I haven't argued any proposition even vaguely resembling the claim that some "point" prevents you from using your gun to "defend your home," to shoot your friends and family, to shoot yourself, or to shoot your TV.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Gun-Owners Delusional, Dishonest, Indifferent or Just Ignorant of the Evidence?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
For those facts of gun ownership you have presented to contradict my purpose, as you have stated they do, they must be such that they prevent or show a prevention of the actualization of said purpose in some manner.
So far all you have shown is that there are potential negative consequences that should be mitigated.
What nonsense! Nothing you have said indicates or implies that your gun is more likely to be used for protection from a criminal than in an act that kills or injures an acquaintance or household member.
It’s like someone claiming that they drive instead of fly because of the possibility of crashing. If avoiding a crash is the goal, then they’d be better off flying than driving because you’re much more likely to be in a car crash than plane crash.
Likewise, if keeping your family safe is the goal, then not having a gun is better than having one, because your family is much more likely to be hurt with a gun in the house than without one. Basically, the goal (family safety) is at odds with the solution (owning a gun), since owning a gun makes the family less safe.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yet you must see that this is an erroneous attempt to apply a statistical truth to an individual.
Why? Statistics are made up of individuals. Why should I assume that mister emu or any other particular gun owner is the exception to the rule?
Exceptions will exist, sure. But the probability is not in the gun owner’s favor. That’s precisely the point.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Why? Because it is not rational.
This is the same line of thinking that leads to "he is more likely a terrorist than that other guy" or "it is safer to cover your purse around black people."
The study did not tell you anything about individuals but you want to infer something about individuals. There are far too factors for anyone to draw a causal connection. I do not think you can point to one study that shows a causal connection, therefore you have no reason to assume one.
There is no rule for which Emu can be an exception. There is a statistic regarding a class that is irrelevant to the individuals of that class. If 99.9% of guns never caused any harm to anyone the statistic could still be true. Your assumptions here are unfounded.
It is perfectly rational to assume that having a gun in the home increases your risk since that is what the statistic show.
If we had a statistic that said 75% of men choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate, then I could assume that an individual man is more likely to choose vanilla. I’m not sure what the difference in the application of gun safety statistics is here.
What population is in your statistics?
Is there a figure for a caucasian/asian family of good mental
health, highly trained, living in a well to do liberal neighborhood?
Or is it so general as to include high risk groups?
@Falvlun did not express any errors of logic.
Each of the studies that I've cited and quoted the findings from specify the population. If you have any criticisms with the deductions that the authors of those study derived from the data, then let us know.
Yes, what nonsense to demand a so called "contradiction" actually contradict.
It is rather clear that the titular question should have instead been posed to those pro-gun control, and the answer is "sometimes, all of the above".
I've made quite clear that my purpose is not to make my home statistically more likely to be safer, but to allow for a forceful response to a specific danger.
That doesn't answer my question.
If you have any argument that it is not a contradiction to own a gun for purposes of "protection" when the findings consistently show that gun ownership more often results in death or injury to a family member or acquaintance than in acts of protection from strangers, and, when used to threaten people engaged in criminal acts more often results in injury to the gun-owner than does simply running away/hiding and calling the police, then provide and substantiate your propositions and state your deductions. You haven't done any such thing so far.
You asked: "What population is in your statistics?" My response,"Each of the studies that I've cited and quoted the findings from specify the population," does answer your question.
Again, if you have any criticisms with the deductions that the authors of those study derived from the data, then let us know.
I was trying to discuss the issue with someone.
If you won't answer, that's OK.
I provided the answer to your question. The various studies I have cited use different populations. You will have to critique that methodologies of the individual studies. You will have to exert intellectual effort to do so.
You use many words to not answer.
Don't be afraid to exert the necessary intellectual effort in order to discover the various populations that the studies cited here use.