yeah 300 million guns in circulation .... how many accidental shootings
well...shoot...
- Thread starter transporter
- Start date
yeah 300 million guns in circulation .... how many accidental shootings
Hank
my war
yeah 300 million guns in circulation .... how many accidental shootings
There were 489 people killed in unintentional shootings in the U.S. in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available. That was down from 824 deaths in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Taking into account population growth over that time, the rate fell 48%.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html
This_person
Well-Known Member
Most police officers never fire their weapon in the defense of themselves or others. If it is reasonable to disarm the citizens for this reason, it is equally reasonable to disarm the police.
If it seems ludicrous to disarm the police, it should equally seem ludicrous to disarm the citizens.
If it seems ludicrous to disarm the police, it should equally seem ludicrous to disarm the citizens.
But! But! But! But! The racist nazi cops have to have them so they can kill the criminal brown people and give them a reason to riot!
Says that woman who wants McCain to stroke out and die already? Hypocrite.
Don’t get your panties all in a bunch. The point of the article was that most people won’t use a gun in self defense just like most people won’t shoot their toddler to death. But it happens.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Of course, the fact is that people are 8 times more likely to use their guns in self defense than in the commission of a crime. Even more likely to use it for defense than in an accident.
But, when facts are not your friend you ignore them, don't you?
which has NOTHING to do with your defection to infant deaths ..... you hop around more than a toad on a sidewalk in July
yeah
Indeed it does
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082
If DeFilippis and Hughes could refute any of our rebuttals, that would be news worth attending to. They do not, however, identify any problems with our refutations, such as errors in our logic, or superior evidence that contradicts any of our rebuttals. Instead, they just pretend they are not aware of the rebuttals, even though our first systematic dismantling of Hemenway’s speculations was published in the exact same issue of the journal that published Hemenway's 1997 critique, on the pages immediately following the Hemenway article.
The authors, a couple of Oklahoma investment counselors with no graduate degrees, do not claim to have had any training in survey research methods. Like Hemenway (who is also untrained in survey methods), they believe that it’s perfectly plausible that surveys generate enormous over-estimates of crime-related experiences, as if this were the most commonplace thing in the world. The reality that survey experts are familiar with, however, is that surveys of the general public simply do not overestimate crime-related experiences.
In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces. Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.
So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFilippis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
And what was the point of you posting an article about an accidental shooting of a 2 year old?
You really think we're too stupid to see what the purpose of that study and you posting your article was?
#Because Children .... you sick bastard, give up your AR-15 you selfish Git
PsyOps
Pixelated
[video=youtube;xQIxg3mqtk4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQIxg3mqtk4[/video]
What was the point of posting the Op's article then?
When did Tranny ever have a rational point to raise?..
PsyOps
Pixelated
To show that we really don't need to be armed to defend ourselves because, well, it's unlikely we'd ever need to use it. Just another point to try to support why we, the people, have no need to be armed at all.
If that's not the point, then what is it? If it's just to show a stat, then................. so freaking what!
nice way to avoid the question ..... run along now while the adults have a conversation