Robbed last night/Becoming a target

[AR]

AlexxT wrote:

Click to expand...

AlexxT wrote:

I was responding to what was written.  You (?)  wrote that suicide or death by gunfire is more likely in a home with a gun.  That is different than what you just wrote.  You are changing your argument.

Click to expand...

I'm not changing anything.  I was responding to someone else, then you responded to me, then I responded to what you wrote.  There is no inconsistency anywhere.

AlexxT wrote:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  I’m smarter and I follow the rules very strictly.

Click to expand...

Well, it's good that you acknowledge that.  Like I said, everyone thinks that.  Maybe you're right and maybe you're not.   It's definitely your prerogative to believe that.   And it's at least a tenable position, as it is possible.  The weird thing is that people seem to think that because the many studies that have anti-gun conclusions all have some flaws in them, that somehow justifies that guns will be beneficial for them.  That kind of sounds like what you're doing below.

AlexxT wrote:

Did you read that article?  They only count the use of the gun successful when a perpetrator was shot.  So brandishing the gun or shooting and missing don’t count, nor do incidents in which the perpetrator was shot but not later apprehended and connected with a crime.  This was poorly designed, I suspect intentionally so.

Click to expand...

I already said that one could find problems with the study and a lot of those things are difficult to accurately track.  The problem is that if these kinds of things are really significant we should see studies that actually show gun benefits.  At least for some subset of the population. So far in this thread, only one has been quoted, and it is the subject of significant criticism, some of which is published in peer-review journals.

[RogueDadMD]

Pretty much everything you mention is either shooting, killing, or the threat to do them. What did clay pigeons ever do to you?

Collectibles aren’t a purpose. I can start a collection out of land mines. That doesn’t change the purpose of the land mine.

I did not however say there is no legitimate reason to own a gun. But the legitimate reasons involve shooting or killing (including hunting) or making someone think you will do one of those things. Guns themselves serve no purpose in and of themselves besides those reasons. A knife can do all of those things on your list, but has legitimate reasons to exist outside of them.

[AR]

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

Pretty much everything you mention is either shooting, killing, or the threat to do them. What did clay pigeons ever do to you?

Collectibles aren’t a purpose. I can start a collection out of land mines. That doesn’t change the purpose of the land mine.

I did not however say there is no legitimate reason to own a gun. But the legitimate reasons involve shooting or killing (including hunting) or making someone think you will do one of those things. Guns themselves serve no purpose in and of themselves besides those reasons. A knife can do all of those things on your list, but has legitimate reasons to exist outside of them.

Click to expand...

You should have just asked him to go on.  I think the continuation of that list would have had some even better than "collectibles".

[RogueDadMD]

spiritrider wrote:

I find it rather amusing that a supposedly intelligent well educated physician who is certainly well-versed in Epidemiology and probably uses the results of it every day whether they realize it or not. Would allow their obvious biases to completely ignore the fundamental scientific requirements of validity, precision and bias, control groups, etc… missing in these so-called “studies” (thinly veiled propaganda). In the numbers of “children” killed by gunfire, neglect to acknowledge that the vast majority are teenage gangbangers. In the numbers of people killed by “someone they know”, neglect to acknowledge that the criminals, drug dealers and gangbangers (often one in the same), wait for it… know each other. An in this particular case, compare just the number of deaths of home owners vs. criminal perpetrators. First, with the classic Red Herring logical fallacy of including suicides. Then by ignoring the orders of magnitude of defensive gun uses that dwarfs the actual occurrences resulting in the death of the perpetrator.

Click to expand...

Honestly not sure if you are referring to me or someone else, but rather than find your comment amusing, I am more astonished at the ignorance behind your blatant generalizations and general disregard.

A lot of the people that you callously write off as "gangbangers" and whose deaths/murders you therefore legitimize and thus disregard, were not actually themselves out killing people before they were shot and killed.  The availability of guns also helps perpetuate the violence.  If those guns weren't available and they were forced to do battle with knives, a lot fewer of them would be dead. As someone who has taken care of a lot of teenagers who have been shot, I can tell you that quite a few were not criminals, and many of the ones with checkered pasts were not violent.

But if you're going to call out the quality of the studies, please go show me the IRB that is going to approve the randomized trial where you intentionally give a bunch of guns to some kids and knives to others to see what happens.  A good scientist also knows that while RCTs are the "gold standard", they are not in fact a requirement for good science, and that you use the best available data you have to infer what you can.

It is ridiculous to ignore suicides that are enabled as a result as a gun in the homes.  You are selectively picking data to make one side look better in doing so.  If the goal is to determine lives saved vs deaths caused by keeping a gun in the home, suicides from those guns count just as much as criminals who are shot.

[AR]

I just thought that post was an elaborate troll.  He opens criticizing others for "obvious biases" and then he goes on about "gangbangers" like that's some sort of precise, scientific classification.

[RogueDadMD]

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Signal for a rescue

Click to expand...

This one is a stretch -- I admit that I'm not the outdoorsman you are, but I do not believe a regular gun is commonly used as a rescue signal.  If you mean a flare gun, sure.  But that's like saying guns can be used to extinguish a fire then pulling out your super soaker water gun.

[Hank]

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Signal for a rescue 

Click to expand…

This one is a stretch — I admit that I’m not the outdoorsman you are, but I do not believe a regular gun is commonly used as a rescue signal.  If you mean a flare gun, sure.  But that’s like saying guns can be used to extinguish a fire then pulling out your super soaker water gun.

Click to expand...

Nope, the rule of three for calling for help. Three sharp blasts of a whistle, three fires on a ridgeline, three shots from a firearm, etc.

The idea is to let a passerby or nearby boat or plane know that you aren’t just cooking over a campfire or hunting or target shooting, but actually in distress and in need of immediate aid.

Nowadays lots of people don’t have direct experience with hunting, hiking, backwoods camping, and so forth. The idea that there are places outside of cell phone coverage and further than 15 minutes from professional medical treatment seems foreign to a lot of people. Nevertheless, a distress signal repeated three times still is invaluable in times of need, especially in the backcountry or at sea.

[RogueDadMD]

Hank wrote:

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Signal for a rescue 

Click to expand…

This one is a stretch — I admit that I’m not the outdoorsman you are, but I do not believe a regular gun is commonly used as a rescue signal.  If you mean a flare gun, sure.  But that’s like saying guns can be used to extinguish a fire then pulling out your super soaker water gun.

Click to expand…

Nope, the rule of three for calling for help. Three sharp blasts of a whistle, three fires on a ridgeline, three shots from a firearm, etc.

The idea is to let a passerby or nearby boat or plane know that you aren’t just cooking over a campfire or hunting or target shooting, but actually in distress and in need of immediate aid.

Nowadays lots of people don’t have direct experience with hunting, hiking, backwoods camping, and so forth. The idea that there are places outside of cell phone coverage and further than 15 minutes from professional medical treatment seems foreign to a lot of people. Nevertheless, a distress signal repeated three times still is invaluable in times of need, especially in the backcountry or at sea.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.  Though I have to ask — do most back country hikers and campers carry regular firearms in general let alone for this purpose?

[AR]

Hank wrote:

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Signal for a rescue

Click to expand…

This one is a stretch — I admit that I’m not the outdoorsman you are, but I do not believe a regular gun is commonly used as a rescue signal.  If you mean a flare gun, sure.  But that’s like saying guns can be used to extinguish a fire then pulling out your super soaker water gun.

Click to expand…

Nope, the rule of three for calling for help. Three sharp blasts of a whistle, three fires on a ridgeline, three shots from a firearm, etc.

The idea is to let a passerby or nearby boat or plane know that you aren’t just cooking over a campfire or hunting or target shooting, but actually in distress and in need of immediate aid.

Nowadays lots of people don’t have direct experience with hunting, hiking, backwoods camping, and so forth. The idea that there are places outside of cell phone coverage and further than 15 minutes from professional medical treatment seems foreign to a lot of people. Nevertheless, a distress signal repeated three times still is invaluable in times of need, especially in the backcountry or at sea.

Click to expand...

So the gun is for when you're out playing with your guns and you forget or lose your whistle?  If three of the whistle is the same thing, I'd just keep one of those on my keychain, around my neck, etc.  Especially if I was going out in the middle of nowhere.  Seems like something a responsible gun owner would do, which of course everyone is.

I'll admit, I might be misunderstanding you because I'm definitely one of those people that you allude to in your last paragraph.

 

[Jaqen Haghar MD]

When I was young, I lived in a rural area where there was a gun in most houses, unsecured, including my own.  Everyone around had guns.  I had my own shotgun by age 14 and went off into the woods alone all the time with it.  I never knew of anyone that was shot or killed by a gun, and so begins my own personal bias.

These days, most of the people I know live in my urban environment, have never fired a gun, are fearful of these death spewers, and have learned most of what they know about firearms from movies and the popular press attitudes.  That is their bias.

I find it comforting that I read somewhere that the average home firearm encounter involves a little less than two shots.  After that, the intruder tends to head for safer ground if he still can, because he wasn't after gunfight on the home field, just some quick cash.

For this improbable occasion, I prefer to keep a 12-gauge Remingington 870 Police Magnum with assorted shot sizes around (old school and basic style of course).  Nothing says "The party is over" like a fast 'chu-chunk' followed by a thunderous "BOOM!" and ringing ears.  You can adjust the pellet size for your desired wall penetration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[G]

Jaqen Haghar, MD wrote:

When I was young, I lived in a rural area where there was a gun in most houses, unsecured, including my own.  Everyone around had guns.  I had my own shotgun by age 14 and went off into the woods alone all the time with it.  I never knew of anyone that was shot or killed by a gun, and so begins my own personal bias.

Click to expand...

Exactly.  Can't remember if I wrote it here (it almost feels that gun discussions come up as frequently as those about SWRs) or was talking about it at work.  As a kid, literally everyone that I knew had a gun(s).  My childhood shotgun lived in the (unlocked) mudroom with a box of shells on the shelf above it!

But it wasn't til med school that I met somebody who knew somebody who got hurt/killed by a firearm.  (Civilian.)

For those that think firearms are only for killing:  I have a shotgun that I have never shot (family heirloom); perhaps I should get rid of that along with my great grandma's toothpick holder which I also don't use.  I have a pistol that I commissioned to basically become a work of art.  I have another shotgun whose sole purpose in life is to turn little discs of clay into little clouds of clay-dust.  In college, I had a rifle whose sole purpose in life was to put little holes in the center of a piece of paper. Could I use these for homicide or suicide?  I suppose, but my fancy kitchen knife is probably more likely.

[ENT Doc]

I don't think this is fair. He's essentially arguing for basic interpretation of information. Saying someone is a gangbager doesn't disqualify his comments. Is the term non-specific? Perhaps. Would you rather he said gang members instead? Anyhow the point that I believe he is making is that the degree to which a study's subjects and questions sought apply to your situation is the degree to which you can believe it for your situation. The studies mentioned don't provide the raw data so you can conduct your own analysis, unfortunately. Or maybe that's the point (as he alluded to).

[The White Coat Investor]

AlexxT wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

The spread isn’t the unsafe thing. The unsafe thing is when the bullet penetrates walls, which a shotgun is much less likely to do. The spread is probably a good thing if you’re trying to hit a moving target. 

Click to expand…

The spread is about 1 inch per yard of distance.  So at 8 yards, you have a spread of about 8 inches (Probably more like 12+ inches in my actual experience on paper) .  That will make it impossible to hit the bad guy without hitting a family member nearby, which you could do with a handgun equipped  with a laser, at least at the range.  In a real situation, who knows.  It’s that lack of precision that I was alluding to.

You are correct about penetration, but hollow points in a handgun probably won’t penetrate too far.  They might, but bullet selection can minimize that if you really worry about it.  It’s a mixed bag.  Sometimes you need some penetration if someone has taken cover.  A handgun is better than a rifle in that respect, and in my not-so-expert opinion is a good compromise.  If you want to avoid penetration completely you can always use frangible rounds in a handgun.

The White Coat Investor wrote:

What I can’t figure out is why you think a shotgun is slow to cycle. Mine is semi-automatic. 

Click to expand…

 

The noise from an indoor shotgun blast will probably cause more hearing loss.  I keep electronic ear protectors near my bedside gun safe.  If I have time and remember I would put them on.  I’m not likely to remember.

 

Click to expand...

Now that's bizarre. The last thing I'm worried about if there is an intruder in my house is my hearing. It's really hard to effectively and safely hunt with hearing protection in. 3 more rounds fired without protection isn't going to make a difference.

[The White Coat Investor]

AR wrote:

Hank wrote:

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Signal for a rescue

Click to expand…

This one is a stretch — I admit that I’m not the outdoorsman you are, but I do not believe a regular gun is commonly used as a rescue signal.  If you mean a flare gun, sure.  But that’s like saying guns can be used to extinguish a fire then pulling out your super soaker water gun.

Click to expand…

Nope, the rule of three for calling for help. Three sharp blasts of a whistle, three fires on a ridgeline, three shots from a firearm, etc.

The idea is to let a passerby or nearby boat or plane know that you aren’t just cooking over a campfire or hunting or target shooting, but actually in distress and in need of immediate aid.

Nowadays lots of people don’t have direct experience with hunting, hiking, backwoods camping, and so forth. The idea that there are places outside of cell phone coverage and further than 15 minutes from professional medical treatment seems foreign to a lot of people. Nevertheless, a distress signal repeated three times still is invaluable in times of need, especially in the backcountry or at sea.

Click to expand…

So the gun is for when you’re out playing with your guns and you forget or lose your whistle?  If three of the whistle is the same thing, I’d just keep one of those on my keychain, around my neck, etc.  Especially if I was going out in the middle of nowhere.  Seems like something a responsible gun owner would do, which of course everyone is.

I’ll admit, I might be misunderstanding you because I’m definitely one of those people that you allude to in your last paragraph.

 

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't carry a gun if that were the only purpose. Too heavy. Plus, you run out of ammo. Whistle much better that way. But you gotta admit the sound of gunfire goes a lot further than most whistles.

Have I taken a gun hiking? Yes. And I know of a lot of people that should have.

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Bear-mauling--429297643.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/04/us/bear-kills-woman-and-her-son-in-alaska.html

https://www.adn.com/wildlife/article/troopers-respond-bear-mauling-penguin-ridge/2014/07/07/

[The White Coat Investor]

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

Pretty much everything you mention is either shooting, killing, or the threat to do them. What did clay pigeons ever do to you?

Collectibles aren’t a purpose. I can start a collection out of land mines. That doesn’t change the purpose of the land mine.

I did not however say there is no legitimate reason to own a gun. But the legitimate reasons involve shooting or killing (including hunting) or making someone think you will do one of those things. Guns themselves serve no purpose in and of themselves besides those reasons. A knife can do all of those things on your list, but has legitimate reasons to exist outside of them.

Click to expand...

You ever tried to hit a clay with a knife?

Seriously. This is a sport. It's in the Olympics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zS69Fm5npI

So is Biathlon.

https://www.olympic.org/news/double-for-dahlmeier-and-golds-for-oberg-and-kuzmina-in-the-women-s-biathlon

The vast majority of the rounds I have fired in my life were not aimed at a living thing.