What is the smallest caliber you trust to protect yourself?

[npaull]

Please provide statistics to support this statement. And, please tell us "...more likely..." than what? A Popsicle, a rifle, a mud pie?

In your comment in the thread "Has Obama really attacked the 2A?", you stated that, "This paranoia 'they're going to take my guns!' is a frightening and puzzling phenomenon that I've just never understood."

Combined with the above statement, this leads me to believe you either don't own firearms and are opposed to them, or that you're in complete denial that there are powerful people in the US, with the President at the front of the charge, who would remove or change the 2nd Amendment to further anti-gun agendas. You seem to say that our signing the UN small arms treaty and the appointment of Eric Holder as the US Attorney General is no indication that Obama would like to end our individual gun rights.

Please answer these questions. How do you substantiate the statement that you're more likely to hurt yourself or someone you don't intend to with a handgun, and compared to what? Are you a gun owner? Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment as written? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment as written guarantees the individual's right to bear arms?

This website:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

Provides numerous citations of scientific articles supporting what I've said about overestimates of self-defense with gun possession vs underestimates of accidental harm (links along the left provide authorship and publication of specific studies). It will undoubtedly be criticized immediately as part of the liberal agenda against guns etc etc and then discounted, but it is in fact one of the better scientific sources examining this question.

As I have said in numerous posts: I am a gun owner, I am a hunter, I support gun ownership, I don't think there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership, and I don't think EVERY gun debate needs to be about confiscation vs possession.

I own guns to hunt. I think the idea of owning guns to protect yourself is simply not supported by the evidence for the overwhelming majority of citizens. That doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to carry side arms. For the most part, I do. But I actually don't think it's sensible based on the evidence.

You're right about one thing - I do deny that there are a significant number of people in power - the president among them - who want to "take away the 2nd Ammendment." I think that is a gross overstatement.

[pianoman9701]

So how do you explain us signing away our rights by joining the UN small arms treaty? And, how do you explain the appointment of Holder to Attorney General when he's so blatantly anti-gun?

[npaull]

So how do you explain us signing away our rights by joining the UN small arms treaty? And, how do you explain the appointment of Holder to Attorney General when he's so blatantly anti-gun?

1) We haven't joined the UN small arms treaty. It hasn't even actually been written or finalized yet. We may not end up joining it, and there's NO WAY you can know right now what may or may not be in the final treaty, because it's still being developed and won't actually be discussed until July of this year. This is a scare tactic. We've expressed a limited and conditional potential support for doing so provided a whole list of provisions are met. So far it's still in the discussion phase. But even if we were to join it (unlikely given that it'd need a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate plus presidential approval), it wouldn't "take away the 2nd Ammendment." International treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. This is settled law, there's just no way around it. The treaty itself concerns international exchange of firearms. It is not involved in the intra-US sale of guns, nor could it be (there is no legal mechanism by which an international treaty could create national laws for the US that supersede constitutional law, let alone the Bill of Rights). The only threat to the 2nd Ammendment would come from a new Constitutional Ammendment revoking the 2nd ammendment (there is absolutely NOTHING in the works like this, and it's virtually impossible to do anyway), or by a really radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Ammendment by the Supreme court. This seems unlikely, as pretty much everyone agrees that the 2nd Ammendment is totally settled case law. What gets argued about are specific particulars about types of weapons, etc, not the validity of the Ammendment overall. See this link for more (there are a multitude of other places that discuss this):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

2) In regards to Holder, I'm guessing there may have been one or two other things/issues that got thought about besides his general stance towards guns in his nomination. It seems a little simplistic to think that the thought process was Holder = no guns = good. I'm guessing the nomination process was more comprehensive than that. I don't argue that you and he disagree on gun issues - merely that I think it's unlikely he was nominated BECAUSE of his stance on guns. There's just no evidence for that.

[GrainfedMuley]

[quote author=npaull link=topic=97881.msg1268511#msg1268511 date=13372773
 I think the idea of owning guns to protect yourself is simply not supported by the evidence for the overwhelming majority of citizens.
[/quote]






Where in the hell do you live? If you live anywhere close to Puget Sound I am sure you have heard about the rash of home invasions. In those invasions how many of those home owners were armed? How many became a nonvictim because they were ready to defend themselves and there property? If we were like Switzerland and EVERY house in the country was armed, how many home invasions would there be?

[pianoman9701]

Thank you for answering.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on Holder. Besides the President, he's the highest law enforcement professional in the land and is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Yet, he's been very vocal that he disagrees with perhaps the one amendment which protects the rest. This, to me, is a conflict. How can you swear to uphold something with which you disagree?

[FC]

npaull, if you would like some good statistics to look at and general information regarding ownership and carrying of firearms you ought to give this book a read (it's free).

http://books.google.com/books?id=B1TqrNK3OkAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Alchase]

Please provide statistics to support this statement. And, please tell us "...more likely..." than what? A Popsicle, a rifle, a mud pie?

In your comment in the thread "Has Obama really attacked the 2A?", you stated that, "This paranoia 'they're going to take my guns!' is a frightening and puzzling phenomenon that I've just never understood."

Combined with the above statement, this leads me to believe you either don't own firearms and are opposed to them, or that you're in complete denial that there are powerful people in the US, with the President at the front of the charge, who would remove or change the 2nd Amendment to further anti-gun agendas. You seem to say that our signing the UN small arms treaty and the appointment of Eric Holder as the US Attorney General is no indication that Obama would like to end our individual gun rights.

Please answer these questions. How do you substantiate the statement that you're more likely to hurt yourself or someone you don't intend to with a handgun, and compared to what? Are you a gun owner? Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment as written? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment as written guarantees the individual's right to bear arms?

This website:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

Provides numerous citations of scientific articles supporting what I've said about overestimates of self-defense with gun possession vs underestimates of accidental harm (links along the left provide authorship and publication of specific studies). It will undoubtedly be criticized immediately as part of the liberal agenda against guns etc etc and then discounted, but it is in fact one of the better scientific sources examining this question.

As I have said in numerous posts: I am a gun owner, I am a hunter, I support gun ownership, I don't think there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership, and I don't think EVERY gun debate needs to be about confiscation vs possession.

I own guns to hunt. I think the idea of owning guns to protect yourself is simply not supported by the evidence for the overwhelming majority of citizens. That doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to carry side arms. For the most part, I do. But I actually don't think it's sensible based on the evidence.

You're right about one thing - I do deny that there are a significant number of people in power - the president among them - who want to "take away the 2nd Ammendment." I think that is a gross overstatement.

I just spent 10 minutes of my life wasted, wading through the link you provided to a study funded by the David Bohnett Foundation, right off thier fron page on the right side is a clincky for

"Hand Gun Control"!!

http://www.bohnettfoundation.org/programs/view/11

Handgun Control
The David Bohnett Foundation supports and encourages groups that promote the goals of reduction and elimination of the manufacture and sale of handguns in the U.S.

The statistics about gun use and availability are alarming:

about one quarter of adults in the US owns a gun (Criminology of Criminal Justice);
268 people in America die each day from gun violence (Center for Disease Control);
67% of the 16,272 murders in 2008 were committed with firearms (FBI);
every minute, eight new firearms are produced in the US (ATF);
guns in the home are four times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting than to injure or kill in self-defense (Journal of Trauma).
Groups and institutions that educate the public or seek to make public policy on the local, state or national level for gun control and elimination are encouraged to seek funding.

view full grant listing for this programRecent recipients in this program area:
Gun Free Dining Tennessee (Dec 6, 2011)
Legal Community Against Violence (Nov 15, 2011)
Women Against Gun Violence (Nov 15, 2011)
Media Matters For America (Nov 15, 2011)
Heeding God's Call (Nov 15, 2011)
Violence Prevention Coalition (Nov 15, 2011)
University of Chicago Crime Lab (Jun 14, 2011)
States United To Prevent Gun Violence (May 15, 2011)
UCLA / Hammer Museum (Mar 28, 2011)

Got money to bet every one of those support Obama?

LMAO

 

[npaull]

Thank you for answering.

No problem. Thank you for being civil. We'll have to agree to disagree on some elements of this, but that's OK.

Sorry to semi-hijack the thread. I'll bow out now.

[blacklab-123]

40 smith & wesson , have it on me all the time, it leaves a nice hole.............

[runamuk]

did anyone actually read the original post  it was kinda a joke, haha funny stuff....

[superdown]

 

did anyone actually read the original post  it was kinda a joke, haha funny stuff....

I thought they would never notice.

[CAMPMEAT]

My wife and I both carry 9mm but I would trust any gun vs. having no gun.

Best answer hands down, Partial quote " I would trust any gun vs. having no gun " unquote.

[DeerThug]

Ok so besides the original post ...

When I was a kid an elderly guy shot a home intruder with a 22 once and dropped him in his tracks.  Just down the road from where I lived.  ended up that it was a drunk native that came home to the wrong house....  no charges fi led.

Then as a teenager I worked in the orchards with a REAL biker criminal.  He had been shot in the lower cheek with a 44 mag and twice with a 12 ga buckshot while on a bike driving down the highway.   Plus the crash on his bike.  It was over drugs and a girl.  He was really messed up  with a ton of scars.  but was otherwise normal.

It is just like hunting.
It is all about shot placement..

[huntnphool]

 5.7x28mm

[Button Nubbs]

That 5.7 sounds like a really cool round