10 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So are you saying if guns were never invented, many more would be murdered? 

 

That is probably about as silly as it gets.

Stone Control now!!!!

2 hours ago, brett05 said:

I never said provable.

I used a stat from the government, a supposedly unbiased source.

The only thing we can say with confidence is that there are lives saved, how many is debatable, it could be thousands it could be tens of millions

tens of millions? Come on man, in a country of 300 million people, you think 10% or more are saved every year by guns? You can't possibly believe that silliness.

 

1 hour ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

tens of millions? Come on man, in a country of 300 million people, you think 10% or more are saved every year by guns? You can't possibly believe that silliness.

 

and has yet to post any link...

2 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

tens of millions? Come on man, in a country of 300 million people, you think 10% or more are saved every year by guns? You can't possibly believe that silliness.

 

I also think it's important to note that he intentionally excluded gun deaths by suicide on the other side of the equation.  From Harvard - attempted suicide by gun is effective 82.5% of the time.  Drugs and cutting are each effective less than 2% of the time.  I will shout from the rooftops about how that stat matters any time someone seeks to exclude those deaths...

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

On 11/15/2018 at 11:00 AM, LittleHurt05 said:

Why do you only include non suicidal deaths?  I have to imagine many of those suicides would not have happened if a gun was not so easily accessible.  

Probably not.  They'd just use another method.

23 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

tens of millions? Come on man, in a country of 300 million people, you think 10% or more are saved every year by guns? You can't possibly believe that silliness.

 

It's absolutely a possibility.  It's a deterrent.

20 hours ago, illinilaw08 said:

I also think it's important to note that he intentionally excluded gun deaths by suicide on the other side of the equation.  From Harvard - attempted suicide by gun is effective 82.5% of the time.  Drugs and cutting are each effective less than 2% of the time.  I will shout from the rooftops about how that stat matters any time someone seeks to exclude those deaths...

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

Shout all you want, the life that is jeopardized is only the suicidal.  Yes you eliminate them from the talk.

if u think about it my gun that I carry everywhere because I am terrified of the world around me actually saves the lives of everyone within a two mile radius every hour, so that's millions saved just by one gun!

1 hour ago, brett05 said:

It's absolutely a possibility.  It's a deterrent.

If it is such a deterrent, how come people are still getting shot? Isn't the US the most armed country, and has the most people shot? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Edited November 16, 20187 yr by Dick Allen

1 hour ago, brett05 said:

It's absolutely a possibility.  It's a deterrent.

We are talking deterrent effect? OK... You think tens of millions of people would kill other people if they knew citizens were unarmed (which most are today anyway)? Again, you think, say, 10% of the population are only kept from murdering others by the fact that the other might be armed? It's not, ya know, the fact that they'd go to jail? Or that it's morally wrong?

Why do you guys waste your time on Brett?  No one can actually believe this nonsense.

Alright, the news passed and this has devovled to gun debate. This thread is getting locked.

We learned today that the security guard who was killed in this mass shooting was killed by a bullet fired by a police officer who ran into the bar along with him. He was struck by 6 bullets, 1 lethal, and the lethal one came from the gun of the California Highway Patrol officer on the scene.