111–120 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone owns a gun in a lax gun control states, do they take it to work?
Up to the employer, and whether they know about it ("concealed means concealed"). I've worked places where several employees (owners included) were known always armed. No big deal. Safety was assured precisely because they were.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury. In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1] Successful defensive gun use happens…
I've reviewed many relevant stats. Even the CDC concluded guns save far more lives than they take. Remember: "defensive use" includes simply raising doubt that an attacker will survive, deterring even the consideration of assault. Home invasions just don't happen in my area, because assailants are likely shot and their demise celebrated on the news (further deterrence).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury. In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1] Successful defensive gun use happens…
> Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule Reliable studies show defensive gun use in 100k-1 million incidents per year in the US. https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shoo... That's not "exception to the rule".
These are not hard stats, they’re self reports from people who had occasions where they felt safer carrying. Peak confirmation bias. Of course we can find 100k people whose guns made them feel safer once.
But that’s not the question we are trying to answer. We want to know if you are actually protected by owning a firearm. The evidence suggests it has quite the opposite effect.
Yet another licensed and legal weapon.
99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?
Also, if you find shooting guns entertaining, you can keep doing that even in the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I lived in Australia post-1996 and still shot guns on a number of occasions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've reviewed many relevant stats. Even the CDC concluded guns save far more lives than they take. Remember: "defensive use" includes simply raising doubt that an attacker will survive, deterring even the consideration of assault. Home invasions just don't happen in my area, because assailants are likely shot and their demise celebrated on the news (further deterrence).
I would like to see your sources.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to see where you got the idea that YouTube doesn't make any money. As far as I know they don't break out YouTube revenue in any of their filings. In fact, in each of the filings for 2016 & 2017 the revenue they report is an amalgamation of products that consist of search, ads, commerce, maps, youtube, google cloud, android, chrome, and google play[1][2]. [1] => https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/20170331_alphabet_…
These are fairly old, but I've gathered they don't make a profit based on articles like the following. http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojc... https://outline.com/7PG22L
It was approximated to be break even two years ago but doesn't have a growth factor as part of the number that is reported in the article, which is a key metric for determining revenue in the future. Revenue aside, profitability is extremely difficult to calculate as we don't know what the costs are as YouTube grows.
You would have made a better case here, but it's still far too old for any relevance in this discussion: https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "gun control" question, she was already in the most restrictive anti gun state.
the fact that she can get a gun from any other state makes it a question. gun control laws work when you can't just super easily go to another state to get a gun, the proof being in the much lower number if gun crimes in every other industrialized country where the gun laws are tight in the whole country. That's pretty much every single other industrialized country.
There's also no evidence she did obtain the gun from out of state, so that's a bit of a straw man to begin with.
As someone who follows digital advertising industry, I want to add some context to this discussion. People tend to view youtube "de-monetization" act as something out of the blue. Story goes as "evil youtube cornered the market of online videos and now acting like a spoiled child, f--king with people who were making some small buck from their videos". This is not the case. In fact, for last 2 years large advertisers…
But I only see a loose connection between that and what happened. This was a woman driven by likes or money (hard to tell which was more important), and attempted to kill because of this.
This is more like a machine shop owner laying off people because some jobs were moving to Asia and an ex-employee shooting up the offices the next day.
Macro- and micro- economics surely played a part, but the root of the problem was in her head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule Reliable studies show defensive gun use in 100k-1 million incidents per year in the US. https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shoo... That's not "exception to the rule".
“This data is from the 1990s and is based on people’s subjective views of what would have happened if they did not use a gun.” These are not hard stats, they’re self reports from people who had occasions where they felt safer carrying. Peak confirmation bias. Of course we can find 100k people whose guns made them feel safer once. But that’s not the question we are trying to answer. We want to know if you are actually…
Your quote is referring to the study where - "used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed""
In context the sentence you have quoted simply means the researchers could not be certain that the participants would have died if not for the gun defence.
It is in no way suggesting that they were not legitimate uses of self defence with a firearm.