Ray

Another chance to see my next gun ...

Octang Frye

Mare's leg? He he. That hot chick in Firefly/Serenity had one of those. No, not that one. The other hot chick.

chartreuse

That's an old argument that has been shown to be an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. IIRC, it all started with a study in Canada that ignored the fact that the victims lived in very high crime neighbourhoods.

This, on the other hand, is just plain incorrect.

chartreuse

I fancied one of those, but then decided that restoring one of these would be more fun. It arrives next week.

Mark23

Thanks. Looking at it now I'm probably lucky that what happened to me was away from home (eventhough that made it harder at the time) as I don't have a criminal record here so it shouldn't be too bad when going for jobs and that.

It's just bad that I won't be able to go to the USA again for 10 years I think anyway - so much more I would liek to see over there.

Steerpike

Come on, cat-man, the language of this forum is English

I know for a fact that I'd be less safe with a gun.

If I were to devote considerable time to learning how to use the device, which would involve going to firing ranges, paying others for their time (lessons, etc), practicing, and so on, then MAYBE I'd be closer to having a skill level that just may help me. But even if I practice, that would be in a controlled environment. If I were to wake up in a dark room and saw a shadow in the hallway, would I be able to protect myself? Would I kill my house-guest accidentally who just got up for a glass of water ...? Would I shoot and miss, now revealing my location and also revealing that I am a threat to the invader? Would I shoot, and find the invader was unarmed, and end up going to jail for shooting an unarmed person...

Not for me ... I KNOW I'm no Rambo ...

Sally Redux

What you would need to do is hire someone like Cato to keep you on your guard 24/7.

Kaffy Mintcake

Well, it's a big world! In the meantime see as much outside the US as you can. Ten years will pass before you know it.

chartreuse

In which case, please allow me to translate your post into plain English.

"I don't like it that a fallacious argument has been debunked, so I'll witter on about the use of Latin in an attempt at misdirection.

Anyway, with a gun loads of unlikely things could go wrong - here's a list.

And another thing!!! You all think you're Rambo!!!!! "

Steerpike

I seriously have no idea how your latin quotation translates, and thus, what it is trying to tell me.

I know using latin makes you sound like an authority, but I don't think it's a fallacious argument and I don't see it as being debunked. There is a lot of material out there from relatively level-headed sources that suggest owning a gun does not improve your safety, and - as I said already and will simply repeat - I know it would not improve my own personal safety.

For you, as a well-trained operator, it's probably a huge improvement to your safety. But I would suspect there are a whole lot of people out there who own guns 'for safety' who have no real idea how to operate them even in a calm situation, and would become a positive danger to themselves, their family, and their neighbors (in a typical 'apartment' situation) under a real 'gun pointing at you' situation. This is not at attempt at misdirection - it is a very real discussion about the practical aspect of owning a gun for 'personal safety'.

scrubbedexpat099

I am not that bothered here, I would certainly like one in the UK.

Scouse Express

Chances are.....you will be refused entry to the USA again......even for a Holiday.


Jim.

Macca67

At least tell me you won the fight.

Ash UK/US

LOL you need to go visit downtown Detroit.

Steerpike

OK, finally wasted a few moments of my life looking up the latin phrase ... "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" ...

So I guess what you are trying to say is, Bob's argument that "having a gun puts you in a higher risk of something happening" has been 'shown to be' a fallacy (using latin nicely gives the sense that this was a legal finding, or court decision, or whatever - rather than the opinions of some NRA PR men). So this argument has been 'debunked' because it was based on events which simply followed in time, but were not actually correlated to each other? Gun ownership rose, accidents increased, but the two were 'shown' not to be related. Nice bit of debunking, that!

I don't think anyone on either side of this argument is likely going to be able to 'prove' the point; this is not a scientific experiment. So lets use common sense. Sally Scared-At-Home gets worried about protecting herself and her son from robberies/home invasions. She buys a gun. Where does she put it - under strict lock-and-key to protect from an accident with her son, or in her bedside table where she can reach it quickly at 3am? Let's assume she figures a way to keep it from her inquisitive and adventurous son but yet readily available for access at a moments notice. She has a few glasses of wine and goes to bed. At 3am she's awoken by strange noises in the house. Tired and still a bit wobbly from the wine, whe gets her gun. Does she go creeping around the house looking for the intruder, or go into her son's room, somehow convince him to keep totally quiet, and sit there waiting for the intruder? Does she shoot first? Does she state her intention to shoot first? Does she give him the chance to run? What if she shoots and fails to kill or sufficiently stop the intruder ... who is now enraged and likely to kill her? and so on and so on ...

You dismiss my arguments with a simple "with a gun loads of unlikely things could go wrong" ... I don't think these are even slightly unlikely. What scenario do YOU envisage - the gun emits an aura that says 'keep away' and life is wonderful? Or the mere sight of the gun in the hands of Sally Scared-At-Home makes our bold home invader shit in his pants and run?

Regarding the argument that only a relatively small number of gun-deaths are accidental, that's true. This site (which I would view as independent) cites these figures: "In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries". It goes on to say that of those 3,385, only 214 were 'unintentional'. But a whopping 1,078 were suicides ... the article then goes on to demonstrate, quite clearly in my view, that these suicides would not have occurred had a gun not been readily available in the household.

The article states what is in my view the obvious - that if you own a gun, and you have children in the house, that you "
* Keep the gun locked
* Keep the gun unloaded
* Store the ammunition locked
* Store the ammunition in a separate place from the gun
"
But how do you rationalize that with the need for ready access to the gun when you feel threatened ... ?