21–30 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public health hazard. [Edit] The author, Gary Klek, is a firearm-ownership supporter.
>[Edit] The author, Gary Klek, is a firearm-ownership supporter. Can you state clearly the implication of this?
I would like to know the contexts behind these defensive gun usages before I come to a conclusion. It could be that a significant portion are "empty" uses (e.g. brandishing a gun when scared by a weird noise at night when nobody was there), not actually defensive / used in a situation where the gun greatly escalated the situation (e.g. someone cuts you off in traffic and you "defend" your space), etc. - even though t…
Here's the exact wording of the question: > “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?” I don't think we should seriously modify those answers with anecdotes of "bragadocious machoism". The article says, "in sum, the surveys used an excellent, carefully worded DGU question, in contrast to the wordings…
I have had once a guy draw a gun on me while I was walking my dog and yelled at him because he almost ran me over. He would probably answer this question with "Yes" but this was certainly not defensive use and the gun made a normal dispute into a potentially life or death situation.
CDC can't study gun violence because they are out to ban guns. Quote from the CDC head Mark Rosenberg from 1994: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” This isn't an okay attitude for a government employee to have because the bill of rights guarantees all Americans the right to bear arms.
Seems to me if that was the concern, removing the CDC head with the problem and then not appointing/confirming one with the same problem would be the solution.
I mean, that's like saying we should permanently ban the DoJ from enforcing civil rights law because of Jeff Sessions’s views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the exact wording of the question: > “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?” I don't think we should seriously modify those answers with anecdotes of "bragadocious machoism". The article says, "in sum, the surveys used an excellent, carefully worded DGU question, in contrast to the wordings…
I know, I read the article. I'm saying that we're relying on respondents' interpretations of "confront another person" and "defend." Given that a small absolute percentage of people replied in the affirmative, I think it's reasonable to assume that some portion of those may have been confused by the question or over interpreted it. I'm not disagreeing with the author, I just would want to see more data. The reason th…
If confronting someone with lethal force prevented an attack from occurring, do you count that as defense? It sounds like you want some kind of guarantee that the attack was going to happen if the person was not confronted, which is impossible for you to know for sure.
Personally, I like erring on the side of preventing an attack on myself/loved ones then the side of "let's make sure they're actually going to hurt me/my family before I do anything."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the exact wording of the question: > “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?” I don't think we should seriously modify those answers with anecdotes of "bragadocious machoism". The article says, "in sum, the surveys used an excellent, carefully worded DGU question, in contrast to the wordings…
I know, I read the article. I'm saying that we're relying on respondents' interpretations of "confront another person" and "defend." Given that a small absolute percentage of people replied in the affirmative, I think it's reasonable to assume that some portion of those may have been confused by the question or over interpreted it. I'm not disagreeing with the author, I just would want to see more data. The reason th…
> even though these wouldn't technically count according to the wording of the survey, we are still relying on respondents' interpretations of the questions
it seemed that in this case, the question was worded rather well. Particularly since your response was based in personal anecdote.
I would like to know the contexts behind these defensive gun usages before I come to a conclusion. It could be that a significant portion are "empty" uses (e.g. brandishing a gun when scared by a weird noise at night when nobody was there), not actually defensive / used in a situation where the gun greatly escalated the situation (e.g. someone cuts you off in traffic and you "defend" your space), etc. - even though t…
Regarding cases of road rage, there are many incidences where one side was clearly aggravating the situation (quite possibly by getting out of the car or pulling out a baseball bat) when the situation was deescalated because of a gun involved or many times gun was the only way out [1].
1. http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/Road-Rage-A-G...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, I read the article. I'm saying that we're relying on respondents' interpretations of "confront another person" and "defend." Given that a small absolute percentage of people replied in the affirmative, I think it's reasonable to assume that some portion of those may have been confused by the question or over interpreted it. I'm not disagreeing with the author, I just would want to see more data. The reason th…
I get what you're saying, and that it's hard to come up with simple, straightforward questions that address all the likely misunderstandings. But, in this case, I was observing that in response to your comment, > even though these wouldn't technically count according to the wording of the survey, we are still relying on respondents' interpretations of the questions it seemed that in this case, the question was worded…
I would like to know the contexts behind these defensive gun usages before I come to a conclusion. It could be that a significant portion are "empty" uses (e.g. brandishing a gun when scared by a weird noise at night when nobody was there), not actually defensive / used in a situation where the gun greatly escalated the situation (e.g. someone cuts you off in traffic and you "defend" your space), etc. - even though t…
Keep in mind, brandishing your weapon is illegal in most of the states (in fact I am unaware of any state where it's legal to brandish your weapon). Regarding cases of road rage, there are many incidences where one side was clearly aggravating the situation (quite possibly by getting out of the car or pulling out a baseball bat) when the situation was deescalated because of a gun involved or many times gun was the on…