Ultimate Gun Defense

[Van Canna]

Marcus just sent me this, which I think is right on the money...

I can't believe folks will argue statistics of need of firearm vs risk of firearms in the house .

It's simple , your choice to take the responsibility , or your choice to roll the dice .

I'll take personal responsibility over chance any day .

I can be more responsible than the statistics , I can be unluckier than the statistics too .

it's a personal choice , but the arguments never address the issues .

Choice and responsibility .

[Valkenar]

So you were antigun at the time of your 'devil's arguments' years back…right?

Yes.

And I remember you doing it with 'glee' while playing with fire. ...BS just to bust balls as you did ...

It's not about busting balls. Do I really have to explain the purpose of taking up a devil's advocate position for the sake of debate? Is it actually a foreign concept to you, or are you just taking a devil's advocate position yourself for the sake of irony?

The 'Gun control thing' is necessarily a highly emotionally charged matter,

Well, controlling one's emotions is an important life skill, imho.

You could at least be man enough to take the heat when it comes...knowing well enough it is bound to come in gun discussions.
...
Why are you so obsessed by 'insults' and 'strong reactions' in these discussions?

I don't actually care on a personal level if people try to insult me on the internet (honestly it kind of just makes laugh), but ad hominem attacks do tend to make a conversation degenerate into substance-free babbling. Since I like having substantive debates, I prefer to see insults kept out. Furthermore, it's supposed to be against the rules of the forum. I try to respect those rules, and I don't like double-standards (Which I called you out on on your forums, and you posted the rules explicitly saying that you're going to have a double standard if you want, so now I don't really debate there). I try hard to avoid namecalling or saying directly derogatory things about people (actions or views are fair game).

This may come as a shock to you, but I just don't care enough about gun ownership issues to go post about it on dedicated gun forums. If it comes up on a forum I already enjoy, then it's interesting enough to bother, but otherwise, it's not something that's worth any more time and effort than that.

OK…so you are a little less antigun now…but still antigun to some extent, right?

I don't know. Define anti-gun. I think people should be allowed to have various guns. There should be some strings attached (licenses, training requirements) but for the most part of someone wants a gun and has shown themselves to be minimally responsible then it's fine. Whether that's a pro-gun or anti-gun attitude depends on the perspective of the person asking. Given how upset you appear at my questioning the stats, it seems like I'm probably not quite pro-gun enough for you.

I did read them

I find that hard to believe. If you had you would already have known that I changed my views on gun ownership as a result of reading Lott (plus engaging in the debates on this forum) and not had to ask me how it changed. So pick one:

You didn't read it
You didn't understand it
You immediately forgot it

Because I was very clear in that post.

This is precisely the position that my cousin's wife took in denying her husband's possession of a house gun for family protection stating that since they lived in a nice area there was no such need…[low risk]

And maybe she was right to begin with, but even low risk is risk. All life is risk, and bad schit happens even in low-risk situations. What happened to your cousin's family is incredibly tragic, but it doesn't change whether having a gun is a good idea or a bad idea. The whole decision-making process goes like this:

1. Will a gun make your family more or less safe?
2. If yes, will it make them enough less safe to be worth the cost (in time and money)?

For 1, you have to ask questions like: how are you storing it? What are your risk factors? Are you the kind of person who can definitely keep it secured? Will you be capable of using it if you need to?

For 2 you have to ask: How does owning the gun affect your quality of life? How much time do you have to spend training with it? How much money do you have to spend buying and maintaining it (and relevant licenses)?

Compare it to medicine. It's easy to say "Every life is worth any expense saving" but when you have limited resources, you have to decide where you're going to put your resources. Quality of life is an important consideration, not just quantity of life. To bring it back to guns, doing all the training necessary to be really proficient is time-intensive and expensive. If you like doing it, that's not a problem, but if it's just an onerous chore, then even if there's some chance of it preventing an unlikely disaster, you aren't necessarily making the right choice by having one.

And yes, that means you're taking a chance but you're *always* taking chances in life. Every day what you eat, what you do, where you drive, there's always chance involved. It's not possible to eliminate chance from your life, and no person is totally in control of their own destiny. That's a hard fact for a lot of people to accept, but its reality.

Basically it comes down to this:

Is
(Chance of bad things happening) X (severity of bad things happening)
greater than
(Cost of prevention) + (severity of bad things happening) X (chance of prevention failing)

And no, you can never truly know exact values for that. But what this tells you is that if the chances of bad things happening is low enough and the cost of prevention is high, then it's not worth trying to prevent it. You can try and take all the personal responsibility you want, and you'll still never eliminate chance. At the end of the day you have to accept that there are risks you're just going to have to live with.

That's not to say prevention and risk-reduction is worthless, but saying "I will always do maximum risk reduction" doesn't really make sense, and besides, nobody really does that (not even the most timid people).

[Van Canna]

Hey Justin,

Keep on babbling on...you are simply not worth my keyboard's wear and tear.

[Bill Glasheen]

In order to get my points across, I'm going to put in several posts.

- Bill

[Stevie B]

http://www.drphil.com
If you want to really be understood go to the link above...
I think they may even supply tissues and will certainly be more empathetic to your feelings...

Tissue anyone?!? Hahahahahahaha!!!!

[Bill Glasheen]

I remember when I was taking public speaking in college, one of my teachers said some of the most persuasive speeches involve subjects that are personal and emotional. So here goes......hope everyone's paying attention.

If only my brother's friend had known the ultimate gun defense, I have no doubt he could have stopped the gunman that took my brother's life February 10th 2011.

Please understand that as moderator, I have to be Switzerland.

Let's remember that Bert (KentuckyUechi) started this thread. He came into my cyberhome (so to write) bearing a heavy heart. His post was a mixture of grief over a personal loss and his attempt to make something good come from that loss.

Since this is his thread - and it is a deadly serious one - it makes sense to stay on topic. We can always start another thread to discuss debating styles and other personal issues.

Friendship doubles our joy and divides our grief.
- Swedish proverb

I also think it only proper that nobody jump into a discussion in this thread without acknowledging an unthinkable loss and remaining mindful of that loss. I'm not suggesting how that should be done. I am however suggesting that it's the right thing to do.

I've recently lost a dear friend, and I have a father and mother-in-law in hospice care. To say that I empathize is putting it mildly. Raw doesn't begin to describe what must be felt by those left behind.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

More later...

- Bill

[Van Canna]

Right you are Bill. The problem here is that Justin is still wet behind the ears and he likes to hear himself 'talk' at the expense of deadly emotions just lurking behind corners as we have seen in Panther's reaction days ago.

Justin's conceit is only exceeded by his insolence and sophomoric stance

on such serious a matter.

And Stevie B has got him pegged on the nose.

On my family's tragedy, along with his other pointless babbling, he writes

And maybe she was right to begin with, but even low risk is risk. All life is risk, and bad schit happens even in low-risk situations. What happened to your cousin's family is incredibly tragic, but it doesn't change whether having a gun is a good idea or a bad idea.

Fact is that the husband had felt a need for a house gun based on his own assessment of the risk, but his wife denied him the ownership of it…

My cousin with terror in his eyes described the hopelessness he felt …all felt…when the invaders were about to push through the door…and in desperately looking around for some defensive tool nearby…there was none.
It was this lack of effective defense that motivated that courageous young little child to grab an umbrella and try to defend the family…getting her brains blown all over the ceiling in the process.

Again Marcus gets it right with this

I can't believe folks will argue statistics of need of firearm vs. risk of firearms in the house .

It's simple, your choice to take the responsibility, or your choice to roll the dice.

I'll take personal responsibility over chance any day.

I can be more responsible than the statistics; I can be unluckier than the statistics too.

It's a personal choice, but the arguments never address the issues.

Choice and responsibility

Funny and sad how my cousin's wife suddenly changed her tune about a gun in the house after the killing of her daughter, while living in abject terror of being executed along with the rest of the family so as to eliminate all witnesses.

And than that rat picked up and went back to Russia. Don't get me going.

[Van Canna]

Then we have Justin pontificate on having to have 'emotional self' control when discussing these horrors.

Well, he has seen the self control exhibited here by panther and I, both having suffered similar family tragedies… maybe he has some ideas as to what response he would have had otherwise, if both Panther and I had lost it.

And then he goes on and on about feeling victimized by phantom insults and 'strong reactions'…imagine this guy.

Marcus just wrote that maybe Justin is…trying to be a comedian trying to be
Heard behind all that noise he is making on this subject…and suggests we give him enough rope and let his noise bounce off the walls like a bunch of rattling cans.

Justin is a very intelligent person and college graduate, but he lacks maturity and world experience. Other wise he would realize that emotions are a very powerful, deadly, driving force…in particular the anger emotion that can be all pervasive when coming from the pain

of hurt, from the pain of fear_from the pain of disappointment, from the pain of guilt, that family members may harbor deep inside for what befell a son, brother, sister etc.

Then he has the audacity to pontificate 'therapy' hiding behind this smoke screen to justify his distorted views.

[Van Canna]

I shudder at our good friend Panther reactions on this forum

Here's the answer... crap happens, tragedies happen... you do your best to prevent them in your own life and the lives of those you love... NO ONE has the right to be a nanny over anyone else (even claiming that you "love" everyone has been used as a reason on this... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit)...

If someone doesn't take precautions and take care, then we can offer condolences and hopefully all learn lessons...


That doesn't mean that we can stop Darwinism or "Acts of God" or just schit from happening. Schit happens... it might be from a "bad guy" or a Tsunami... Bad schit happens to good people that are just the way it is.

Some people turn to their faith/God, others get "involved"... but getting involved usually means making someone else take the care and precautions that the "involved" person desires to make themselves feel good.

I freely admit that this is, has been, and always will be an emotional topic for me... my life experiences indicate that it will always be that way. Not because it has to be that way, but because I chose to know the truth and won't let it be rewritten.

That's the answer... plain and simple. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. By all means give your advice, your opinion... your consolation if something bad happens... help people learn from the past and discuss the options, but let them make their own decisions and lead their own lives.

And that, in a rather large nut-shell, is why I didn't join this thread until directly mentioned. I've said it all along... I feel bad about Bert's loss. I know what it's like to lose someone you love tragically... Nothing can be said by anyone to offer true comfort. The best thing that was ever said to me by anyone was, "I know..." Nothing else, just that.


I lost someone in the 70s and again in the 90s and even though people have said many things and even said that it "gets better with time", here's what I've learned.

That's BS... It doesn't get better with time; you just learn to live with it. I deal with that loss every G D day, but I've learned to live with it and not let it run my life. That's the truth.

I probably should apologize for the rant, but I'm really not "feeling" it... so in the immoral words of Cartman... "I'm taking my ball and going home." (which I should have done to begin with... and now I have to go freshen up before someone comes into my office and asks what's wrong...)

All here in a nutshell, and kudos to Bill for his perceptive thinking.

Something that Justin, with his immaturity of the moment, seems to have great difficulty grasping. He still does not realize that he is playing with fire _ Bill.

[Valkenar]

Have any of you paused to realized that I'm not the one that started this talk of statistics? It wasn't me coming in here to Bert he was wrong to blame it on the guns. That was Panther. Everything I have said about gun control has been to other people, who in my opinion (and I didn't want to come here to cast recriminations) were insensitive in how they approached the subject.

Look at Panther's line:
I know it is tough to lose someone you love (no matter how it happens), but thinking that it was in any way "the gun's fault" for being "easily available" doesn't work for me

So here we have Bert, in his pain, talking in a less-than-positive (while still saying he does keep a gun) way about gun ownership and what did Panther do? Got up on his soap box telling Bert his thinking "doesn't work for me" Maybe he was right, maybe those stats are dead on, but is that what Bert really needs? If you are so concerned with Bert's pain, why not just let him post whatever he feels like, without trying to prove him wrong? Why critique his feelings just one month after it happened?

Did you see me coming in here and telling Bert what the statistics say about gun safety? No, I responded Panther and you. You're furious that I would have the gall to question people who have had such serious tragedies and yet turn a blind eye to it when your friend does it.

Here's the bottom line. I don't really know, and I'm not going to pretend to know what Bert needs. Nor am I going to pretend like the losses I've suffered in my own life make me an expert on how he feels right now. I have very intentionally avoided pretending like anything that I, a complete stranger on the internet could say has any true meaning in the face of such a highly personal tragedy. That seems awfully presumptuous to me. There's lots of maybe-helpful things I could say about suicide, but it's not my place to presume that I know about someone else's feelings. I don't begrudge anyone well-wishes or comforting words. There is value in that. This is just how I feel about it.

[MikeK]

And those numbers don't really have any bearing on the discussion. A lot more people play baseball and softball so those numbers would naturally be high. Same with everything else on that list. I'm going to take a crazy wild ass guess and thing that kids who shoot or carry handguns as an activity would be much lower. To be injured by a handgun one has to be somewhere in the area, which of course is obvious.

The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country. *

Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns). *

About 12 million people play baseball in the United States. **

I'm going to take a wild guess and say no more than 20 million people play softball in the United States.

This is the proper comparison, Mike. For the most part the concern is youth exposure and access to firearms, and not use per se.

- Bill


* Source: http://wiki.answers.com

** Source: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball

The FBI stat doesn't hold water as it isn't an accurate count of guns per owner, and the 1 gun per person is just a silly attention getter for the media. I'll have to look but I believe the percentage of current gun owners hovers around 25% with most owning more than one. And I think there is about 80-90 million handguns which is what we're really talking about.
I'll have to go and look up the actual studies (not wiki) that I came across during one of the Grossman debates, so take my numbers with a grain of salt.

[Stevie B]

Don't write a check your ass can't cash...
Rule #2... If you pick a fight, be ready to end it...Or apologize your way out if you can..
Rule #3... Don't bring a stick and loudspeaker to a gunfight!!! The stick will become useless, and the loudspeaker will get turned off...

So I'll ask again Crybaby.... Tissue???

[Stevie B]

If you jhave a stance or legitimate complaint against something, write you're Congressman!! That is the American way.. But you would rather come on here and debate with Vann about guns??? Sounds nutty!! Hey.. While you are at it.. Clue Bill in on some Bio engineering.. Or better yet, since this is a Uechi Ryu Forum, why not come on here and teach us to sing Kumbaya??? Give me an effing break!! I guarantee you one thing Justin.. Guns may not solve all of the problems in the World... But if you were in my face with the crap you are spouting like a sieve on here, you would be running away by now... Right about the time you hear ...
Click.... Click....

[Bill Glasheen]

The FBI stat doesn't hold water as it isn't an accurate count of guns per owner, and the 1 gun per person is just a silly attention getter for the media.

I don't find FBI statistic to be trivial, Mike. You have a better source? Really now, my friend. There's no agenda one way or another there. As with the work I do in my company, they're not into marketing and hype. They need the truth so they can gauge a response to said truth. It's their job to know.

I'll grant you that comparing the number of guns to the number of people may have been misleading. But it's the first thing that a scientist does when lacking a better denominator. It helps with the "sniff test." Here's yet another example where using that kind of denominator is useful - for comparison purposes.

List of countries by gun ownership

And I gave you more information.

I'll have to look but I believe the percentage of current gun owners hovers around 25% with most owning more than one.

No doubt. That should be obvious.

But in the context of this discussion the number of gun owners isn't relevant. What is relevant is the number of households with a gun. And I gave you a "best estimate" of that with proper caveat.

Here's more detail on that. And it jives with the number you pulled off the top of your head, so... it should pass your sniff test. *

Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Remove those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns.

There are about 80 million gun owners in America with a combining total of 258 million guns.

- Bill

* Divide 80 million gun owners by 307 million and you get 26%

** Last quote edited for spelling and grammar. (I'm doing this all day long on my own job.)