keeping a gun in your home well not make you safer

MayCaesar

@all4actt

As I remember, the Las Vegas guy was a heavy gambler and drinker, and he believed in various conspiracy theories. It is not like everything was going well in his life, and then suddenly he decided to have fun and shoot up some people. There are always underlying psychological reasons behind such actions.

That is not to say that anyone can predict whether a person will become a problem based on some external evidence, however. Most gamblers, drinkers and conspiracy theories do not commit violent crimes, and the person in question was a statistical outlier. Such outliers exist in all subgroups in the society, they are just statistically more common among people with serious issues in life, not necessarily financial ones.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

Technically it doesn't make one safer, it's common sense and multiple studies have shown that... The one-year chances of a robbery inside your home are .004%, of them being armed is about .00168%. Lifetime chances of about 0.32%. Odds are about 1 in 6000, approximately twice as likely as getting struck by lightning in your lifetime. So proportionally speaking you should prepare for a home invasion twice as much as you prepare for being hit by lightning.

A gun is no guarantee of safety. Statistically it increases the risk of accidental harm or death of someone in the house. The best burglary deterrent is a big, protective dog.

Now that being said, the fact that it doesn't make one safer per se, is not reason enough to prevent people from having one should they want to...

Home robberies aren't the only reason to keep a gun. The violent crime rate was .36% in 2018. At that rate your lifetime chances are 6.86% of being involved in a violent crime.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

No one has to justify owning a gun to me, I don't care... "Because I like guns" is good enough for me really... All I'm saying is that having or carrying a gun doesn't implicitly makes one safer, it takes more than that and I fail to see how acknowledging this truth is a problem...

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No one has to justify owning a gun to me, I don't care... "Because I like guns" is good enough for me really... All I'm saying is that having or carrying a gun doesn't implicitly makes one safer, it takes more than that and I fail to see how acknowledging this truth is a problem...

The CDC has found;

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

Just having a gun may not make one safer, but it does follow the first rule of a gun fight, which is to have a gun.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Indeed , yet you think your opinion makes something fact for example you called the evidence of the brutal slaying of a black man “ anecdotal “ just to bolster your naked racism

MichaelElpers

@Dee

It is anecdotal: not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. Research and stats tell us the narrative is not true. Calling it anecdotal is not an opinion, that is a fact.

You again need to learn what opinion means.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

It is anecdotal: not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Its certainly not its 100 per cent true but true to your rabid racism I would expect no more

Research and stats tell us the narrative is not true. Calling it anecdotal is not an opinion, that is a fact.
You again need to learn what opinion means.

You mean your stats possibly from a Klu Klux Klan website. You again need to grow up and realise blacks are human beings also

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****Its certainly not its 100 per cent true but true to your rabid racism I would expect no more.

The story is true, but its anecdotal you can't define narrative by anecdotal stories. I completely condemn that police officer. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean that your automatically wrong, but it is not definitive proof either..."not necessarily true or reliable"

****You mean your stats possibly from a Klu Klux Klan website

...How about the FBI. Again you haven't refuted any of my points or logic. All you do is assume that I'm wrong and accuse me of aligning with the KKK and claim I don't believe blacks are human( that is a horrible accusation to lob at someone you have not met and have no evidence for)...doing things like that should offend your own character. Why don't you actually provide research to back your narrative?

Dee

Your defence of a police that locals found of concern is remarkable their history of racial targeting is appalling , also your denial of the the fact that police shot at Mc Coy leaves you looking like a blast from the times blacks were segregated from whites in the U S and every type of brutality against blacks was seen as right and fair , I bet you would whistle a very different tune if several black officers shot at a white man 55 times.

What wouldn’t I view you as a racist when you totally deny racial targeting as in the case below?

Residents had expressed concerns about the department's use of force.

In 2012, its officers committed fatal shootings at around 38 times the national rate, or 20 times the rate in nearby Oakland and San Francisco.A third of the city's homicides were due to police.[10] Around that time, some Vallejo residents asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate Vallejo officers' use of force as it had done in Albuquerque, New Mexico.[1From 2015-2017, the department spent more per officer in fines or settlements for civil rights abuse claims than any other large police force in the Bay Area.[11] (Settlements, which do not imply wrongdoing, can be easier and cheaper than court hearings.[9]) From 2016-2019, five of Vallejo's police officers shot multiple people.[12][8][13] At the time of McCoy's shooting, one of the officers who shot him was under a civil lawsuit for shooting a man dead in February 2018.[14][8]

Around 10:30 pm February McCoy fell asleep in his car with the engine running and the car in drive at the drive-thru of Taco Bell in Vallejo, California.[15][16][17] A Taco Bell employee called 911, informing the dispatcher that McCoy (who was not identified by name at this point)was unresponsive to people knocking on the car's window or honking their car horns.Six police officers arrived,[12][13] and activated their bodycams.

The bodycam video and audio, which the police published March 30, 2019, showed that, for several minutes, officers with guns raised conversed next to McCoy's car while he slept.The footage captured an officer saying that McCoy had on his lap a gun with its magazine "half out" such that McCoy would have at most one shot available; although the gun is not visible in the footage.The footage shows that the officers then decided to open the door to retrieve the alleged gun and remove McCoy from the car, but found the door locked and so instead attempted to block McCoy's car in the drive-thru.After some minutes, McCoy scratched his shoulder, though there is no indication he was alert or aware of his surroundings at this time.

McCoy then moved in a manner that was interpreted differently by different parties. The police department expressed its interpretation in an annotation inserted into the bodycam footage: "hand reaches to gun on lap".[The Guardianstated that the videos at that point are "blurry" and "show McCoy’s body moving slightly, but do not capture his hand moving to the firearm, which is not visible in the footage."NBC Newssaid, "McCoy then jerks up and appears to reach down. His face is obscured by the officer's arm, pointing his gun." KTVUsaid McCoy "seems to bend from the waist and move his left arm."The New York Timessaid, "The footage showed that Mr. McCoy appeared to be asleep for at least several minutes, and that he was shot about 10 seconds after he began to move. It was unclear whether he was reaching for a gun."

According to the bodycam footage and witness footage, officers then yelled at McCoy, through the closed car window, to put his hands up, and fired at him less than three seconds later.The six officers fired 55rounds at McCoy over approximately four seconds,before again telling McCoy to put up his hands.

McCoy was pronounced dead at the scene.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****What wouldn’t I view you as a racist when you totally deny racial targeting as in the case below?

I didn't...From previous post " I completely condemn that police officer." But again one story doesn't prove a narrative, it only proves that there are a few people that are racist, which I also don't deny.

Also while I agree the situation definitely seemed to be handled wrongly, things in the article like "officers then yelled at McCoy, through the closed car window, to put his hands up, and fired at him less than three seconds later" seem to place guilt. A person can easily reach for a gun in their lap in 3 seconds.

Obviously 55 shots seems a bit ridiculous, but he was in a car its reasonable that more shots would be fired at someone in a vehicle. There also aren't overwhelming pieces of information that point to gross negligence. 1. Who falls asleep outside a restaurant with the car with it running with a gun in their lap. 2. I'm not saying that he reached for his weapon, there is no evidence proving/disproving it, but I would be scared and prone to sudden reaction if I woke up and had 6 cops pointing guns at me. " It was unclear whether he was reaching for a gun" 3. They weren't targeting a black person unjustly, Taco bell called 911 on him.

I don't disagree there are isolated incidents of police brutality, but there is not overwhelming evidence that there is an anomaly towards a certain race. And you still haven't provided evidence for that.

****Residents had expressed concerns about the department's use of force. Around that time, some Vallejo residents asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate Vallejo officers.

1. They only were asked to investigate...there is no proof that actions were performed unjustly.

2. Again anecdotal, research if showing wrong doings by this police force would only prove that the police force in Albuquerque is corrupt/ improperly trained.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Nonsense , you sound like a spokesman for the police force......

The Vallejo police department has been under intensifying scrutiny since the fatal shooting of Willie McCoy, the 20-year-old who had been sleeping in his car when police unleashed a barrage of 55 shots.

But behind the 6 March killing lies a pattern of racial discrimination and brutality routinely exhibited by police, allege a group of Vallejo residents who are suing the city. These incidents don’t make international headlines, but they amount to constitutional violations by the California city’s police force, say civil rights attorneys.

On Thursday, attorneys for the residents filed multiple new lawsuits that they hope will lead to a systematic reform program.

Deny away I would expect no more

MichaelElpers

@Dee

****"Nonsense".

No what you presented is nonsense...see how childish that sounds.

It is under scrutiny and they are being sued, that doesn't mean they have been found guilty. Do you assume guilty until proven innocent? Also, again that would only be an indictment on that specific police force you can't apply that to the entire nations police force.

And again I don't deny unjust incidents with police occur... only that you can't prove an overarching narrative that the police are racist. The numbers don''t support that, which is why you haven't posted any. But I'm arguing with someone who thinks stats can't provide definitive conclusions and that because men earn a higher median salary that means there is a wage gap.

****These incidents don’t make international headlines.

They definitely make national headlines. The leftist media takes every opportunity it can get to prove a racial divide. Why people want to prove there is a racial divide when statistics show there isn't is beyond me. Why do people want to sow division.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

The only person sowing division is you , your denialism In an attempt to justify blatant racism is sad but typically you.

The wage gap is supported by studies something you’re totally unaware of as you keep stupidly thinking your backward hillbilly views represent reality , they don’t get over it

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Again just statements no backup evidence. True prejudice is judging someone without any statistics/evidence to back your claim. Why don't you actually find ways to back up your claims.

If I'm totally unaware of all these why don't you enlighten me...you haven't shown a single study yet.

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/pay-gap-myth-ignores-womens-intentional-job-choices

SkepticalOne

billbatard said:

Statistics indicate that a gun in the home will not protect you , and that strict gun laws will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study

I only scanned your articles, but I did not see anything which suggests an individual would not be safer with a gun in self-defense situations. I mean, if I posted articles that said you were not safer owning/driving a car (statistically true) you'd think that was probably true - yet I doubt you or anyone else thinks we should have an automobile buyback.

Cars serve a purpose - so do guns. Remove that purpose for either and they will go away.

John_C_87

Not that anyone will address this issue of debate, But!

In Principle keeping a firearm is a way of the balance weight of lethal force by joining holding, training, and storing an armory keeping people safer in overall risk of law. A dangers created by risks to civil lawsuits should also be place as major role in assessing any and all danger of lethal force. Self-defense is a poor assessment in any overall measurement of danger a gun creates over safety with its tie to lethal force, as a criminal can also defend themselves while undertaking a crime, people can also hire others to apply lethal force on their behalf as a self-defense.

While Buy back it is not compensation for honoring United State Constitutional duty, compensation is the only way to negate the criminal gamble given to people of theft and its weight in criminal & civil court that is created by the relief of camand to share the wieght of lethal force by United State Consiutional duty. Using a law to take any personal property in a sophisticated form of armed robbery. As the people giving orders to law enforcement know beforehand law enforcement is armed. By giving vote there is a direct part taking place to take personal property away from others, a system of organized crime would be taking place without this assurance.

billbatard

they've done like a million studies a million from all perspectives they all come to the same conclusion if you have a gun in the house your chances of hurting your family are ten times greater than thwarting a burglar https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

John_C_87

billbatard said:

Statistics indicate that a gun in the home will not protect you , and that strict gun laws will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study

Do the statistics EXPLAIN that the WORD harder means only more expensive?

CYDdharta

billbatard said:

they've done like a million studies a million from all perspectives they all come to the same conclusion if you have a gun in the house your chances of hurting your family are ten times greater than thwarting a burglar https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Your "million studies" all appear to lead back to the same erroneous Hemenway and Cook studies.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

You’re yet another empty headed yank who like others claims one needs a gun to protect ones family yet when one states “so to feel safe in the U S one needs a gun to protect ones family in the US ?” like all yanks you then shriek and yell about the rarity of gun attacks in the U S and here you are again claiming there is no gender wage gap yet your own government stats confirm watch now as you go into denial mode yet again ......You’re a strange lot you Americans yous cannot face anything unpalatable about your country as facts have to reinvented to keep up the myth of America being the best and somehow great the same way you’s collectively imagine you’s have actually ever won a war when you’s haven’t unless of course you count a country called Grenada which is the size of my back garden .....You know those movies with Stallone and company winning wars they’re fiction buddy what? Oh you thought they were real? Sorry to burst your bubble buddy ......

Today, on average, a woman working full time earns 80.7 cents for every dollar a man working full time earns. Additionally, women's median annual earnings are $9,909 less than men's, according to data from the US Census Bureau.

While progress has been made toward pay parity between the sexes, the Institute for Women's Policy Research estimates that it will not be reached until 2059.

Sorry they’re stats from your Census Bureau .....Hey maybe they’re commies and anti American?

all4actt

@Dee

Your definition of burglary is generic at best. Each state has it's own penal code definitions of what contitutes the crime of burglary.

In the state I live in burlary simply put is the entering (no requierment to break in) into a building, dwelling, boat, ship, or car with the intent (they don't have actually commit the crime) to commit a felony.

Other states have different elements that need to exist to meet the charge of Buglary.

It is better explained here https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overview.html

Dee

@all4actt

Listen most human beings understand what burglary means why is it when it comes to Americans they constantly attempt to re - define terms like calling a gun a “tool” and re-defining burglary?

all4actt

@Dee

I guess I just don't understand the question. How would you like guns redefined as?

TKDB

@billbatard

The Second Amendment as its currently written, favors the offenders, and the criminals, with their illegal arms.

Because the 2A is an exploitable Amendment, being exploited by the first time gun violence offender, and the offenders, and criminals, who have used both legal, and illegal arms to kill innocent people with.

So your comment is correct.

"Keeping a gun in your home will not make you safer"

CYDdharta

Dee said:

@all4actt

Listen most human beings understand what burglary means why is it when it comes to Americans they constantly attempt to re - define terms like calling a gun a “tool” and re-defining burglary?

ROFL, since you don't understand what the term means. I had to explain the difference between a home invasion/robbery and a burglary earlier in the thread.

ZeusAres42

CYDdharta said:

Dee said:

@all4actt

Listen most human beings understand what burglary means why is it when it comes to Americans they constantly attempt to re - define terms like calling a gun a “tool” and re-defining burglary?

ROFL, since you don't understand what the term means. I had to explain the difference between a home invasion/robbery and a burglary earlier in the thread.

To both of you it might be more prudent to actually focus on the ideas and main messages that is being conveyed rather than arguing about definition of terms.

ZeusAres42

all4actt said:

@Dee

I guess I just don't understand the question. How would you like guns redefined as?

I have only just been skim reading this debate at the moment. So I don't know what position you're on or whether I am in agreement with you about anything on this yet. The reason for the fist bump is because of what you have done here. I see this as being a much better take on the issue instead of spending all day or all night about what different terms mean.

Dee

@all4actt

I don’t want guns re -defined as most Europeans accept what they are as in a weapon designed to kill , its Americans need to have a sit down and accept that’s what a gun actually is

Dee

@CYDdharta

ROFL, since you don't understand what the term means. I had to explain the difference between a home invasion/robbery and a burglary earlier in the thread.

I certainly do , what I don’t understand is American gobbledygook but I’m not alone there you’s constantly re -define terms to mean exactly what every individual thinks they might mean.

The day you “explain” anything to anyone would be a first especially since you “explained “ you need a gun for home protection only in the next breath to say ....you don’t need a gun for home protection as burglaries rarely happen ROTFLOL

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

The more tools one has at their disposal, the more options they have with regards to achieving the desired outcome. Having a gun versus not having a gun is certainly an advantage when it comes to personal safety. Even if you do not know how to actually use that gun, the simple fact of you having it will get the potential attacker a pause.

It is another matter that violent crimes statistically are so rare anywhere in the First World, that such extra precaution, in general, is not worth the hassle. The $1,000 you have to spend to buy a gun would, probably, be better spent by being put in some index fund or real estate business.

And honestly, there are better self-defence tools than guns. The guns have the big disadvantage is that they are lethal, so if you are to use them in the situation of a minimal danger to your life, you probably will end up going to jail. Guns are an overkill for most situations. Something like a pepper spray is much more effective when it comes to regular street safety, and if we are to talk about home safety, then something like a crossbow will work much better.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

There are good reasons why "having a gun" doesn't implicitly make one safer but just so we're clear, none of those are any justification for preventing anyone from having one, each individual should be free to assert risk according to his/her own evaluation.

Giving a toddler a gun doesn't make the toddler safer, so it can't implicitly make anyone else safer... You need knowledge of the tool for it to be of any use and it's naive to assume everyone has that knowledge, understand why this knowledge is required, have the capacity to apply this knowledge or just plain care about the whole issue...

Having a gun in the house introduces a permanent risk in the house to protect from a potential external one and this risk of accident augments with the number of people inside the house, more people more risk... Reactive lighting, apparent cameras (even fake ones), and a dog greatly reduce the risk of home invasions thus the very need to have a gun inside to begin with.

Now, obviously, in the specific situation of where a gun is needed, having one is better than not having one... But these situations happen more often outside the house I think...

I could probably say though that knowing how to properly use a gun, makes one safer (on a more constant basis) even if you don't have one, that it's a good skill to have...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

I know how to use a gun as well, along with breaking it down, to the point of cleaning and oiling the parts.

((I don't call that knowledge a skill, being that I won't allow a gun to define my character, or my way of life.

The Publics safety, and the millions of families across the country, are more meaningful to me, than a citizen who has enough guns to arm a squad, or a platoon, of citizens, who aren't military?))

Along with how to properly clear, and empty a gun after firing it on a range.

At the same time there are millions of illegal guns across the country, that are used to commit non race on race gun violence crimes, and race on race gun violence crimes, because there are some cowardly illegal gun owners, who have used their guns for drive by shootings, illegal drug deals gone bad, kids shooting kids, or criminals using their illegal guns to harm law enforcement with.

The U.S. Constitution means more to me, than the #2A means to me, because some seem to be using the #2A to segregate themselves away from the rest of the Constitution, because they sometimes choose to be extremist gun owners, or are a follower of the NRA, or a supporter of the Far Right Pro Gun crowd?

Citizens being law abiding citizens, and respecting the lives of the millions of the other citizens who don't own a gun, or don't want to own a gun, because the illegal gun owners, have used their illegal guns, and legal guns to kill people with, is asinine.

Shouldn't have to fill their lives with worry because they dont own a gun, or don't want to own a gun, just because they are available is an asinine notion as well, because maybe a pro gun extremist gun owner, feels differently is sad as can be.

Because either the Second Amendment as its currently written, is failing the Public, because it gets sed and abused everyday because the illegal gun owners commit crimes, and the #2A makes zero accommodations for their illegal gun crimes?

Or the Laws making murder illegal to begin with, are more of a failure, towards the safety of the Public overall?

So which keeps Americans more safer?

1) The Laws making murder illegal?

2) Or the Second Amendment, as its currently written?

ZeusAres42

As I said before the statement "Guns in your home won't make you safer either" is too broad to be able to address it.

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

There are good reasons why "having a gun" doesn't implicitly make one safer but just so we're clear, none of those are any justification for preventing anyone from having one, each individual should be free to assert risk according to his/her own evaluation. In the United State of America there is a duty to bear arm, it is a liberty to refuse and comes with risk. We are more than welcome to constitutional address grievance of constitutional right to hold lethal force publicly as those who do not preserve Constitution can lose the right to bear lethal force. Keep in mind this also means they cannot give orders by vote or other influence to those who do preserve United State Constitution. All names of those who do and do not hold the right are to be identified clearly, as this is separation made on civil liberty by pointing out who explicitly does not fulfill a United State constitutional duty.

@TKDB ;

You are forcing people to hire someone to kill on their behalf. You protect no-one. There was a reason why people had been sold as slaves and killed in our past Wars. Christian or other, when the time comes liberty demands you chose who will kill to protect you, not just claim a right pay to have some-one killed without knowing you bear some weight in the death.
Specifically a Military soldier, you may have no honor of a Knight, you may have known no-one in your family who have earned the right of Lord. I will write every day to remind you if necessary.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

You still dont understand stats do you. That is median income for all jobs, that is not a comparison of the same job. Your drawing conclusions that are not presented. Again gun only conclusion you can draw is that women make a less median income not that they make less for the same job.

Men dominate the top 5 earning career fields while women dominate the lowest earning fields. That is by choice, and why the median income is so different.
Men are generally willing to work longer, more dangerous and dirty jobs, willing to be away from family, ect.

The stats from the bureau dont compare what men and women earn for the same work.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

***You still dont understand stats do you.

I do , your denial was anticipated you deny facts using sources that come from your own government-bodies

***That is median income for all jobs, that is not a comparison of the same job. Your drawing conclusions that are not presented.

It’s not , try reading again

****Again gun only conclusion you can draw is that women make a less median income not that they make less for the same job.

Nonsense

****Men dominate the top 5 earning career fields while women dominate the lowest earning fields. That is by choice, and why the median income is so different.

Men are generally willing to work longer, more dangerous and dirty jobs, willing to be away from family, ect.

More nonsense based on nothing but your opinion

****The stats from the bureau dont compare what men and women earn for the same work.

Rubbish

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

It is extremely hard to hurt yourself or others with a gun if you do not know how to use it, and if you follow the most minimal precautions. I have shot guns only twice in my life - an AK-74 in my childhood once, and some military-grade sniper rifle a few years back - and even I know and can follow some basic rules on how to store a loaded or unloaded gun, what safety mechanisms there are and so on.

I agree that if you literally see a gun for the first time in your life, or if you are an extremely irresponsible person, then you might be safer without a gun than with one. But that applies to anything. If you have never driven a car before, then you probably should not buy a car and do a cross-country trip next day on it. This is hardly an argument suggesting that having a car endangers you, compared to not having a car (well, strictly speaking, it probably does, as even the best drivers are not protected from other drivers' carelessness, but that is a different matter).

Even if you do not know how to use a gun, and even if you just keep an unloaded old rifle on your floor, it is better to have it than not to have it. Chances that you will ever need to use it to protect yourself or your property are slim, but should it ever happen, even an unloaded rifle in your hands has a potential to scare off the criminals.

I suppose, in the end it comes down to who has the gun and how they treat the gun. A gun, just like anything else, can be a boon or a liability, depending on the circumstances.

@Dee ;

From multiple discussions with you on this site, as well as reading your discussions with other people, I understood one thing: you absolutely do not understand data science. You do not know how to draw correct conclusions from statistics. You just look at numbers and go with the emotions they insight in you, forgoing the logical analytic process.

@MichaelElpers provided a very reasonable explanation of why the governmental statistics does not imply what you claim it implies, and provided a reasonable plausible hypothesis that, as far as I know, is supported both by hard evidence and common sense. And all you did in response is throw in a bunch of insults.

I am disappointed. You seem like someone who can think outside the box, yet when it comes to things you are emotionally attached to, you suddenly become a little child debate-wise.

Vaulk

It's still up in the air but from what I'm able to find, there's been literally thousands of gun laws passed, added, modified and re-added since 1968 and yet here we are today...with gun violence being such a whopping tidal wave of a problem.

How do you make thousands upon thousands of legislation, regulation and ordinance changes at the Federal, State, Regional, County and Local level for a single subject and still end up here with this being such a big problem and STILL insist that adding more laws will fix it?

How many millions of gun control laws do we need until all the criminals with guns disappear?

Dee

@MayCaesar

*** From multiple discussions with you on this site, as well as reading your discussions with other people, I understood one thing: you absolutely do not understand data science.

I understand data science quiet well actually your denialism of stats along with Michael Elpers clearly demonstrates when Americans like you are faced with uncomfortable truths you attempt to discredit your opponents sources not very original is it?

****You do not know how to draw correct conclusions from statistics

I do indeed know how to draw “correct conclusions “ from stats , remember you’re the guy who stated that health care and university fees were no problem to those on minimum wage in the U S if they made wise choices and fled when confronted with actual facts , are you still sticking by healthcare care being affordable to all even though appendix removal in the U S sets one back an average 33, 000 dollars?

****You just look at numbers and go with the emotions they insight in you, forgoing the logical analytic process.

Emotions? What logical analytic process brought you to the conclusion that top class health care and university fees are totally affordable on minimum wage ......Oh wait you just made it up didn’t you?

****

@MichaelElpers provided a very reasonable explanation of why the governmental statistics does not imply what you claim it implies, and provided a reasonable plausible hypothesis that, as far as I know, is supported both by hard evidence and common sense. And all you did in response is throw in a bunch of insults.

I actually didn’t insult him I stated what he claimed was nonsense , it is mostly nonsense at least he tried , you just invent stuff to fit your skewed cherry pie image of affordable health care and university fees for all Americans which is a myth

****I am disappointed. You seem like someone who can think outside the box, yet when it comes to things you are emotionally attached to, you suddenly become a little child debate-wise.

Your disappointment is your problem not mine , regards who’s being childish you need to look in the mirror a sizable amount of Americans put of operations because they cannot afford it yet you deny such , this is all because you cannot stand any aspect of your flawed system being criticized this is in essence exactly how a petulant child acts.

Read below again , bet it goes over you and Michaels collective heads again as childish tantrums are more in line with your flawed narrative

While progress has been made toward pay parity between the sexes, the Institute for Women's Policy Research estimates that it will not be reached until 2059.

Today, on average, a woman working full time earns 80.7 cents for every dollar a man working full time earns. Additionally, women's median annual earnings are $9,909 less than men's, according to data from the US Census Bureau.

While progress has been made toward pay parity between the sexes, the Institute for Women's Policy Research estimates that it will not be reached until 2059.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Thanks. I tried, I dont know how else I was supposed it. I'm used to being called names while having little actual rebuttal from Dee, but I have a hard time not replying, even when it's not going anywhere.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Thanks. I tried, I dont know how else I was supposed it. I'm used to being called names while having little actual rebuttal from Dee, but I have a hard time not replying, even when it's not going anywhere.

You were give stats which contradicted your position you don't like it , that's your problem not mine

You went the same way with me and others on the abortion debate you and @MayCeaser seem to think your opinions should be accepted all because yous say so, sorry but I'm not a yes man but yous now have each other to agree with each other

I didn't call you names I said you talk nonsense the veracity of my words can be verified by you and @MayCeaser childishly refusing to acknowledge my piece that gives graphs demonstrating the pay gap in the U S will not be fully closed until 2059 ,instead of addressing this the two of yous ignore the stats and turn it into a personal attack on me , sad but typical

John_C_87

billbatard said:

Statistics indicate that a gun in the home will not protect you , and that strict gun laws will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study

It makes it longer not harder for a criminal to get a gun. The guns they do get are much harder to trace and are often home made. Been there, done that.

John_C_87

We have already been through the stage of criminals building their own guns. Keep in mind statistic do not add the threats made by civil lawsuits from people who by negligence of due increase the harm from public shootings to others.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Your source...institute for women's policy research institute...not exactly an unbiased source, and maybe you should actually read what they are saying.

For one this article does a terrible job at explaining how they came up with these numbers. Also at the bottom it states: "Projection is based on the ratio of women’s to men’s earnings among full-time, year-round workers aged 16 and older."

Like I've been telling you for the past 5 posts, they aren't taking into account anything but the median wage of men and women in the U.S. The "wage gap" they are talking about is only comparing the disparity in income median income between men and women. Also displayed by the 3 articles cited at the bottom of the study, which when you click all cite median income earnings. Men and women work in different career fields for example like I stated earlier men dominate the top 5 earning career fields while women the bottom five...that is a fact. Men also in general work more dangerous jobs, are more willing to relocate, work overtime this all contributes to men making a higher overall median income in comparison to women.

An actual wage gap compares the earnings of men and women working in the same job, with the same experience, education, location, ect. and sees if there is a disparity...the conclusion is there is not.

This article is a perfect example of displaying my initial point that statistics can be manipulated into making false claims. When using the term "wage gap" people believe you are comparing earnings of those working the same job, experience, ect. as they should because that makes the most sense. Obviously there will wage gaps between engineers and social workers, that is not an unfair wage gap. The article comes up with a conclusion that is not expressed in the stats. What they could claim is that there is a trend showing that the median annual earnings between men and women are trending to be equal by 2059, but not that there is a wage gap existing between men and women working the same jobs.

Does this not make sense? If it doesn't please explain where my thought process is wrong.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

It doesn’t make sense at all , you seem to think that only your stats are accurate and you dismiss and attempt to discredit anything that appears to challenge your flawed narrative . Business insider also disagrees with your assessment no doubt they are also in error like anyone else who has the temerity to challenge your reinterpretation of valid stats just to keep your fairytale alive ...... https://www.businessinsider.com/gender-wage-pay-gap-charts-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Exactly what May was talking about. You just say I'm wrong, but can't back it up. You have provided no logical explanation for why my justifications were wrong. You just keep posting sources that state the same flaws I've already presented to you. Business insider again justified using median annual earnings.

Here a the statements they make:

1. According to data from the US Census Bureau, the average gender pay gap in the United States is around 19.3%, meaning that a woman working a full-time, year-round job earns 80.7% as much as her male counterpart earns.
*Again just comparing median income, nothing else.

2. Cities show an even bigger discrepancy, especially for people of color
*Again just comparing median income. Also funny that cities would show an increase in wage gap as cities are generally all liberal. Why do liberal towns have an increase in wage gap?

3.Overall, black and Hispanic women face the biggest pay gap when compared to white men

*Its just comparing annual income again not the jobs people are working...Are we racist only against blacks and hispanics...why do Asians earn more than whites?

4. Women with children gain no salary boost, while men with children are rewarded

The only statement they made that held validity. Not sure the solution for this though, as taking maternity leave does apply extra pressure and risk to the company...unless you aren't important or weren't really doing anything that leaves a void.

5. Women's earnings are lower than men's over the course of a lifetime

* Again who cares there not working the exact same jobs. Different jobs earn different wages.

6. The number of women promoted to the highest levels within companies reveals unconscious biases.

*The only basis they have for this is that there are more male leadership than female, they didn't take into account what men were doing to earn those positions, or if there is a larger pool of men to choose for those roles. How many men start up businesses in comparison to women?

Not necessarily false, but not enough evidence to be proven.

...

So let me ask you yes or no questions on your previous article to make it easier on you.

Did it or did it not base its "wage gap" predication solely on median income?

Can you understand why comparing median income for the entire population is not the same as comparing income of people for the same job?

Can you provide one source that actually compares the earnings of men and women working the same job with the same experience.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****Exactly what May was talking about.

Right ,but May like you thinks those on minimum wage in the U S should find university fees and healthcare totally affordable with “ wise choices” all this is stated based on denying facts in favour of a flawed personal narrative

****You just say I'm wrong, but can't back it up.

I’ve backed it up with hard facts , you’re the one who seems to think that your opinion pieces are fact because you say so , you state abortion is murder even though no one in your country is jailed for aborting proving your inability to accept facts from fiction

****You have provided no logical explanation for why my justifications were wrong.

I have as in several pieces now from American sources you as usual provide zilch

***You just keep posting sources that state the same flaws I've already presented to you.

Yes I know stats from American sources are wrong because you say so , yet not one source to back your nonsense up yet again

****Business insider again justified using median annual earnings.

But median wage is generally considered to be a more accurate reflection of the 'average' wage because it discounts the extremes at either end of the scale. How do you and May not know this

****Here a the statements they make:

1. According to data from the US Census Bureau, the average gender pay gap in the United States is around 19.3%, meaning that a woman working a full-time, year-round job earns 80.7% as much as her male counterpart earns.

*Again just comparing median income, nothing else.

Read above

****2. Cities show an even bigger discrepancy, especially for people of color

*Again just comparing median income. Also funny that cities would show an increase in wage gap as cities are generally all liberal. Why do liberal towns have an increase in wage gap?

You mean the wage gap that you deny exists?

****3.Overall, black and Hispanic women face the biggest pay gap when compared to white men

*Its just comparing annual income again not the jobs people are working...Are we racist only against blacks and hispanics...why do Asians earn more than white?

Well you’s have a history regarding blacks or do you deny this also?

****4. Women with children gain no salary boost, while men with children are rewarded

The only statement they made that held validity. Not sure the solution for this though, as taking maternity leave does apply extra pressure and risk to the company...unless you aren't important or weren't really doing anything that leaves a void.

You totally avoided answering this again instead we get your personal opinion

***/5. Women's earnings are lower than men's over the course of a lifetime

Again who cares there not working the exact same jobs. Different jobs earn different wages.

So what ? Gender wage gap is a given in the U S that’s why you’s have laws against something which you keep claiming doesn’t exist , JFK was the first to put such laws into action as he recognised gender wage disparity in the U S .....But what would he know

****6. The number of women promoted to the highest levels within companies reveals unconscious biases.

*The only basis they have for this is that there are more male leadership than female, they didn't take into account what men were doing to earn those positions, or if there is a larger pool of men to choose for those roles. How many men start up businesses in comparison to women?

Right , yet you have no basis for your assertions except your personal opinion which to be honest is never backed up by anything

****Not necessarily false, but not enough evidence to be proven.

Enough evidence for me and legislators in your country

****So let me ask you yes or no questions on your previous article to make it easier on you.

Did it or did it not base its "wage gap" predication solely on median income?

Median wage is the best was way to demonstrate wage disparities exist this is something you didn’t even realise

****Can you understand why comparing median income for the entire population is not the same as comparing income of people for the same job?

Can you understand by using median wage stats gender wage gap in the U S is a given?

****Can you provide one source that actually compares the earnings of men and women working the same job with the same experience.

Why would I want to do such when you don’t even understand how wage disparities and median wage is calculated? This is recognized by your government’s response to something you totally deny exists