Shooting in California

@wolfgang59 said
That's all very well but wajoma says
In the US the number (of lives saved by guns) has
been estimated as high as 200 000 time in a year.

So wajoma on one side, Scientific American and years of studied data on the other.

It's impossible to decide.

This is why you blokes should avoid stats if you don't know how to read them. I was talking about a fire arm being use in self defense, No1 is off doing his own thing and you're looking for an ally even if you don't understand what is being discussed.

A firearm being used for self defense might not only be to preserve ones own life, so the 230 000 number you made up was just that - made up.

@wajoma said
This is why you blokes should avoid stats if you don't know how to read them. I was talking about a fire arm being use in self defense, No1 is off doing his own thing and you're looking for an ally even if you don't understand what is being discussed.

A firearm being used for self defense might not only be to preserve ones own life, so the 230 000 number you made up was just that - made up.

The figure of 230,000 was 30,00 (actual) plus your figure of 200,000.

As for reading stats ... I have a degree in that - what do you have?

@wolfgang59 said
The figure of 230,000 was 30,00 (actual) plus your figure of 200,000.

As for reading stats ... I have a degree in that - what do you have?

You were counting deaths, the 200000 refers to using a firearm as a means of self defense,

I'm at a loss as to how to spell that out in smaller words for you, it was in reply to this:

wolfgang "A negligible amount.

@wajoma said
In answer to your question how many have been saved,

In the US the number has been estimated as high as 200 000 time in a year.

Let's half that, let's say 100 000.

Reminder for you.

200,000 lives saved through having guns.
That is what you said.

@wolfgang59 said
Reminder for you.

200,000 lives saved through having guns.
That is what you said.

I can't find the word 'lives' in anything I said, can you point it out please.

Could it be they were saved from being beaten, robbed, raped and , yes, some of them may have even saved their own life or the lives of others.

Did I really say 200000 'lives', can you direct us to that quote.

Another problem with your stats, you appear to be comparing outright numbers, isn't this a learner mistake with stats, are there not more people in the US, did you adjust for this?

@wajoma said
I can't find the word 'lives' in anything I said, can you point it out please.

You started of your drivel with "In answer to your question ..."

and my question was "How many lives have been saved"

END OF

@wolfgang59 said
You started of your drivel with "In answer to your question ..."

and my question was "How many lives have been saved"

END OF

You know, you could be right, here's the scenario:

Victim is threatened by assailant, victim has a fire arm available to use in self defense, but first they must ask the assailant "Sir, do you intend to threaten my life? Because if the intention is to beat, torture, rob or rape just give me a moment to lock my gun away for your safety."

yeah, you're right, that's probably the only time a gun is used in self defense, once it has been established the assailant intends to murder.

wolfgang logic 🙄

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics/california-wildfires-trump-tweets/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Meanwhile, another tragedy unfolding in California.
And the cartoon character occupying the White House weighs in with his usual jackass commentary.

@zahlanzi said
you're feeding the troll.

he is implying that nothing should be done to prevent mass shootings and gun deaths in general because no perfect solution exists that would prevent 100% of them. he is suggesting a preposterous solution which will not work anyway and claiming that's the only thing that can possibly be done and the only thing the gun control advocates support.
...[text shortened]... et a car and i absolutely agree to have to jump through those hoops myself should i ever need a gun.

glad to see you're making that hypothetical bad neighbourhood better 😕

@vivify said
You don't ban cars because because their purpose and common use is transportation. The purpose of guns is specifically to kill. That makes comparison of any consumer product to guns completely invalid.

so your argument is that you should only ban guns if their sole purpose is to kill, forgetting that guns are also used for entertainment with target practice and aesthetic reasons. Also, why do you think you're fine with people killed by cars if you're (i assume) so eager to ban guns? Dead people are tragic, if you want to ban something that is causing deaths, why not ban other things as well? Would it be because you are using those cars and don't want them taken away from you?


also, so what they are intended to kill? they're tools like any other. if i am chopping wood i need an axe and if i am walking home through a rough neighborhood or live in one i need a gun.

"That makes comparison of any consumer product to guns completely invalid."
only if you make the comparison for the purpose of answering the question "why wouldn't you ban cars if you want to ban guns". I don't want to ban guns, that would be childish. I am making the comparison to answer the question "why aren't guns regulated at least like cars are?"

@stellspalfie said
There are 'bad neighbourhoods' in every country, yet in most countries, people don't have guns, they manage just fine without them....and have much lower gun deaths. Why? Because there are almost no guns!!!


Yes, the car example is idiotic, confusing that you then went on to use it???

"There are 'bad neighbourhoods' in every country, yet in most countries, people don't have guns, they manage just fine without them"
There is no country that is moderately free where you couldn't get a gun. People in UK, Australia, Canada can absolutely get guns. They choose not to because their neighborhoods aren't that bat and they don't measure their diks by the size of their guns.

"Why? Because there are almost no guns!!! "
and that is a good thing. yet nobody is stopping anyone to apply for a permit, go through the necessary legal steps and be the proud owner of a reasonable gun.

"Yes, the car example is idiotic, confusing that you then went on to use it???"
perhaps you need more time to read it again and see how i didn't use it the way gun nuts use it but instead for the purpose of proving how guns should be regulated.

@badradger said
look on the bright side every time an American shoots dead another American the collective IQ goes up 2 points

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE SO FUNNY AND SMART DEAD PEOPLE JOKES PROVE HOW INTELLIGENT YOU ARE WE HAVE NEVER EVER HEARD OF THIS JOKE YOU ARE SO ORIGINAL

@stellspalfie said
If guns were a deterrent then surely America's crime levels would be lower than gun-free countries.

it's not a deterrent, true. it's a means to protect oneself. if i am taking self defense classes it won't show on my forehead that i am a kung-fu master and i am not to be messed with. if i am due to be mugged, i will get mugged. or murdered. or worse.

the gun is there as a last resort. as an option that might save my life if all other options have disappeared. the gun is there because i have the right to defend myself, and i have the right to any reasonable invention that can allow me to do so.

@karoly-aczel said
glad to see you're making that hypothetical bad neighbourhood better 😕

is there a point to this statement? are you even trying to make a point? was there something in my "reasonable gun control laws" that you didn't find palatable? wanna discuss it ?

@zahlanzi said
is there a point to this statement? are you even trying to make a point? was there something in my "reasonable gun control laws" that you didn't find palatable? wanna discuss it ?

yeah, it's being discussed in this thread.

Perhaps you should rethink your ideas of what 'defending yourself ' entails ....