LOL, you don't know where I "get off saying that"? Such anger.
I'm not angry. I'm flabbergasted that someone would try to say that carrying a firearm for self-defense is statistically irrelevant in light of all the attacks we have seen here and abroad. Every time I turn on the news, I'm hearing some supposedly intelligent reporter talk about how mass shooting and gun violence is on the rise. Then I hear from you, the self-proclaimed statistics expert, telling me how there is no need to worry about gun violence because statistically there are other things more likely to happen to me. Which narrative should I believe? They both seem mutually exclusive to me.
A) 5 times more likely to die from getting bonked on the head than by getting shot. -
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm,
http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html
Wear a helmet, people! Everywhere you go! It's your constitutional right.
Falls, motor vehicle accidents, struck by an object combined account for over 70% of TBI's. There is prescribed safety equipment for most, if not, all of those scenarios (seatbelts, air bags, bike helmets, construction hard hats).
Because of those statistics most people are wearing helmets, and taking other precautions, where such measures are relevant; so your argument that everyone needs to wear a helmet (whether genuine or satirical) is moot.
Also, how did you calculate that a person is 5 times more likely to die from a TBI injury over a gun-related injury? I didn't see that specifically noted on the link you provided.
B) Statisticaly speaking, most people don't understand statistics. Therefore, they make pretty dumb choices in life. That's kind of my point, thank you. Gun ownership just happens to be one of those things. It doesn't make you safer so much as it makes you feel safer.
I'm beginning to wonder if you understand statistics. For example do you know how death and injury rates are actually calculated?
As for whether gun ownership statistically makes a person safer or not, that's transitioning into a whole other argument, which up until this point you've done nothing to prove or disprove. It seems to me that short of compiling a large, diverse and credible pool of criminal-civilian self defense incidents, it will be fairly hard to make a statistical case one way or the other. I'm inclined to say that the matter is entirely subjective. I know plenty of common-sense people who have stayed safe throughout their lives without ever touching a firearm and I know plenty common-sense people who have carried most of their adult lives without an issue. I also know plenty of idiots from both groups that have gotten into trouble; the common denominator has always been individual judgement and decision-making (or lack thereof) not the presence or lack of a firearm.
And as I said earlier, there are many other calamities (certain types of cancer, airplane crashes) that are far less likely to befall someone than a gun violence related death, and yet we still take extreme precautions for them. I think a purely statistical analysis of life's threats or problems isn't very practical for everyday life. What's far more practical is risk-analysis, which incorporates many different factors regarding an issue (including the probability of occurrence and severity of outcome among other things) to allow a person to make an informed decision.
I'm not anti gun, I'm anti gun-toter. Anti gun-culture, or anti gun gung-ho, or whatever you want to call it. I look at people who go on in threads like this and I'm looking at children playing cowboy.
Fantasy.
Ah yes...this narrative again. I think you want the gun-culture (whatever that is) to be full of gung-ho, cowboys and wannabe heroes. The reality of life for the average gun-owner here in America is vastly different from what you imagine it to be. I don't think you've had a lot of exposure to firearms or firearm owners. Because if you did, you wouldn't be regurgitating that played-out, cliche propaganda that gets spouted off by certain politicians and media groups.
