Biden's Gun Control Law Will Radically Change U.S. Gun Ownership

what I do know is that those who want to ban guns or make it harder on honest people to own them, pretend they know what is better for ME than I do. You want your life to be in the hands of a mope-fine with me. Don't have a gun-I am fully in favor of you making that choice. But don't pretend you are in a better position to tell me what I should do over me

 

LOL-the left wants to turn millions of people into criminals by demanding they conduct private sales background checks or banning currently legal magazines, but they don't want to enforce a law already on the books when it comes to Hunter Biden

 

I think the best solution is to redirect anti-gun efforts to research and public education. People clearly don't realize owning a gun in their home doesn't make them safer. Public education is what worked for tobacco. Helps, of course, that the stats for tobacco were so bad though.

 

My gun is not going to kill me. It has no agency.

And there are a lot of things that can kill a grandkid.

 

Nothing quite as easily as a loaded gun.

 

It sounds like you're arguing that guns are no good for self-defense.

 

No. I'm arguing that the need for self-defense is unlikely for the vast majority of people, and the downsides of owning an easily accessible gun are more likely to get them. You can make one argument for yourself, but the statistics for people in general are clear.

 

Ah.
We've reached that magical point where gun violence is not so bad that the average person does not need a gun to protect himself, but so bad that we need to restrict his ability to get one.
Convenient.

 

How would a grandkid get my gun out of its holster without me noticing?

 

that's a bullshit generalization. I am all in favor of high schools having gun training classes. and like most of those who are opposed to people owning guns, you neglect the billions of hours of recreational enjoyment honest American citizens derive from the shooting sports and hunting

 

We know that there are criminals out in the world who attack people, right?

 

Actually I have not been arguing for restricting the ability to get one. I have been arguing that demand is the issue, not supply.

 

Well I did a thread on a study that people didn't really raise good argument against, and that study showed that living with a gunowner increases your odds of being murdered. Wasn't a high likelihood, far more likely to die of something else, but if the purpose was to make the house safer, it doesn't do that.

I don't discount that at all. That would be a more legit reason to own a gun, though would advise the gun be stored securely rather than available for home defense. But many people buy guns just to defend their home. Data says that's not a good idea, and they are unaware of the data.

 

The Vulcan Mind Screw?

 

you want to decrease demand by telling people they shouldn't own guns.

 

and I dispute that data. Much of it is outcome based by groups that want to ban guns.

 

Sure, but the vast, vast majority of the time they are stealing something, not murdering for fun.

 

I want them to make a well-informed choice. People buying a gun just for home defense are, as far as the data I have seen, not making an informed choice. Unless they are at unusual risk in some way. Like they have a former friend trying to kill them.

 

There are 282 cases of aggravated assault per 100,000 every year.

 

Quantify "rarely".

Guns are much more likely to used for lawful purposes than unlawful purposes.

Find studies that don't include criminals in the statistics.

If murders in the home are so infrequent, and murders outside the home are so infrequent, why are we being told that we're in an epidemic of gun violence?

 

You must know that home invasion murders are rare though. For each rare gun that stops a home invasion murder, many more guns were used for suicides, killing a family member, or involved in an accident. The study I alluded to actually only looked at killin ga family member. It was far more likely to be used to kill a family member alone than to kill a home invader. In fact, it didn't even reduce the odds of being murdered by a stranger in your home (likely because it escalated non-lethal crimes into a murder as often as it stopped lethal crimes).

 

Killing a home intruder?
How is this a valid metric?

 

Its safe to to say, then , you disagree with those who are.

 

It's the wrong question. The question is the effect of the gun. The gun is as likely to cause you to get killed, as it is to save your life. In some cases, more likely to get you killed (in the home).

 

Stopping a home invader from killing an occupant of the house would have been better phrasing. I was alluding to how living with a law-abiding gun owner did not reduce ones odds of dying at the hands of a stranger at home.