Anonymous wrote:I don't own a gun and never have but sometimes they are useful:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-charge-dropped-against-dc-man-who-shot-pit-bull-attacking-child/2013/07/23/c9f6e6f6-f2e4-11e2-bdae-0d1f78989e8a_story.html
Police can't be everywhere in 10 seconds. The poor young boy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.
No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.
What are you prattling on about?
A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.
No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.
Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.
Anonymous wrote:Statistics are meaningless as applied to individuals. You never know if you'll be the one in a million. People choose to carry thinking that they will be one of the ones who use it for self defense. Just like people choose not to vaccinate because they don't want to risk their child becoming one of the handful who end up killed or disabled by a rare reaction. You can scream all day about how irrational it is, but the fact is, people have the right to do what they think is best for themselves and their families within the bounds of the law.
...since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator.
The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides. Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor.