They should find him guilty of all three charges. At least one will hold up on appeal.Oldbear83 said:
I think the fair verdict is guilty of manslaughter. Anything else is likely to get thrown out as a mistrial.
Chauvin. What say you?
34,124 Views |
535 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Oldbear83
The jury should be able to set outside influence. Maxine should face some consequences.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Should be a mistrial. I'm shocked this jury wasn't fully sequestered. There's just NO WAY not one of them became aware of the threats of violence or pig's blood being smeared, and the latest with Maxine Waters encouraging all of it. Not with today's technology and hypermedia presence. Waters herself might've fouled it all up. How ironic. Judge really screwed up by not sequestering.
Username does not check out.TexasScientist said:They should find him guilty of all three charges. At least one will hold up on appeal.Oldbear83 said:
I think the fair verdict is guilty of manslaughter. Anything else is likely to get thrown out as a mistrial.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Agree with all of this, but are you sure no others were charged?redfish961 said:
Bypassing all of the comments and having watched the majority of the trial, if I was a juror, Chauvin would be convicted of 2nd degree murder.
He didn't plan it, but he participated in a manner that was reckless, indifferent, and uncaring.
I really wonder why some of the other officers aren't being tried....They could have intervened and chose not to.
Being former military, I back our veterans and the police until you give me a reason not to.
The other officers in this scenario could have helped to prevent this and not sure why nobody intervened.
Chauvin is guilty and his life was not in danger.
Great post that's full of sage advice. Absolutely increasing your odds of "favorable outcomes" in this earthly existence.sombear said:
I own two handguns, both strategically placed in my house. I know the odds of ever needing them are slim to none. I hardly ever think about needing them and never worry about it. But to me it's silly not to be prepared just in case. I lock our doors even though we've never been robbed. I wear my seat belt and never text or talk on my mobile while driving even though I've never been in a bad accident. I hold the handrail in any stairs even though I've never fallen. None of these are irrational fears solely because I'll likely go my entire life not needing them.
bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for those incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
How are you not arguing stats for your reasoning?bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post.
Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
Actually, I'm not sure.sombear said:Agree with all of this, but are you sure no others were charged?redfish961 said:
Bypassing all of the comments and having watched the majority of the trial, if I was a juror, Chauvin would be convicted of 2nd degree murder.
He didn't plan it, but he participated in a manner that was reckless, indifferent, and uncaring.
I really wonder why some of the other officers aren't being tried....They could have intervened and chose not to.
Being former military, I back our veterans and the police until you give me a reason not to.
The other officers in this scenario could have helped to prevent this and not sure why nobody intervened.
Chauvin is guilty and his life was not in danger.
I just haven't heard anything about if they are.
As Robert Wilson said, it may not be a crime or isn't a crime.
I will say that one of the officers suggested they put Floyd on his side and Chauvin replied "No, he'll stay put right where he is". About a minute later Floyd was unconcious. So, at least one of them tried to make a suggestion that may have helped Floyd.
bear2be2: "What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even when it's not reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do."
Blatantly dishonest, because if that were true, you would seriously consider what has been presented to you by gun rights advocates. You would be sensitive to the very real dangers faced by small business owners who are robbed by crooks but not allowed to defend themselves. You would be sympathetic to women fleeing abusive husbands/boyfriends who are not allowed to have a gun to protect against further harm. You would understand that the violence so common in the North and Northwest last year can only be stopped with the credible threat of self-defense. Instead, you demand we take seriously the emotional whining of people who want to deny citizens their rights out of a groundless fear of tools no different or - when properly used - more dangerous than tools like stoves, lawnmowers, or automobiles, while denying the rights of citizens to have tools protected by the Constitution as their right.
Fear is something to be overcome and defeated, not embraced or ancouraged.
Blatantly dishonest, because if that were true, you would seriously consider what has been presented to you by gun rights advocates. You would be sensitive to the very real dangers faced by small business owners who are robbed by crooks but not allowed to defend themselves. You would be sympathetic to women fleeing abusive husbands/boyfriends who are not allowed to have a gun to protect against further harm. You would understand that the violence so common in the North and Northwest last year can only be stopped with the credible threat of self-defense. Instead, you demand we take seriously the emotional whining of people who want to deny citizens their rights out of a groundless fear of tools no different or - when properly used - more dangerous than tools like stoves, lawnmowers, or automobiles, while denying the rights of citizens to have tools protected by the Constitution as their right.
Fear is something to be overcome and defeated, not embraced or ancouraged.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
bear2be2: "What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even when it's not reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do."
Blatantly dishonest, because if that were true, you would seriously consider what has been presented to you by gun rights advocates. You would be sensitive to the very real dangers faced by small business owners who are robbed by crooks but not allowed to defend themselves. You would be sympathetic to women fleeing abusive husbands/boyfriends who are not allowed to have a gun to protect against further harm. You would understand that the violence so common in the North and Northwest last year can only be stopped with the credible threat of self-defense. Instead, you demand we take seriously the emotional whining of people who want to deny citizens their rights out of a groundless fear of tools no different or - when properly used - more dangerous than tools like stoves, lawnmowers, or automobiles, while denying the rights of citizens to have tools protected by the Constitution as their right.
Fear is something to be overcome and defeated, not embraced or ancouraged.
I don't know how to make it any clearer that I have no desire whatsoever to engage with you. You've proven yourself a bad faith actor on this board who talks at people, not to or with them. I know this will go in one ear and out the other with no obstacle between to block it, but you're talking to yourself at this point.
Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
You duck me because you know I am right. You know I call you out for your dishonesty, bear2be2.bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
bear2be2: "What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even when it's not reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do."
Blatantly dishonest, because if that were true, you would seriously consider what has been presented to you by gun rights advocates. You would be sensitive to the very real dangers faced by small business owners who are robbed by crooks but not allowed to defend themselves. You would be sympathetic to women fleeing abusive husbands/boyfriends who are not allowed to have a gun to protect against further harm. You would understand that the violence so common in the North and Northwest last year can only be stopped with the credible threat of self-defense. Instead, you demand we take seriously the emotional whining of people who want to deny citizens their rights out of a groundless fear of tools no different or - when properly used - more dangerous than tools like stoves, lawnmowers, or automobiles, while denying the rights of citizens to have tools protected by the Constitution as their right.
Fear is something to be overcome and defeated, not embraced or ancouraged.
I don't know how to make it any clearer that I have no desire whatsoever to engage with you. You've proven yourself a bad faith actor on this board who talks at people, not to or with them. I know this will go in one ear and out the other with no obstacle between to block it, but you're talking to yourself at this point.
Ignore me if you want, but I will continue to call out your lies and hypocrisy.
I do find it very amusing that you of all people dare to complain about "bad faith"!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime. But again, that's not my point.
I understand why gun owners feel they need one. But for many, it is 100 percent a fear-based motivation -- and one that is disproportionate to the existing threat.
That's fine. I can empathize with most of those people. I'm just asking them to extend that same courtesy to others.
That makes at least three moron presidents in a row. Congress is full of them.Forest Bueller_bf said:Wow, politicians need to be muzzled on this jury decision.Doc Holliday said:
It is not their call and their interference could be means of a mistrial if there is a conviction.
Biden and Watters are morons.
Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people. The stats for corrupted governments are high, in fact most of them are and I'm not arrogant or naive enough to believe our country is immune.
I would imagine the streak is somewhat more than 3.TexasScientist said:That makes at least three moron presidents in a row. Congress is full of them.Forest Bueller_bf said:Wow, politicians need to be muzzled on this jury decision.Doc Holliday said:
It is not their call and their interference could be means of a mistrial if there is a conviction.
Biden and Watters are morons.
Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Murder 2 is actually an easier threshold than I would have thought. It may come into play here.
Unintentional act, in the course of another crime, as in assault.
So if you knock someone out with a single punch, they fall and hit their dead on the sidewalk and die,
murder 2 is a possibility.
Certainly very possible here.
Unintentional act, in the course of another crime, as in assault.
So if you knock someone out with a single punch, they fall and hit their dead on the sidewalk and die,
murder 2 is a possibility.
Certainly very possible here.
I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
His rationale might not be that elementary.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Things could happen in his lifetime that could increase the likelihood of him being robbed or attacked.
It would be irrational only if the stats were 0%.
Sam Lowry said:I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Not in Argyle, Texas, it's not. Or in most suburban/rural locales for that matter.
If you live in a high-crime area, fine. But your gated community isn't getting burglarized by "career criminals" while you sleep at night.
Absolutely. And that idiot mayor. Let the jury who sat in the box make the decision. That's how the system works. Stop grandstanding.Forest Bueller_bf said:Wow, politicians need to be muzzled on this jury decision.Doc Holliday said:
It is not their call and their interference could be means of a mistrial if there is a conviction.
Biden and Watters are morons.
Thanks for telling me what I should think and how to protect myself and my family. I live in a gated community in one of the safest areas in Texas. Still like knowing I can defend myself if the unlikely happens. The year before we moved here, our now next door neighbor confronted two thieves in his driveway at 2 am. He pulled his 45 and they ran. He did what I would not do and chased them, but they got away. Cops caught them an hour later trying to rob another house in a non-gated but very nice neighborhood.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Not in Argyle, Texas, it's not. Or in most suburban/rural locales for that matter.
If you live in a high-crime area, fine. Your gated community isn't getting burglarized by "career criminals" while you sleep at night.
sombear said:Thanks for telling me what I should think and how to protect myself and my family. I live in a gated community in one of the safest areas in Texas. Still like knowing I can defend myself if the unlikely happens. The year before we moved here, our now next door neighbor confronted two thieves in his driveway at 2 am. He pulled his 45 and they ran. He did what I would not do and chased them, but they got away. Cops caught them an hour later trying to rob another house in a non-gated but very nice neighborhood.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Not in Argyle, Texas, it's not. Or in most suburban/rural locales for that matter.
If you live in a high-crime area, fine. Your gated community isn't getting burglarized by "career criminals" while you sleep at night.
I'm not telling you what you should think. As long as you store and use your gun safely, you do you.
20 times, then.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Not in Argyle, Texas, it's not. Or in most suburban/rural locales for that matter.
If you live in a high-crime area, fine. But your gated community isn't getting burglarized by "career criminals" while you sleep at night.
Most of the people I know who own scary black rifles own them in direct response to the clear threat presented by the regressives. Speaking of "statistically irrational fear", the average annual number of deaths from scary black rifles is fewer than the number of people killed by hands and feet, or by knives. Bicycles and swimming pools are more dangerous, as well.bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
Having a gun when/if needed is akin to getting a Covid vaccination. It's all a matter of responding to what may be understood as fat tail risk; however small the probability of an event, assuming it's >0 and if the outcome may be fatal, it's best to be prepared.Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
FWIW, I really enjoyed Nassim Taleb's work in this area:
https://fs.blog/intellectual-giants/nassim-taleb/
Well, you said it's an irrational fearbear2be2 said:sombear said:Thanks for telling me what I should think and how to protect myself and my family. I live in a gated community in one of the safest areas in Texas. Still like knowing I can defend myself if the unlikely happens. The year before we moved here, our now next door neighbor confronted two thieves in his driveway at 2 am. He pulled his 45 and they ran. He did what I would not do and chased them, but they got away. Cops caught them an hour later trying to rob another house in a non-gated but very nice neighborhood.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Not in Argyle, Texas, it's not. Or in most suburban/rural locales for that matter.
If you live in a high-crime area, fine. Your gated community isn't getting burglarized by "career criminals" while you sleep at night.
I'm not telling you what you should think. As long as you store and use your gun safely, you do you.
sombear said:Well, you said it's an irrational fearbear2be2 said:sombear said:Thanks for telling me what I should think and how to protect myself and my family. I live in a gated community in one of the safest areas in Texas. Still like knowing I can defend myself if the unlikely happens. The year before we moved here, our now next door neighbor confronted two thieves in his driveway at 2 am. He pulled his 45 and they ran. He did what I would not do and chased them, but they got away. Cops caught them an hour later trying to rob another house in a non-gated but very nice neighborhood.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:I have to take issue with that as well. There are about 2,500 gun deaths per year among school-aged children, of which less than 40 percent (or 1,000) are accidents or suicides. So it's roughly 100 times more likely that he'll use the gun to defend himself or his home.bear2be2 said:Doc Holliday said:Crime prevention/protection is not everyone's rationale for owning guns.bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime.
Without guns, I believe the US government inevitably turns on it's own people.
That's a fair viewpoint. I'm not talking about those people here. I'm talking about the roughly 48 percent of gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation.
My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He lives in a super nice subdivision in Argyle, and he bought a gun to defend his family non-existent home invaders. Statistically, one of his three young sons is as likely to shoot himself with that gun as he is to need it for self-/home-defense, but he thinks he needs it.
As long as he stores and uses it properly so as to avoid such a tragedy as that described above, more power to him. But there's nothing particularly rational about his thought process. He's just scared.
Not in Argyle, Texas, it's not. Or in most suburban/rural locales for that matter.
If you live in a high-crime area, fine. Your gated community isn't getting burglarized by "career criminals" while you sleep at night.
I'm not telling you what you should think. As long as you store and use your gun safely, you do you.
It very likely is. And that's fine. There are reasons you feel the way you do. I'm willing to respect those reasons, even if they're based on extremely low statistical probabilities.
bear2be2 said:Sam Lowry said:Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:And you always say the point is missed...bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.ATL Bear said:There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?bear2be2 said:No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.Oldbear83 said:
You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.
Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.
Or would that get in the way of your screeding?
Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.
I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.
So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.
.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.
Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.
If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.
The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.
You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.
The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.
With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.
And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.
I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime. But again, that's not my point.
I understand why gun owners feel they need one. But for many, it is 100 percent a fear-based motivation -- and one that is disproportionate to the existing threat.
That's fine. I can empathize with most of those people. I'm just asking them to extend that same courtesy to others.
The threat is not uniformly distributed.