Swatting

blueandwhite

unsung said:

blueandwhite said:

This is why I'm always nervous when I travel down in the United States. The obsession with guns is unsettling to me as a foreigner from Canada. While I don't agree with "swatting" as a practice, I can understand why shoppers would be nervous when confronted by a person who is openly carrying a firearm. Openly carrying a firearm is a great way to instil fear into others so I don't find it at all surprising when somebody overreacts and calls the police.

I'll be very honest; people who go around carrying guns in public scare the hell out of me. When somebody is always thinking about the need to have a gun at their fingertips it's only a matter of time before there is a tragedy. I firmly believe that many of the people who exercise their right to carry are on a power trip. They are definitely people I would make every effort to avoid in my daily life.

Did you read the comments? This isn't about people being nervous, this is about people who are advocating violence, including murder, because they disagree with these people who are not breaking any laws.

With so many of you clearly either ignoring it or supporting it by not responding to it makes me believe that it could be accepted.

Yes I read the comments. The paranoia of gun advocates is downright scary to me. The fact that you are suggesting that there is a widespread conspiracy by anti-gun advocates to start shootouts between gun owners and the police is absurd.

Look, I get that as an American it is your right to go around carrying whatever gun you want and to be as responsible or as irresponsible with your guns as you choose to be. I just have one question; if anti-gun advocates are as reckless and vindictive as you claim they are then doesn't it stand to reason that gun owners could be just as ruthless? The difference of course is that the anti-gun advocate has to concoct an absurd scheme to put a gun owner in danger whereas a proud gun-carrying person simply needs to point and shoot; something that is all too common in the US.

unsung

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

gimmesometruth27

unsung said:

blueandwhite said:

This is why I'm always nervous when I travel down in the United States. The obsession with guns is unsettling to me as a foreigner from Canada. While I don't agree with "swatting" as a practice, I can understand why shoppers would be nervous when confronted by a person who is openly carrying a firearm. Openly carrying a firearm is a great way to instil fear into others so I don't find it at all surprising when somebody overreacts and calls the police.

I'll be very honest; people who go around carrying guns in public scare the hell out of me. When somebody is always thinking about the need to have a gun at their fingertips it's only a matter of time before there is a tragedy. I firmly believe that many of the people who exercise their right to carry are on a power trip. They are definitely people I would make every effort to avoid in my daily life.

Did you read the comments? This isn't about people being nervous, this is about people who are advocating violence, including murder, because they disagree with these people who are not breaking any laws.

With so many of you clearly either ignoring it or supporting it by not responding to it makes me believe that it could be accepted.

you live by the gun you die by the gun. i'm not advocating violence against these people. all i am saying is that these people are very, very scared. and what you fear the most, may happen to you when you get a hard on for a weapon.

just sayin.

the gun boners that these people have are going to end up getting them, or innocent bystanders, killed.

unsung

When?

Because the antigun crowd has been claiming the Wild West act for twenty years when concealed carry started. It hasn't happened yet.

blueandwhite

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

benjs

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

-The population in 2012 in the US was around 318 million.
-The amount of firearm homicides in 2012 was 8,896.
-The amount of justifiable gun homicides in 2010 was 617. Let's round this value up to 1000 for 2012 - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states shows most other firearm-related metrics as having increased between 2012, so that should provide conservatism to the value.
-The amount of non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 was 81,396.
-The amount of unintentional shooting deaths in 2011 was 851 (similar to before, except for conservatism's sake, leave the value the same - use this for 2012).
-The amount of homicides by any means in 2012 was 14,827.

There are a few things I can gather from this:

1) The amount of harm (including intentional and accidental homicides and injuries) at the hands of a gun per population in 2012 was 0.03%.
2) The amount of justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.0003%.
3) The amount of non-justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.002%.
4) Since the ratio of justifiable gun homicides:non-justifiable firearm homicides is roughly 1:7, let's be absurdly conservative and say the ratio of justifiable gun injuries:non-justifiable gun injuries will be 1:4 - implying that as much as a quarter of all gun injuries are justifiable. Then, the amount of justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.005%.
5) With the remainder of the breakdown of gun injuries (i.e. justifiable (16,000) + non-justifiable (65,396) = total non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 (81,396), 1:4.08), the amount of non-justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.02%.

So, quantifying this into things that actually have meaning:
1) The total lethal and non-lethal non-justifiable harm to society was 0.002 + 0.02 = 0.022%
2) The total lethal and non-lethal justifiable gun incidents was 0.0003 + 0.005 = 0.008%

In even simpler terms, the quantification of good:bad ramifications of firearms, with statistical data from 2012, is 11:4. Or, the likelihood of a gun being used unjustifiably is about 2.75x as high as a justifiable cause. And, of course, let's not forget that the likelihood of harm or falling victim to such a homicide at the hands of a gun are approximately 1:3333.

vant0037

unsung said:

When?

Because the antigun crowd has been claiming the Wild West act for twenty years when concealed carry started. It hasn't happened yet.

By that same token then, doesn't that discredit the theory that more guns will equal more gun-toting good guys being around to stop bad guys? I think someone even started a thread on the premise that there are a lot good guys out there stopping attacks. So if Cc has not led to the "Wild West" (e.g. More shootouts), then doesn't that also mean the mythical gun-toting good guy is just that: a myth?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

There are numerous stories that prove this statement wrong. Polite and friendly... right up until they got pissed off and used their weapon that happened to be under their jacket before they were afforded the time to think clearer.

ikiT

There's a lot wrong with this video..it's an obvious lip sync nightmare, Ray's guitar isn't plugged in, the drummer looks like he's playing a different song, and worst of all, the crowd couldn't give a shit, but you get the idea.

Leave your guns at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpAANsoG8I

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

There are numerous stories that prove this statement wrong. Polite and friendly... right up until they got pissed off and used their weapon that happened to be under their jacket before they were afforded the time to think clearer.

Case in point: Another responsible gun owner convicted of first degree murder yesterday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/01/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSKCN0HQ52F20141001

Has CCW permit, lies about teen brandishing shotgun that didn't exist, claims self-defense and fires 10 shots. Then leaves the scene to go home and order pizza.

Having a gun so readily at your disposal makes shit escalate real quick.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

There are numerous stories that prove this statement wrong. Polite and friendly... right up until they got pissed off and used their weapon that happened to be under their jacket before they were afforded the time to think clearer.

Case in point: Another responsible gun owner convicted of first degree murder yesterday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/01/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSKCN0HQ52F20141001

Has CCW permit, lies about teen brandishing shotgun that didn't exist, claims self-defense and fires 10 shots. Then leaves the scene to go home and order pizza.

Having a gun so readily at your disposal makes shit escalate real quick.

I'd always recommend having a pizza after blowing someone away.

brianlux

unsung said:

When?

Because the antigun crowd has been claiming the Wild West act for twenty years when concealed carry started. It hasn't happened yet.

It always cracks me up when you mention the "Wild West", as a fallacy, unsung, because to some degree it's really not a fallacy all. My current home city of Placerville is nicknamed "Hangtown". People actually celebrate that kind of thing here [face palm]. And look at Nevada and all those crazed people armed to the hilt at those Bundy Ranch protests. Also, there's a lot of national forest land not far from where I live and several places where if I gathered up all the spent cartridge casing and melted them down I could build a railroad. I talked to a local woman about having problems with rats under my house and she said at her place they shoot them. Even many of the hippies are armed to the teeth out here. No, the Wild West is not a fallacy at all- it's a gun lovers heaven. You would love it here. Guns aplenty. In some ways I envy Canadians. Sounds a lot more sane up there as far as guns go.

But it's not just the Wild West. Its also the Wild Midwest, The Wild North Up to the Border, the Wild South and The Wild East. Gun loving Wild America.

Last-12-Exit

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

I agree with the canadian.

rr165892

benjs said:

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

-The population in 2012 in the US was around 318 million.
-The amount of firearm homicides in 2012 was 8,896.
-The amount of justifiable gun homicides in 2010 was 617. Let's round this value up to 1000 for 2012 - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states shows most other firearm-related metrics as having increased between 2012, so that should provide conservatism to the value.
-The amount of non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 was 81,396.
-The amount of unintentional shooting deaths in 2011 was 851 (similar to before, except for conservatism's sake, leave the value the same - use this for 2012).
-The amount of homicides by any means in 2012 was 14,827.

There are a few things I can gather from this:

1) The amount of harm (including intentional and accidental homicides and injuries) at the hands of a gun per population in 2012 was 0.03%.
2) The amount of justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.0003%.
3) The amount of non-justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.002%.
4) Since the ratio of justifiable gun homicides:non-justifiable firearm homicides is roughly 1:7, let's be absurdly conservative and say the ratio of justifiable gun injuries:non-justifiable gun injuries will be 1:4 - implying that as much as a quarter of all gun injuries are justifiable. Then, the amount of justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.005%.
5) With the remainder of the breakdown of gun injuries (i.e. justifiable (16,000) + non-justifiable (65,396) = total non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 (81,396), 1:4.08), the amount of non-justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.02%.

So, quantifying this into things that actually have meaning:
1) The total lethal and non-lethal non-justifiable harm to society was 0.002 + 0.02 = 0.022%
2) The total lethal and non-lethal justifiable gun incidents was 0.0003 + 0.005 = 0.008%

In even simpler terms, the quantification of good:bad ramifications of firearms, with statistical data from 2012, is 11:4. Or, the likelihood of a gun being used unjustifiably is about 2.75x as high as a justifiable cause. And, of course, let's not forget that the likelihood of harm or falling victim to such a homicide at the hands of a gun are approximately 1:3333.

Ben,ummm you sir ,are on a whole different level buddy.Whatever you picked up while meditating on the mountain in Tibet is working.I was going to comment on your above statistical analysis but I think I will stick with some finger painting,and looking at the pretty pictures.lol

ikiT

This is an awesome discussion, friendly and polite.

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/handguns/40997-open-carry-what-would-you-carry.html

A few tidbits from Open carry, what would you carry?

"I'd carry my M&P. I'm familiar with it and it's the only one I have for now. But I would still try to cover it-I would just have more options with open carry since I wouldn't have to worry about the occasional slip."

"I LOVE MY COUNTRY AND MY STATE. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EITHER YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO GTFO"

"What ever I wanted too! As mentioned.....would rotate through my whole inventory!"

"Shorts and a t shirt make concealed carry a lot tougher. Dressing for a 110 degree day and wanting to strap on a pistol? Ugh. Your choice becomes some tiny .380 that carries almost no ammo and is a lot harder to shoot, or don't carry. I'd like the option of a full-size, full capacity handgun."

benjs

rr165892 said:

benjs said:

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

-The population in 2012 in the US was around 318 million.
-The amount of firearm homicides in 2012 was 8,896.
-The amount of justifiable gun homicides in 2010 was 617. Let's round this value up to 1000 for 2012 - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states shows most other firearm-related metrics as having increased between 2012, so that should provide conservatism to the value.
-The amount of non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 was 81,396.
-The amount of unintentional shooting deaths in 2011 was 851 (similar to before, except for conservatism's sake, leave the value the same - use this for 2012).
-The amount of homicides by any means in 2012 was 14,827.

There are a few things I can gather from this:

1) The amount of harm (including intentional and accidental homicides and injuries) at the hands of a gun per population in 2012 was 0.03%.
2) The amount of justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.0003%.
3) The amount of non-justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.002%.
4) Since the ratio of justifiable gun homicides:non-justifiable firearm homicides is roughly 1:7, let's be absurdly conservative and say the ratio of justifiable gun injuries:non-justifiable gun injuries will be 1:4 - implying that as much as a quarter of all gun injuries are justifiable. Then, the amount of justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.005%.
5) With the remainder of the breakdown of gun injuries (i.e. justifiable (16,000) + non-justifiable (65,396) = total non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 (81,396), 1:4.08), the amount of non-justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.02%.

So, quantifying this into things that actually have meaning:
1) The total lethal and non-lethal non-justifiable harm to society was 0.002 + 0.02 = 0.022%
2) The total lethal and non-lethal justifiable gun incidents was 0.0003 + 0.005 = 0.008%

In even simpler terms, the quantification of good:bad ramifications of firearms, with statistical data from 2012, is 11:4. Or, the likelihood of a gun being used unjustifiably is about 2.75x as high as a justifiable cause. And, of course, let's not forget that the likelihood of harm or falling victim to such a homicide at the hands of a gun are approximately 1:3333.

Ben,ummm you sir ,are on a whole different level buddy.Whatever you picked up while meditating on the mountain in Tibet is working.I was going to comment on your above statistical analysis but I think I will stick with some finger painting,and looking at the pretty pictures.lol

Shucks. For the record, I get a ton out of everything posted here, including the things that you write!

Also, I need to make a clarification statement unfortunately (and there goes my credibility). That 1:3333 (in other words, 1 in every 3,333 people) is the sum of people justifiably and non-justifiably harmed or killed with a firearm.

1 in 4,545 people in America were harmed or killed with a firearm in 2012 unjustifiably.
1 in 12,500 people in America were harmed or killed with a firearm in 2012 justifiably.

My point of this long-winded analysis is mostly to stop letting opinion of policy be driven by an inspection of gun incidents on a case-by-case basis. It is absurd. As much as I call for a humanitarian response to most issues, sometimes the best way to do that is to gather metrics, critically observe the data, minimize bias, and only then take a side. As for the rights that many Americans hold so dear: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness". Key word being "preservation of life". Based on data like this, which shows justifiable harm as being nearly three times as likely as unjustifiable harm from an armed person, the right to bear arms appears to me as inherently unconstitutional.

Last-12-Exit

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

benjs said:

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

-The population in 2012 in the US was around 318 million.
-The amount of firearm homicides in 2012 was 8,896.
-The amount of justifiable gun homicides in 2010 was 617. Let's round this value up to 1000 for 2012 - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states shows most other firearm-related metrics as having increased between 2012, so that should provide conservatism to the value.
-The amount of non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 was 81,396.
-The amount of unintentional shooting deaths in 2011 was 851 (similar to before, except for conservatism's sake, leave the value the same - use this for 2012).
-The amount of homicides by any means in 2012 was 14,827.

There are a few things I can gather from this:

1) The amount of harm (including intentional and accidental homicides and injuries) at the hands of a gun per population in 2012 was 0.03%.
2) The amount of justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.0003%.
3) The amount of non-justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.002%.
4) Since the ratio of justifiable gun homicides:non-justifiable firearm homicides is roughly 1:7, let's be absurdly conservative and say the ratio of justifiable gun injuries:non-justifiable gun injuries will be 1:4 - implying that as much as a quarter of all gun injuries are justifiable. Then, the amount of justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.005%.
5) With the remainder of the breakdown of gun injuries (i.e. justifiable (16,000) + non-justifiable (65,396) = total non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 (81,396), 1:4.08), the amount of non-justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.02%.

So, quantifying this into things that actually have meaning:
1) The total lethal and non-lethal non-justifiable harm to society was 0.002 + 0.02 = 0.022%
2) The total lethal and non-lethal justifiable gun incidents was 0.0003 + 0.005 = 0.008%

In even simpler terms, the quantification of good:bad ramifications of firearms, with statistical data from 2012, is 11:4. Or, the likelihood of a gun being used unjustifiably is about 2.75x as high as a justifiable cause. And, of course, let's not forget that the likelihood of harm or falling victim to such a homicide at the hands of a gun are approximately 1:3333.

Ben,ummm you sir ,are on a whole different level buddy.Whatever you picked up while meditating on the mountain in Tibet is working.I was going to comment on your above statistical analysis but I think I will stick with some finger painting,and looking at the pretty pictures.lol

Shucks. For the record, I get a ton out of everything posted here, including the things that you write!

Also, I need to make a clarification statement unfortunately (and there goes my credibility). That 1:3333 (in other words, 1 in every 3,333 people) is the sum of people justifiably and non-justifiably harmed or killed with a firearm.

1 in 4,545 people in America were harmed or killed with a firearm in 2012 unjustifiably.
1 in 12,500 people in America were harmed or killed with a firearm in 2012 justifiably.

My point of this long-winded analysis is mostly to stop letting opinion of policy be driven by an inspection of gun incidents on a case-by-case basis. It is absurd. As much as I call for a humanitarian response to most issues, sometimes the best way to do that is to gather metrics, critically observe the data, minimize bias, and only then take a side. As for the rights that many Americans hold so dear: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness". Key word being "preservation of life". Based on data like this, which shows justifiable harm as being nearly three times as likely as unjustifiable harm from an armed person, the right to bear arms appears to me as inherently unconstitutional.

It was my understanding that there would be no math in this portion of the thread....

benjs

Last-12-Exit said:

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

benjs said:

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

You read too many tabloids. I've never known a concealed carry holder or an open carry person to be nothing less than polite and friendly. All of the ones I know are extra careful to avoid problems, afterall their biggest threat these days looks to be the scared liberal that can't stand someone using their Rights. I've never come across these wackos that all of you say are running wild. The Wild West fallacy never came true when the Antigun crowd feared concealed carry. Aside from work I cc everywhere. In fact the courts are ruling in our favor almost everyday.

But you are right on one point, the anti-gun crowd has quite the imagination.

So let me get this straight; an unarmed liberal is America's biggest threat these days? I would like to live in a society where gun violence isn't a serious problem. Again, this is one of the reasons I am incredibly weary of traveling in the USA. If packing heat is the most sacred of rights then I'm glad I live in an oppressive society where guns are primarily for hunting, not shooting other people. If somebody is openly carrying a firearm in public what kind of statement are they making to the people around them because the only message I get from a person packing heat is "Watch your back!"

Oh, and the anti-gun crowd has nothing on hardcore gun advocates when it comes to a vivid imagination. A person that feels so threatened that they need a gun to feel safe has an incredible imagination. I would hazard to guess that far more people are killed by gun owners exercising their "rights" than gun owners falling victim to swatting.

-The population in 2012 in the US was around 318 million.
-The amount of firearm homicides in 2012 was 8,896.
-The amount of justifiable gun homicides in 2010 was 617. Let's round this value up to 1000 for 2012 - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states shows most other firearm-related metrics as having increased between 2012, so that should provide conservatism to the value.
-The amount of non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 was 81,396.
-The amount of unintentional shooting deaths in 2011 was 851 (similar to before, except for conservatism's sake, leave the value the same - use this for 2012).
-The amount of homicides by any means in 2012 was 14,827.

There are a few things I can gather from this:

1) The amount of harm (including intentional and accidental homicides and injuries) at the hands of a gun per population in 2012 was 0.03%.
2) The amount of justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.0003%.
3) The amount of non-justifiable gun homicides per population in 2012 was 0.002%.
4) Since the ratio of justifiable gun homicides:non-justifiable firearm homicides is roughly 1:7, let's be absurdly conservative and say the ratio of justifiable gun injuries:non-justifiable gun injuries will be 1:4 - implying that as much as a quarter of all gun injuries are justifiable. Then, the amount of justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.005%.
5) With the remainder of the breakdown of gun injuries (i.e. justifiable (16,000) + non-justifiable (65,396) = total non-fatal gun injuries in 2012 (81,396), 1:4.08), the amount of non-justifiable gun injuries per population in 2012 was 0.02%.

So, quantifying this into things that actually have meaning:
1) The total lethal and non-lethal non-justifiable harm to society was 0.002 + 0.02 = 0.022%
2) The total lethal and non-lethal justifiable gun incidents was 0.0003 + 0.005 = 0.008%

In even simpler terms, the quantification of good:bad ramifications of firearms, with statistical data from 2012, is 11:4. Or, the likelihood of a gun being used unjustifiably is about 2.75x as high as a justifiable cause. And, of course, let's not forget that the likelihood of harm or falling victim to such a homicide at the hands of a gun are approximately 1:3333.

Ben,ummm you sir ,are on a whole different level buddy.Whatever you picked up while meditating on the mountain in Tibet is working.I was going to comment on your above statistical analysis but I think I will stick with some finger painting,and looking at the pretty pictures.lol

Shucks. For the record, I get a ton out of everything posted here, including the things that you write!

Also, I need to make a clarification statement unfortunately (and there goes my credibility). That 1:3333 (in other words, 1 in every 3,333 people) is the sum of people justifiably and non-justifiably harmed or killed with a firearm.

1 in 4,545 people in America were harmed or killed with a firearm in 2012 unjustifiably.
1 in 12,500 people in America were harmed or killed with a firearm in 2012 justifiably.

My point of this long-winded analysis is mostly to stop letting opinion of policy be driven by an inspection of gun incidents on a case-by-case basis. It is absurd. As much as I call for a humanitarian response to most issues, sometimes the best way to do that is to gather metrics, critically observe the data, minimize bias, and only then take a side. As for the rights that many Americans hold so dear: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness". Key word being "preservation of life". Based on data like this, which shows justifiable harm as being nearly three times as likely as unjustifiable harm from an armed person, the right to bear arms appears to me as inherently unconstitutional.

It was my understanding that there would be no math in this portion of the thread....

Oops. Sorry. Meant to say... um... AMERICA. GUNS. HELL YEAH.

Walking the miles

benjs said:

Oops. Sorry. Meant to say... um... AMERICA. GUNS. HELL YEAH.
I mean really, Benjs, so much math on a Friday afternoon. What are you thinking?

brianlux

I open carry the greatest weapon known to humankind. Terry Tempest Willimas explains it exceeding well here:

Q: Do you look to your writing as a tool for your activism in the effort to prevent the wholesale destruction of the environment?

Williams: I do. I never will forget when I crossed the line at the Nevada Test Site in the Mojave Desert just outside Las Vegas. Before arresting me, the officer searched my body and found a pen and a notepad tucked inside my boots. "And these?" she asked. "Weapons," I replied. She quietly slipped my pant leg over my boots and let me keep them. Writing can be a powerful tool toward justice.

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2005/01/334/terry-tempest-williams-interview#sthash.jwUuXZg9.dpuf