to be on meth to think those things are fun (or fast).

But back to your statistic regarding domestic violence. Interesting to know, although I would wonder how many domestic violence injuries are caused by firearms vs. anything else (vehicles, objects, etc.)

I'd also have to wonder why a background check didn't pick any prior domestic abuse history (unless they were all first-timers).

Not that I'm defending the gun lobby or the gun-ban lobby...

any facts behind this.... or just news reports on the TV that you naturally filter as pschopath attack.

Case in point... Have there been any acts of domestic terrorism in the last two weeks?

well.... if you shoot and kill one of two Indian engineers.... you could call that an increase in pschopaths and sociopaths that warrant conceal carry .... domestic anti muslim terrorism.... hate crimes against people of color.... or right wing terrorism.

Pick your filter.

This would be a normal issue in social research... what is abnormal are the laws which prevent data collection that score gun use, no matter how they are used.

Alright!!! A little sailing discussion. That's reason to celebrate!

My question was poorly written.

How many people are going to die in the act of being disarmed? The internet guesstimate is 3% will stand up and fight. I don't know how accurate that is. You can put me in "cold dead hands"category, but my reasons to go on are pretty thin

Are you saying the perpetrators of crimes against persons don't exhibit these predictors in their behavior...

If so can you cite that?

The discussion here is people protecting themselves in their home form those that violate those boundaries...

What is the NRA and their lapdogs in congress afraid of? The CDC was ready to do the research but couldn't get funded.

.... and flying scot sailors

I work retail, at the checkout counter when they open their wallet, the concealed carry permit is in front of their driver's license.

My worry is that one of these days there will be a situation where one a**hole with a gun will stand his ground and then all of the others will start shooting without a clue what they are doing.

Here locally I'm more afraid of law enforcement. This week a county deputy put 8 into a drunk, crazy man wielding a knife. Before that just 4 blocks from my house a city officer shot & killed a citizen (she was in our store the day before)in a shoot/no shoot demo in the fire station.

Those that have guns are looking for ways to use them.

If you are a hammer then the whole world is a nail.

<****

Scientists are back in a position they’ve been in many times before, in which they might have to voice their political views, both to ensure their own survival and as an ethical necessity. “The level of activity I’ve seen in the past few months has been incredible,” Teich said. “I haven’t ever seen scientists get this worked up before.” Kuznick said that the level of organization is reminiscent of the 1930’s—or beyond. US scientists are planning marches, running for office, speaking publicly at meetings, and reaching out to the general public. They’re trying to make their way back into the political world they’ve inhabited before.

“The idea of the disinterested, removed scientist is dead everywhere except in pop culture,” said Egan. “The public still thinks that’s what a scientist is...but closing yourself off in the lab is no longer an option.” Kelly Ramirez, like scientists across the country, recognized that right away on the morning of November 9th, and in the wake of the election, she and many other scientists like her knew exactly what they were going to do: organize, resist, and advocate for science.

No that is not my point or the question.
This debate is about the reasons for making a choice to weaponize the home. The purpose of the argument is justifying the action as reasonable, getting a pass on the judgment, or persuading others of the reasonableness.

Lots of fuzzy thinking here... usually we use the term reason in the context of cause and effect... reasons are facts that support the mechanism. when really.... what you have is the expression of a value ( I value guns) ... which doesn't need a reason.

Someone, claimed that there were "Larger NUMBERS of nuts" So this introduces a debate about the level of risk AND more importantly.. the idea that the "risk" is actually increasing....

Critical thinking would cause you to consider that the level of deviants is constant or even declining and just being reported more because it sells eyeballs on tv news. Or... a pretty blondes was the victem and we sympathize. Alternatively are you, the observer, just filtering the noise 'of the news and "it seems like" the risk of a home invasion is increasing. (another pretty blonde was a victim)
Can someone point to some measurements that yield valid data .... the frequency and number of nutter home invasions is increasing???

A single event in the country a year could be enough of reason for you to take an action. Hell... No actions are needed to express a value.... You can make it up. "I value guns" Full stop..

However, the intent was to persuade others to ratify some one's decision as being based on much more then a single reason. It was stated as a FACT that the level of deviance had INCREASED and because circumstances had changed... there were MANY bad events and the decision made to weaponize was VERY reasonable. I don't see the data for this.... and so I argue that changing behavior would be Un reasonable.

Somebody else raised the issue of the downside. Ie death caused by emotional exchanges within the family, suicide, accidents etc. This is the other side of the "reasonable argument". They are inviting a person who does opt for an un real reason to own a weapon to also consider the downside risk and share their assessment of the downside risks as they balance against the upside risks ...

Of course, you never have to look at the risk reward balance either. its a free country... you can weaponize your home for NO reason. not a problem. (Now weaponizing the public space... hmm).

A persuasive case to weaponize your home would be founded in facts about the actual risk in your world, actual facts about the change in risk and consideration for the facts of the down side risk that comes with it.

What is actually going on is the attempt to make the case simply by agreement.. EVERYONE has a gun... so its "reasonable" to have a gun in the home. this is simply not a cause and effect relationship. The term reasonable shouldn't be used. This is just agreement based on a shared value. So... facts like the decline in numbers of homes with guns undermines the pro home owner gun argument "by agreement". Fewer people then the past have guns in the homes... ergo... Less agreement on gun values and less of a faux "reason"

No worries... the second amendment gives you the right as a matter of the constitution.... so... even if the number of gun families continues to decline... no changes to you for so long as we have no constitutional amendments passed.
(now ..... if the popularity of gun ownership declined enough... a constitutional amendment would take away your right.... so driving up fear to reverse the everybody has one agreement argument is what it is... a strategy... not a reason.)

I have family members who weaponize for no reason beyond false perception of risks/reward. (they mistate the facts) I only visit the ones with gun safes and good track records of maintaining their firearm skills (helps that they are ex military). I had one family member with a flying scott... Yeah... maybe we should solve that problem once and for all

Stop being lazy and go do some of your own research... you will be surprised at the statistics specifically of the robberies that occur while someone is in the house that brews into a murder, or the rapes... There is a very popular Weta sailor out here, that I believe has posted here a few times, whose stepson's murderer was just convicted after 20 years. He surprised the burglar when he came home and was stabbed to death. And this was not some PG County Ghetto Hood either.

Would having a gun changed the outcome of that encounter... that we don't know, but this happens a lot more that what you elude to with your statement above.

Again, I am not advocating guns... I have a dog's bark that does a better job of keeping them away... Again, for those the chose this I have no problems with you... but two things... my child will not come to your house to play with your child... and if you pull it you better use it because it may be used on you.

I guess your tune will change if it hits close to home for you.

Let move on to something more pleasant like Damon getting this site up and running an how we can support his with this.

When you're losing the argument, change the subject. Right Schwantz?