- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
Statistically speaking, motorcycle owners are more like to get in motorcycle accidents than non-motorcycle owners.
Don’t get me started on circular saw owners…
Open Carry
- Thread starter BLADEMDA
- Start date
Statistically speaking, motorcycle owners are more like to get in motorcycle accidents than non-motorcycle owners.
Don’t get me started on circular saw owners…
Ahh..
But the ratio of useful operation (motorcycle, circular saw) to injury is vastly in favor of intended operation.
For example, death rate of motorcycles is about 30 deaths per 100 million miles driven.
Often the reasons stated for owning guns are
1. Self defense
2. Defense against tyranny
In both cases, the cases of death and injury is higher than the instances of lives saved.
In fact, having a gun in a self defense situation actually INCREASES the chances of you being shot or killed
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2022
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 896
Ah yes. The lethal weapon circular saw advocacy group will be so happy to hear you speak up for them. I remember well when they used them to great effect in so many wars. Even right now China are mass producing them with batteries even so they can be thrown @ people in a type of wmd device. 100 million circular saws flooding our streets... the end is nigh
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 28,966
- Reaction score
- 62,983
I'm going to be that guy here...No formal training doesn’t mean 0 training.
Views of gun safety and the key responsibilities of gun owners
Just as reasons for owning guns and using them in daily life vary, so do the ways in which gun owners store their guns and the extent to which they seewww.pewresearch.org
“7/10 have taken a firearms safety course”
3/5 and 7/10 are not really much different.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
60 vs 70%.
But in other words, the MAJORITY of guns owners have some type of formal training. And that largely discounts informal training.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,705
- Reaction score
- 9,802
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,705
- Reaction score
- 9,802
Non Gun Owners can go to 6 minutes and 40 seconds
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
Motorcycles are far more dangerous per owner. That’s fact.
I don’t know how one can quantify “intended operation” of guns but the vast majority of hunting and range excursions (intended uses) don’t end death or injury to the user. Self defense data is nearly impossible to capture accurately, and god forbid we ever need to measure actual effectiveness against tyranny, though one could interpret that as currently working as intended.
just like the motorcycle, the gun provides some type of enjoyment to the owner, they brandish it, they talk about it, they maybe go to the range, they subscribe to the magazine, they meet up to shoot with other gun friends, etc... it leads into conversations about not going into big cities, how the border needs to be controlled, police are always right, vaccines are hurting people, etc.. its like a conversation piece. If you want to get into that club and angrily talk about those issues, its your ticket in!
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2010
- Messages
- 888
- Reaction score
- 1,286
USA.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 760
Gun ownership and practices vary a lot with social circumstances and geography. I almost never carry a firearm but would not be without a few in my home. The few times I have regularly carried a firearm it has been for protection against animals rather than humans. For clarity, this isn’t because I’m afraid of wild animals, it’s usually been because I was living around irresponsible people who had unrestrained packs of semi feral dogs, the more vicious the breed, the more sought after (if you’ve lived in certain parts of rural America, you’ll know what I’m talking about). Carrying a firearm becomes very impractical when you get employment in better circumstances, such as a hospital. It’s a huge legal liability during a traffic stop, as well. Guns do require a certain level of responsibility, such as safe storage and handling, as well as practice to maintain familiarity and competence. I think gun ownership is an important right, but it’s also a privilege, and there are definitely people who are not mentally and or emotionally prepared to exercise that privilege.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,705
- Reaction score
- 9,802
Owning a gun for personal protection is a choice guaranteed by the constitution of the USA. Similarly, you have a choice whether to receive the latest mRNA Covid vaccine and flu shot for 2026 of which I have gotten both already. I respect your decision on both of these matters as I hope you will respect mine. That's what makes America great.
Thats fine.
But, the data shows that owning a gun for personal protection actually puts you at greater risk of dying from a gunshot.
Neither the flu shot, covid shot, or basically anything else utilized as a protective measure actually increases your risk of harm..as well as the risk of harm to others.
Motorcycles also provide vastly more utility per owner, that's a fact.
You can easily quantify the intended operation of gun.
Incidents of self defense
Hunting activities (permits, licenses, etc)
Incidents of protection from tyranny
Vs
Gun deaths
Gun violence
Shooting range usage
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
That is far from a fact. Your bias is showing. There are far more safer and effective modes of travel. The utility is fairly limited.
Yes and instances of guns used safely in sport recreation, hunting, and self defense vastly outnumber gun related injury and death. The denominator is HUGE. Far less than 1% of gun owners are involved in a gun related injury or death per year.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 188
The US military also carries c3, but their rules of engagement are quite different than a CCW. That said, you carry a revolver, so our discussion is really two gun nerds debating an irrelevant side point.
I challenge you to be intellectually honest with your data analysis.
Excluding suicide, homicide, accidental shootings in the home, etc - what is the hit accuracy of a CCW holder against an aggressor while under attack.
I never said that motorcycles were the safest form of travel. They provide vastly more utility per owner than GUNS
Statistically speaking, guns are more likely to cause violence and victimization than prevent it. And more lives are taken by guns than saved.
The denominator is huge because most guns sit at home doing nothing...ie...they arent being used for anything. Its like arguing that a motorcycle is safer than a car, because i own 15 motorcycles, so the risk of my death/injury PER motorcycle is lower because i have 15 of them. Or if i gavw my grandma a motorcycle that she doesnt use..see how safe it is? She never got in an accident with it!
A simpler example, is
- Gun violence is the leading cause of death for U.S. children and teens aged 1 to 17.
Guns cause more deaths than any other cause in age 1-17
There is no societal use for a gun where the benefits outweigh the risk
Guns make society more dangerous
Having guns to defend yourself from other guns is, in fact, more dangerous
So the data simply shows that having a gun for self defense doesn't work. Protecting yourself from tyranny is just nonsense. Might as well argue that guns protect your from alien invaders
So the only "use" left is hunting. While hunting isnt particularly needed in modern society, at least its a legitimate use
While survey methods introduce their own form of bias, as described above, a more widely accepted estimate of annual DGUs is derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which estimates approximately 70,000 DGUs per year26—far short of 2.5 million. While still not a perfect accounting of all gun uses, critically, every survey that looks at both criminal and defensive uses finds that guns are used far more often in criminal activity than for defensive purposes:
Based on NCVS estimates, CAP analysis finds that nine times as many people report being victimized by a person with a gun than being protected by a gun.27
In a study of two Harvard surveys taken between 1996 and 1999, David Hemenway and his co-authors found that respondents were three times as likely to report having been threatened or victimized by a gun than having used one defensively.28
In a 2001 survey of 5,800 California adolescents, approximately 4 percent of respondents reported being threatened with a gun, compared with only 0.3 percent reporting using a gun in self-defense
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
This is incorrect.
The vast, vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve firing the weapon at all. These encounters are de-escalated and ended without anyone getting hurt.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
Wow
Gun ownership must be really inherently safe then, if 10s of millions of gun owners have "absolutely no formal training" and yet there aren't 10s of millions of accidental gun deaths.
Or millions
Or hundreds of thousands
Or tens of thousands
Or thousands
CDC said there were 463 accidental gun deaths in 2023.
10s of millions of gun owners and a few hundred deaths. I'll let you do the math and conjure some other reason to be worried.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
That sounds rather subjective.
Each of the guns I own provide vastly more utility to me than the 0 motorcycles I own.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
Agreed!
More useful to you.
I'm not here trying to convince you to go get a gun that you don't want. You're here trying to convince me to get rid of mine. (Or rather, that the government should forcibly take them from me?)
Do you see the difference?
I am merely pointing out that the only objective reason..from a risk/benefit... to own a gun is because of hunting.
The argument that its useful for self defense is nonsense..as the data shows it increases risk across the board
Similar with the protection against tyranny.
And owning one because you can is not an objective reason..it just apparently depends on the number of conservatives on the supreme court
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 572
I don't think this data says what you think it says. That there are more victims of gun crime than those using a gun in self-defense does not mean those using a gun for self-defense are more likely to be victims of gun crime, especially with their own guns. The vast majority of people do not carry a gun for self-defense, so those numbers are going to be disproportionately low compared to those who've had a gun used against them in a crime.
Sure it does. The data shows this in a number of different ways
1. If you have a gun with you, then your chances of being shot during an assault are 5x higher than if you didnt have a gun
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault - PMC
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time. Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
2. If you have a gun at HOME..you are more likely to shoot yourself, a family member or an accidental shooting than to use the gun in self defense
3. States with more guns also tend to have more gun violence
So no matter where the gun is...its a net increase of injury and death to yourself and the rest of society
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 572
Fair enough, but you're not providing sources for most of your claimsSure it does. The data shows this in a number of different ways
1. If you have a gun with you, then your chances of being shot during an assault are 5x higher than if you didnt have a gun
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault - PMC
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time. Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants ...
2. If you have a gun at HOME..you are more likely to shoot yourself, a family member or an accidental shooting than to use the gun in self defense
3. States with more guns also tend to have more gun violence
So no matter where the gun is...its a net increase of injury and death to yourself and the rest of society
Sure i did
State gun ownership and gun violence (i already posted this)
Gun Ownership by State 2025
Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.
Higher risk if you have a gun while being assaulted (posted this)
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault - PMC
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time. Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
More likely to be a victim of gun violence than defend youself
In a study of two Harvard surveys taken between 1996 and 1999, David Hemenway and his co-authors found that respondents were three times as likely to report having been threatened or victimized by a gun than having used one defensively.28
In a 2001 survey of 5,800 California adolescents, approximately 4 percent of respondents reported being threatened with a gun, compared with only 0.3 percent reporting using a gun in self-defense
More likely to hurt yourself or others than defending yourself
- Home injury study: A 1997 study of firearm injuries and deaths in three U.S. cities found that for every instance of a gun being used in a legally justified shooting in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 firearm-related suicides.
- Later confirmation: A similar study in King County, Washington, from 2011 to 2018 found a comparable trend. For every self-defense homicide in the home, there were 0.9 unintentional deaths, 7.3 criminal homicides, and 44.1 suicides.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 572
Sure i did
State gun ownership and gun violence (i already posted this)
Gun Ownership by State 2025
Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.worldpopulationreview.com
Higher risk if you have a gun while being assaulted (posted this)
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault - PMC
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time. Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants ...
More likely to be a victim of gun violence than defend youself
In a study of two Harvard surveys taken between 1996 and 1999, David Hemenway and his co-authors found that respondents were three times as likely to report having been threatened or victimized by a gun than having used one defensively.28
In a 2001 survey of 5,800 California adolescents, approximately 4 percent of respondents reported being threatened with a gun, compared with only 0.3 percent reporting using a gun in self-defense
More likely to hurt yourself or others than defending yourself
- Home injury study: A 1997 study of firearm injuries and deaths in three U.S. cities found that for every instance of a gun being used in a legally justified shooting in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 firearm-related suicides.
- Later confirmation: A similar study in King County, Washington, from 2011 to 2018 found a comparable trend. For every self-defense homicide in the home, there were 0.9 unintentional deaths, 7.3 criminal homicides, and 44.1 suicides.
Where's the link for the 2 Harvard surveys and the California study??
its possible to quietly own a gun for your protection, but not participate in the "gun culture" that has spread across the country - i think protection is less and less what its about today with gun owners unfortunately.. its more about being part of the tough guy club on some level.
"open carry" is meant to put the focus on the gun. its not enough that i have one in my pocket for my protection, ive got to let everyone know ive got a gun so they can see just how tough i am.
guns should be a secret, hidden, rarely talked about dark necessity. not a fun weekend out.. not a politicized gotcha topic. this very thread is an example of wanting to bring attention to guns and how you have a gun.. on some level.. i think your trying to validate it for yourself as a reasonable choice to have several guns and be into guns, but its a gross culture that you are a part of..
if you really want it for protection you buy it, put it away, dont talk about it for years.. constantly bringing up guns/gun rights, buying new guns, talking about guns .. its really something more than for your protection..
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2022
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 896
Ha ha ha. Don't quit the day job. A debater you are not... why would you quote accidental gun deaths? What kind of an irrelevant number is that?
So its ok if someone means to kill someone?? Jesus wept. Go take a break. Your brain cell is exhausted
At least come back with something to debate.
You know only 1 elephant was accidentally shot on a Tuesday so therefore guns are safe...
Also pls read the 2nd amendment start to finish if you can. Its all relevant but you Elmer fudd type characters ignore the 1st 4 words
Google is available. Cut and paste those statements and the links pop up
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
It's the most relevant number in the context being discussed, which is deaths that more training would prevent.
That's what guns are for. Apart from secondary purposes like shooting deer or making holes in paper.
Sometimes it is OK.
You're probably one of those people who thinks "well regulated" - as written and intended by the people who wrote it - means subject to administration and control by state or federal government.
It's a common mistake.
Well, good thing the Constitution doesnt vaguely mention the right to own animals.
Then we would have a bunch of constitutional nuts running around claiming that we can own elephants and tigers for self defense and hunting. And then, of course, we would need more people to own tigers to protect themselves from the other tigers.
Just imagine all the home invasions we could stop if everyone owned tigers! Flawless plan!
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
There's truth to this.
Most of my guns and easily 99% of the rounds I fire in a year are for competition. For many years I was part of the Navy's rifle and pistol team. As a retiree I still go to the fleet matches every year to compete and to coach the new people.
I've fired something north of 200,000 rounds at paper targets, and exactly 0 at a person. I don't hunt, so I don't even shoot at deer.
I do have guns for self defense. And a carry permit. I think open carry is silly and counterproductive in a self-defense context, because it attracts attention and can even be provocative in today's culture, depending on where you are. But I do think that open carry, as part of a political statement or exercise of the right enumerated in the Constitution, is important. So I think the best recourse there is to laugh at and shame the clowns who do it as a stunt. They are trivializing the right and the responsibility and I think their actions are harmful.
But I am very much in favor of preserving the right to keep and bear arms, as laid out in the Constitution, despite the societal ills that right also enables. Reasonable people can disagree with me, and their path forward to abolish that right is to amend the Constitution.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,705
- Reaction score
- 9,802
I own guns for self defense and personal protection. I also enjoy going to the range and shooting at paper targets. I recognize my skill level is nowhere near that of PGG so I stick to what I can use safely: Pistols (off all sorts) and a few rifles. I have gained proficiency with my carbine with a red dot sight that shoots 9 mm. I am also proficient with 22 LR, 22 Magnum, 9 mm and 38 caliber ammo. I own several HK 45 caliber pistols but my proficiency isn't up to the level of using that weapon for self defense. The same holds true for .357 and 44 magnum caliber guns.
I own an AR15 and a shotgun but I am purely at the novice level with those weapons. I want to stress that most gun owners with a CCW permit are very responsible with their weapons. Most of mine are held in a gun safe except for the 2 I keep immediately available for intruders. If I was going to use a weapon outside my home I would opt for my 9 mm carbine with flashlight and red dot sight. I have an alarm system with immediate push button access to the police. I have no intention of ever using a firearm against a human being if at all possible.
The second amendment gives the right to own guns and I choose to exercise that right.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
Those things are true
I'm glad you can still say things like that "because the 1st amendment says you can"! 🙂
The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.
If you're holding out hope for a liberal court to invalidate the 2nd Amendment, I hope you're young and healthy and patient.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,705
- Reaction score
- 9,802
Guns save lives. The criminals will never give up their guns no matter what laws are passed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
Again, this doesn’t make any sense. How is this objectively true? Elaborate on the vast utility of motorcycles?
Well, the gun data infers a user (per owner or per population) of a gun so incidence per gun would be multiple times lower. That aside, you are right! The numerator is whatever the numerator is. 100s of millions of guns and millions of gun owners everyday don’t add to the numerator. That includes guns at home, GUNS CARRIED LAWFULLY EVERYDAY, and everywhere in between.
I don’t really follow the rest of your argument. If your grandmother has a motorcycle and never intends to ride it, what utility is there in that? Anyway, the data is the data, so for every grandma there is a 20 year old on a crotch rocket (illegally) ripping 150mph on the on ramp destined to add to the numerator. She sounds like a responsible motorcycle owner, as statistically most are, despite the inherent danger. You want to take her motorcycle away because of the idiots on the crotch rockets? Why not focus on the idiot instead of the grandmas and the safe riders?
So guns are used defensively.
Illegal alien invaders maybe. The very framework of the constitution, including the bill of rights, and the 2nd amendment in particular, was cornerstoned in the overthrow of a tyrannical government.
You lost me at a survey of adolescents in California. Who is surprised that a population that can’t legally own a gun would be more likely to be threatened by a gun than use one in self defense?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 28,966
- Reaction score
- 62,983
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,081
- Reaction score
- 26,772
At least a couple dozen deer live on and around our land.
Maybe they hang out here because they know we won't shoot them. It's nice to see them around every day.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
There is the funny thing about statistics and rare events. If you change the value of DGUs even a small percent, it has a huge impact on the effect size. What happens if you use a DGU value of 2.5 million? It completely flips the narrative of defensive gun use. Though it doesn’t even have for be that dramatic. A range from 100-150,000 DGUs (depending on the other commonly used variables) per year would flip the narrative completely. Most sources say the NCVS underestimate DGU…
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2022
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 896
Guns save lives eh?, proceeds to post a video where legally owned guns are used to kill many people by someone with no criminal record
Guns cost way more lives than they save
Vast utility of motorcycles? Yes They are used move humans billions of miles annually... billions in goods..etc
A gun at home not being used has no utility. Same as a motorocycle not being used. You were saying that guns are safe because the denominator (guns at home, not being used) us huge ..well the same could be said if everyone had motorcycles they weren't using either.
Not using something doesnt make it inherently safe
Adolescents? Where do you think the other kids got their guns from? Typically stolen from the millions of irresponsible gun owners who dont need guns
Overthrow a tyrannical government? Sounds like the fever dream of a gun nut. Half the country thinks we are under a tyrannical government now...yet no guns being used to save us. The government isnt afraid of your guns....and the fact that you think they are shows how unprepared you would be to overthrow it
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 572
Like the adolescent I spoke of who shot his friend because he didn't know wtf he was doing with a gun.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
- Reaction score
- 1,665
Nah. That is the rub of the NCVS data. Look at the methodology, it’s a flawed as the Kleck data. Why would you assume that is more correct than even the middle of the road Rand data if not to fit a narrative? And the point remains.
Neither do my fire extinguishers. I’m still going to keep them in the house.
They are relatively safe, more safe than motorcycles. And in this case the large denominator was the roughly 100 million gun owners, not necessarily the 500 million guns. They are safer sitting at home or being used for their intended purposes.
Ah yes. It’s the law abiding gun owners fault for people breaking the law and using guns to commit crimes.
Making it difficult for a tyrannical government to gain traction fits better. Call me if we don’t have elections in 2026.
Democracy is doing ok. You will survive Trump if you don’t give yourself a stroke.
Fire extinguishers don't kill people. So, bad example. In fact, guns appear to be the only thing used for "protection" that actually kill more people than they protect
Having a gun in your home INCREASES you risk of
Suicide
Dying by homicide
Killing a spouse
Being killed by a spouse
Accidental killing
All greater than the chances of your life being saved by that gun.
They arent safer being at home (motorcycles arent used to kill spouses, family members, kids)
Yup, its the law abiding citizens fault because they dont store their guns safely..and they refuse to pass common sense safety measures to prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who shouldn't own them
Many view Trump as a tyrannical govt gaining traction..so far guns havent been used to prevent anything from gaining traction.
Last edited:
