georgerussia

Making out things again, as usual? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Ok, please tell me what kind of knowledge you think I should obtain to be able to decide whether non-gun owners would benefit if current gun availability was reduced or not? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That is why I would like to learn more about the survey, which questions were asked and what kind of correlation, if any, was applied. Stating just a percentage is completely useless. None of those questions I made up have anything with 2nd amendment in its current legal interpretation. Indeed. But that is all you can have. Even if you force every citizen in USA to go through polygraph to answer those questions, you'll still have at least 4% error margin related to polygraph. It may be an acceptable margin (i.e. 25% versus 29% is not a big difference - but what about 48% vs 52%?), but it is still there, and you cannot avoid it. Again, in past I worked for a company conducting surveys (writing the software to analyze the data), so I know a little about how it worked internally. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Based on your previous responses in various threads I already thought it may be stupid idea to seriously discuss anything with you, but I still tried. Sorry, but "BWAHAHA" and "lame meter" is not what I consider a mature and civilized discussion, but apparently this is the only way of discussion you are capable of. Well, thank you and have a nice day. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, every time one states that a gun is a useful tool in protecting one from crime, or talks about gun ownership and crime rates this is exactly what I mentioned in 1st paragraph. And it is important to point out that vast majority of all crimes are not affected by gun ownership, and cannot be prevented by owning or carrying a gun. Generally only violent crime can be affected by gun ownership, and only some part of it. There was quite a bunch of presumptions; are you saying that all of them are false? Interesting. Basically what you're saying is that using a gun for self-protection versus doing nothing at all lowers a victim's chance to get hurt only by 8% during a robbery, and only by 15% during assault. This is if we use the information reported by a very biased source (a prominent pro-gun book writer), so the real difference may be even lower. But even taking it as face value, is a 8% difference really look like a significant advantage to you? Don't you also find it strange that 17% of gun owners were injured during robbery versus 25% of non-gun owners? If we exclude the gun from the table, do you see what the single most effective means is? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So? Some not-so-fucking and not-so-lame ass gangstas may go to shooting range too. They also might have experience shooting real people, and being criminals they strike first. That's why I asked if you have real experience outshooting gangstas in real-world situation. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This sounds unsubstantiated. I wonder if you had relevant experience in past, or just speculating? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Please be more specific. I hope you're not saying your guns gonna protect you from identity theft? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

First let's make it clear that there is only few crimes (generally violent crime) where a gun can be useful to protect the gun owner. It cannot protect the one from identity theft or fraud, it cannot prevent a drunk driver smashing into their car or their rig from being stolen either. This is important as some gun owners seem to be thinking that their gun a magic amulet which protects them from harm. It is not. It is just a better murder tool than a knife. Second, even in violent crimes the protection it provides is limited. It will unlikely protect you in a drive-through shooting, or in place where guns are not allowed (and there always be such places). Also a possibility for armed response makes some criminal more violent that they would otherwise be. And if a criminal is carrying too, the odds are on his side because he strikes first (and with a gun his strike may be fatal, making it irrelevant whether a victim carries or not). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There are technologies. Giving a wrong answer to a direct question is a well-known practice (are you atheist? have you done any abortions in past? have you had an affair while married?). Therefore a survey is typically created that way that it basically asks the same question multiple times from different angles. Those answers help to find out, and adjust for those who answered wrongly due to some bias. As an example of such poll, it could ask the following: - Do you think existing gun laws are tight enough, or they need to be made more restrictive for law abiding citizens to obtain guns? - Do you think that concealed carry in all Universities receiving federal aid should be allowed by Federal law? - Do you think that law should restrict the number of guns one person may own to no more than three guns? - Do you think shooting range safety regulations are reasonable enough and there is no need to Federally regulate them? Based on just those questions it's possible to reliably identify most of those who had a gun but said they do not (and vice versa). Of course marketing companies would generate even better questions. This will give not only the percentage of those who have/do not have guns, but also for those who had guns but said they do not. It can be used in later polls for adjustment. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is true when they work for you. Otherwise it doesn't mean you will receive valid information from them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Only if a criminal is not carrying. If he is, and he strikes first, the odds are turned back. Again, note that Houston violent crime is high, which somehow tells us that just having armed people around is not enough. It is always funny to read assumptions from the people who barely know me. Well, at least you're not speculating that I fear guns - kudos for that. I'd say a lot of gun owners seem to dramatically overestimate the ability of their guns to protect them from crimes in a serious disaster. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This may happen whether or not you own guns. If you look on crime stats, you'll see it yourself that Houston, Detroit, New Orleans, Jacksonville have significant amount of violent crime - despite the relaxed gun laws. This is as true as saying as having guns makes you invincible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, this is true. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Isn't it funny that basically whole Europe and Canada also got "brainwashed" by a Soviet Union? And of course UK - even the shadow of Soviet Union seems to be extremely powerful. It even reached to SF in 2005, forcing those 57% of voters to approve the Prop. H - the influence of those KGB spies seems to be tremendous. But the truth is that in reality I'm probably more free than you - because I do not need a gun to feel safe. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're trying to justify your screwup with murder rate comparisons? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It would be hard to find something more irrelevant than that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes. The logic here is that myself I do not own a gun because I do not need it. Therefore my safety level will not drop if gun ownership is made impossible. At the same level at least some criminals, and most (if not all) loonies won't be able to get the gun. So as the net result I would be safer. There is significantly less gun crimes, especially those committed by idiots. Take as example a drive-through shooting. Consider a situation: a person walks down a street, a car with windows rolled down approaches him, slows down, someone shots him, and then the car leaves. I have no idea how one would protect himself from this kind of crime by just carrying a gun (I guess it is impossible) - and this kind of crime is pretty much non-existent in Europe. It is also pretty rare to hear about large gun massacre in national news in Europe. Here in U.S. it is not really news - more like a kind of something happening once a month or so that nobody really cares about (unless the shooter was Muslim). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

One would assume that if a regular gun owner knows that, then a professional marketing company which is in survey business would know that too, and adjust the survey results accordingly. That's why it is important to see the details of a survey as it would show the adjustments (if any), and on which criteria they were based. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And - as usual - you're wrong. I hope you shoot better than you bet. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And that is why most European countries which have guns restricted somehow tend to have less overall violent crime, and significantly less violent gun crime than USA. This is misinterpretation, but no surprise - so far you have never been able to read what I wrote without twisting things up. This is very ignorant statement. Nazi Germany did not confiscate all guns. In fact they lowered the previously imposed restrictions, making it easier for everyone (except Jews) to own guns. Of course, and that's why we have much more violent crime in states like CA and NY than in gun-happy states like TX, NV or FL? All those defenseless guys in NYC should probably move to Houston where a lot of armed good guys maintain violent crime rate almost twice high comparing to NYC. Like in Europe, you mean? How many Cho's were there? Your theory sounds good until you apply it to the real world. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

2 killed in separate northwest Houston shootings Charged in Girlfriend’s Death Just an example of one of those victims from a city where guns ARE allowed in self defense. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You do see the "source" they referred? Hardly unbiased! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I've seen this article during my search (as well as a bunch of others like on WikiAnswer). The problem is that it doesn't cite any reference to support those numbers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

We can see it really well with how those people armed for self-defense brought the violent crime rate down to zero in Texas, and especially in Houston. Some of those "armed for self-defense" people like Cho also greatly contributed to overall world safety. Indeed, that's you who lives in a fantasy world. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *