[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by devonin

Can you even show me, say...five such cases in the last 10 years? And then argue whether those cases justify the offsetting hundreds and hundreds of not prevented mass shootings?

If the cost of 'good guys with guns' who might get to save the day 1 in every 2000 mass murders is the other 1999 mass murders, I don't think you're arguing a very sustainable point.

From the study that DBP linked above:



Owning a gun puts you at a larger risk of being murdered, not a lower one.

i don't think this is an appropriate statistic to support the claim you're making.

when you share a home with someone, you trust someone enough to be vulnerable with them, so oftentimes you wouldn't actively think to protect yourselves against them. so, the presence of a deadly force in the home will increase the risk of someone who already wants you dead doing it successfully, granted they have access to the gun themselves

but the statistic shouldn't be used to defend guns not being at home, or on someone's person. rather, the gun that someone does have should be safeguarded against others, especially those with precarious mental states. and while i'm at it, children.

Originally Posted by devonin

I'll go out on a limb and say that yes, civilian gun ownership for purposes besides hunting and sport shooting is always a bad thing.

Edit: I suppose on further reflection, I need to explicitly account for people who live in rural/farm areas where there are actual animal predators capable of killing livestock etc, but I mostly lump that in with hunting.

this is almost as bad as if my "everyone should have guns" comment were unqualified