Paplebon on Politico and guns.

[TerpEagle]

I'm filled with bloodlust because a sister lost a brother. The sister lost a leg. And her mother has severe brain damage. If that doesn't get your blood boiling than nothing will. I hold you in just as much contempt as you hold me. You won't find a more responsible gun owner than myself. Fingerprint safe, gun safety classes..ect. Oh, and 26 years in the Air Force taught me a thing or two about gun safety!

Contempt, really? I'm more just sad that you're so wrapped up with needing a gun and your desire to use it.

It doesn't make me as sad as I am for the victims of the bombing, mind you. Just because I don't want to have the suspect break into my house so I can shoot him doesn't mean I'm not upset.

I just don't see someone saying they want to face a possible terrorist, in their own home, as "responsible."

But that's just me.

Statistically, your family is less save because you have guns in the house than the average family that doesn't. I hope nothing happens to you or them, but you've opted to put yourself at greater risk. And that's without wishing to use it on an intruder.

[The Ref]

wow your flip-flopping is embarrassing!

I said the 2nd Amendment is hopelessly outdated, not the constitution in its entirety. Then again, to most republicans, the constitution begins and ends with the 2nd Amendment. Nothing else matters. Particularly voting rights. But that's a different distraction.

Just curious. Do you have any reading comprehension skills at all? Because frankly, I've never seen any evidence that you do.

[noguano]

Contempt, really? I'm more just sad that you're so wrapped up with needing a gun and your desire to use it.

It doesn't make me as sad as I am for the victims of the bombing, mind you. Just because I don't want to have the suspect break into my house so I can shoot him doesn't mean I'm not upset.

I just don't see someone saying they want to face a possible terrorist, in their own home, as "responsible."

But that's just me.

Statistically, your family is less save because you have guns in the house than the average family that doesn't. I hope nothing happens to you or them, but you've opted to put yourself at greater risk. And that's without wishing to use it on an intruder.

I've already had a violent break in at my home. My children saw the destruction laid upon our home when we returned from school. I've had two home invasions in my neighborhood. I can't afford to move. Not having a weapon in my home would be irresponsible. I think I'll take my chances. Since you insist on continuosly ridiculing me
I'll make this the last word on my post.

[Irish George]

I never read your posts before

I'm filled with bloodlust because a sister lost a brother. The sister lost a leg. And her mother has severe brain damage. If that doesn't get your blood boiling than nothing will. I hold you in just as much contempt as you hold me. You won't find a more responsible gun owner than myself. Fingerprint safe, gun safety classes..ect. Oh, and 26 years in the Air Force taught me a thing or two about gun safety!

You appear to be a bit un-hinged.

[noguano]

You appear to be a bit un-hinged.

Gotta go. Got some fishing to do. It's good to be retired at 46

[IronEagle]

Gotta go. Got some fishing to do. It's good to be retired at 46

One of the 47 percent collecting from the government?

[Riccardo]

I have to admit I can't figure you out

Are you really such a cartoon character left wing loon or just pretending to be so? I guess we'll never know...

[TerpEagle]

I've already had a violent break in at my home. My children saw the destruction laid upon our home when we returned from school. I've had two home invasions in my neighborhood. I can't afford to move. Not having a weapon in my home would be irresponsible. I think I'll take my chances. Since you insist on continuosly ridiculing me
I'll make this the last word on my post.

You brought up guns, dude, so you should have expected some dissent.

My home was broken into multiple times when I was younger and I grew up in a rural area.

I understand you'll do what you feel makes your family safest and, even though on average the presence of guns in the house is statistically more dangerous, your opinion and situation may differ.

But you also said you wanted the guy to break into your house. You threw a little religious zeal into it the statement as well. That's irrational thinking to me. I can't fathom that type of thinking. So I'm not ridiculing, I just don't get you.

Luckily, counter to your paranoia, no one has tried to "take away" your guns and you still have them to do with as you please.

[noguano]

You brought up guns, dude, so you should have expected some dissent.

My home was broken into multiple times when I was younger and I grew up in a rural area.

I understand you'll do what you feel makes your family safest and even though on average overall, the presence of guns in the house statistically more dangerous your opinion and situation may differ.

But you also said you wanted the guy to break into your house. You threw a little religious zeal into it the statement as well. That's irrational thinking to me. I can't fathom that type of thinking. So I'm not ridiculing, I just don't get you.

Luckily, counter to your paranoia, no one has tried to "take away" your guns and you still have them to do with as you please.

Fair enough. But I will leave you with this little tidbit.

"Oh, the guy who bombed Boston is on the loose in my neighborhood? Super glad I don't have an AR-15 with 30 round mags" Said nobody, ever.

[TerpEagle]

Fair enough. But I will leave you with this little tidbit.

"Oh, the guy who bombed Boston is on the loose in my neighborhood? Super glad I don't have an AR-15 with 30 round mags" Said nobody, ever.

The primary reason that's true is because the statistical chance of that happening is less than getting struck by lightning or dying in a plane crash.

It's also way less likely than successfully committing suicide with a firearm.

[Riccardo]

Statistical chance of accidental firearm death

You are 50 times more likely to be killed by an automobile. But all these statistics are in a vacuum - it's very dependent on risk mitigation. Someone who drives fast, drunk and without a seatbelt is far more likely to be killed in a car accident than someone who is alert, drives carefully and wears seatbelts. Just as someone who owns guns treats them casually, leaves them unlocked and without trigger locks is far more likely to suffer a firearm accident/incident compared to someone who is careful with them, has them locked in a safe and with trigger locks.

[TerpEagle]

You are 50 times more likely to be killed by an automobile. But all these statistics are in a vacuum - it's very dependent on risk mitigation. Someone who drives fast, drunk and without a seatbelt is far more likely to be killed in a car accident than someone who is alert, drives carefully and wears seatbelts. Just as someone who owns guns treats them casually, leaves them unlocked and without trigger locks is far more likely to suffer a firearm accident/incident compared to someone who is careful with them, has them locked in a safe and with trigger locks.

If you want to make that argument then there are three logical conclusions:

1) the majority of people who keep guns in their homes are idiots and/or irresponsible which leads to the higher statistics of death compared to non gun owners or

2) guns are so incredibly dangerous that even if there are more responsible owners with guns at home than idiots it's still more dangerous overall to have them in one's home than to not or

3) home invasions and the risk of being killed when unarmed is so uncommon that they are far outweighed by accidents even if it's among a majority of responsible gun owners.

If there are so many responsible gun owners why are people on average less safe with guns in the home? The point is on average it's more dangerous to have guns in the home. Call out exceptions all you want - they don't apply to the majority of the population.

[Riccardo]

You missed the point entirely

If you want to make that argument then there are three logical conclusions:

1) the majority of people who keep guns in their homes are idiots and/or irresponsible which leads to the higher statistics of death compared to non gun owners or

2) guns are so incredibly dangerous that even if there are more responsible owners with guns at home than idiots it's still more dangerous overall to have them in one's home than to not or

3) home invasions and the risk of being killed when unarmed is so uncommon that they are far outweighed by accidents even if it's among a majority of responsible gun owners.

If there are so many responsible gun owners why are people on average less safe with guns in the home? The point is on average it's more dangerous to have guns in the home. Call out exceptions all you want - they don't apply to the majority of the population.

Obviously the risk of accidental death by firearms is higher in a house with firearms than without, it's like saying you're surprised to learn that drivers are at higher risk of accidental automobile death than non-drivers.

The point was overall the incidence of accidental firearm deaths is low in this country (600 in 2010) and even that small risk can be significantly reduced by responsible gun ownership practices (as outlined above). And we were not talking about the general population, you specifically questioned noguano and I (and we both have guns locked away responsibly), so your stats on the general population simply don't apply.

[TerpEagle]

Obviously the risk of accidental death by firearms is higher in a house with firearms than without, it's like saying you're surprised to learn that drivers are at higher risk of accidental automobile death than non-drivers.

The point was overall the incidence of accidental firearm deaths is low in this country (600 in 2010) and even that small risk can be significantly reduced by responsible gun ownership practices (as outlined above). And we were not talking about the general population, you specifically questioned noguano and I (and we both have guns locked away responsibly), so your stats on the general population simply don't apply.

It's higher overall. The argument given for keeping a gun in a home is home protection. Statistically, one is more likely to have a death in the home if you there is a gun present than if there isn't.

That makes argument for home protection bogus because statistically people are more likely to die with a gun there than without.

So back to my logic. Even if you are super safe in your usage, guns in the home are deadly for the majority of people.

You keep calling out the exceptions - as does anyone making the argument for guns making people safe. Apparently it's quite an exception because it's not statistically true.

Say you are correct and responsible ownership leads to a safer home. What does that say about the majority of gun owners?

[Riccardo]

You continue to compare apples to oranges

It's higher overall. The argument given for keeping a gun in a home is home protection. Statistically, one is more likely to have a death in the home if you there is a gun present than if there isn't.

That makes argument for home protection bogus because statistically people are more likely to die with a gun there than without.

You glance by it here. The question is what are the odds of accidental death by firearm vs defending a home intrusion in a household with responsible gun ownership? The stats you continue to rely on do not apply, period.