I'm not dwelling on anything. That PSA was from YOUR side.silverscreenselect wrote: People like you choose to dwell on the least likely situation (an intruder intent on causing bodily harm)
True, most households don't have gun incidents of any sort. But would you purchase a medicine that 90% of the time had no effect, 8% of the time had a harmful (even fatal) effect, and 2% of the time helped?BackInTex wrote:I'm not dwelling on anything. That PSA was from YOUR side.silverscreenselect wrote: People like you choose to dwell on the least likely situation (an intruder intent on causing bodily harm)
Besides, statistically speaking, since you brought up statistics via 'least likely', the most likely scenario of having a gun in a house is that no one gets shot. No one. Ever. Yet YOU dwell on one of the least likely scenarios that someone is shot, by accident.
Every time one of the gun crowd brings up the subject, it's always a scenario in which a law abiding citizen is set upon by a person or persons whose sole intent is to cause grievous bodily harm and will do so unless stopped by the would-be victim or someone in close proximity.BackInTex wrote:I'm not dwelling on anything. That PSA was from YOUR side.silverscreenselect wrote: People like you choose to dwell on the least likely situation (an intruder intent on causing bodily harm)
No but, but depending on what I needed it for I probably would if it only had a fatal effect .000005% of the time.silverscreenselect wrote:True, most households don't have gun incidents of any sort. But would you purchase a medicine that 90% of the time had no effect, 8% of the time had a harmful (even fatal) effect, and 2% of the time helped?BackInTex wrote:I'm not dwelling on anything. That PSA was from YOUR side.silverscreenselect wrote: People like you choose to dwell on the least likely situation (an intruder intent on causing bodily harm)
Besides, statistically speaking, since you brought up statistics via 'least likely', the most likely scenario of having a gun in a house is that no one gets shot. No one. Ever. Yet YOU dwell on one of the least likely scenarios that someone is shot, by accident.
Your reasoning processes (and those like you, who unfortunately, are many) are why tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, crack dealers, and Las Vegas stay in business.BackInTex wrote: No but, but depending on what I needed it for I probably would if it only had a fatal effect .000005% of the time.
Your "90% of the time had no effect" is not true, as that 90% had exactly the desired/sought effect of peace-of-mind and security.silverscreenselect wrote:Your reasoning processes (and those like you, who unfortunately, are many) are why tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, crack dealers, and Las Vegas stay in business.BackInTex wrote: No but, but depending on what I needed it for I probably would if it only had a fatal effect .000005% of the time.
A false peace of mind. I sleep better at night knowing we don't have a gun in the house. And I've faced about as deadly a situation as possible and survived. If I had a gun I might well not be alive today or might have suffered a serious injury.Estonut wrote:Your "90% of the time had no effect" is not true, as that 90% had exactly the desired/sought effect of peace-of-mind and security.silverscreenselect wrote:Your reasoning processes (and those like you, who unfortunately, are many) are why tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, crack dealers, and Las Vegas stay in business.BackInTex wrote: No but, but depending on what I needed it for I probably would if it only had a fatal effect .000005% of the time.
I wonder if the parents of that 12-year-old boy felt the same way.BackInTex wrote:A lion in a cage at a zoo lives on average 10 years longer than one in the wild.
You can have the cage. I'll take the Serengeti.
I posted this before, but people like BiT don't like to actually read facts that challenge their macho fantasies. Workplaces that allow guns are almost 7 times as likely to have a worker killed on the job as those that prohibited all weapons. Workplaces that allow guns are almost 5 times as likely to have a worker killed on the job as those that prohibit guns but allow other weapons.silverscreenselect wrote:If you'll look at the report I posted yesterday from a security company, it indicated that workplaces with a no guns policy had substantially fewer deaths that workplaces without such a policy. I'll post it again for those who prefer Wyatt Earp fantasy to reality:themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Why"?are gun crimes going up or down as more citizens are armed?
Compared to workplaces that prohibited all kinds of weapons, workplaces that allowed guns were 6.8 times as likely to have had a worker killed on the job; this increase in risk was statistically significant (95% confidence interval of 3.5 to 13).
In contrast, workplaces that prohibited guns but allowed other kinds of weapons were only 1.4 times as likely to experience an increase in the risk of having a homicide, which was statistically insignificant. The risk of workplace homicide was still 4.8 times higher and statistically significant (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14) in workplaces that allowed guns. The authors concluded that, regardless of their intent, employer policies allowing guns on the job seem to increase the risk of fatal violence in the workplace.
Enforcing a no-weapons policy for employees as allowed by law is a fundamental component of establishing effective [anti-violence] countermeasures. Weapons policies should be written, made known to all employees, and consistently enforced. Employer policies prohibiting firearms have been shown to reduce the incidence of homicide in the workplace, and they demonstrate a commitment to safety.
Establishing a gun-free workplace policy for clients and visitors as allowed by law is another positive step. In states that permit concealed weapons, setting such a policy may require posting specific notices to inform the public that weapons are prohibited.
From what century are those workplace statistics?silverscreenselect wrote:I posted this before, but people like BiT don't like to actually read facts that challenge their macho fantasies. Workplaces that allow guns are almost 7 times as likely to have a worker killed on the job as those that prohibited all weapons. Workplaces that allow guns are almost 5 times as likely to have a worker killed on the job as those that prohibit guns but allow other weapons.silverscreenselect wrote:If you'll look at the report I posted yesterday from a security company, it indicated that workplaces with a no guns policy had substantially fewer deaths that workplaces without such a policy. I'll post it again for those who prefer Wyatt Earp fantasy to reality:themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Why"?are gun crimes going up or down as more citizens are armed?
Compared to workplaces that prohibited all kinds of weapons, workplaces that allowed guns were 6.8 times as likely to have had a worker killed on the job; this increase in risk was statistically significant (95% confidence interval of 3.5 to 13).
In contrast, workplaces that prohibited guns but allowed other kinds of weapons were only 1.4 times as likely to experience an increase in the risk of having a homicide, which was statistically insignificant. The risk of workplace homicide was still 4.8 times higher and statistically significant (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14) in workplaces that allowed guns. The authors concluded that, regardless of their intent, employer policies allowing guns on the job seem to increase the risk of fatal violence in the workplace.
Enforcing a no-weapons policy for employees as allowed by law is a fundamental component of establishing effective [anti-violence] countermeasures. Weapons policies should be written, made known to all employees, and consistently enforced. Employer policies prohibiting firearms have been shown to reduce the incidence of homicide in the workplace, and they demonstrate a commitment to safety.
Establishing a gun-free workplace policy for clients and visitors as allowed by law is another positive step. In states that permit concealed weapons, setting such a policy may require posting specific notices to inform the public that weapons are prohibited.
There's statistics about violence in the homes as well but it will take a bit more work for me to find them (which won't matter since BiT will just ignore them anyway).
And the mortality rate for women carrying a child to term is considerably higher than the mortality rate for those getting an abortion.
lots of fun by the amazon reviewers
Excuse me for resurrecting an old thread, but this new incident happened less than 2 miles away:jarnon wrote:This story will interest both BiT and SSS. It happened a few miles from my home.
D.A.: Gunman was offended by hospital's 'gun-free' policy
Despite the hospital's gun-free policy, the police and Dr. Silverman's bosses were grateful that he had a gun and used it. Imagine the outrage if he had been fired!
On the other hand, how did Plotts, with a 20-year history of mental treatment and felonies, get a gun?
Here's one cop who wasn't so lucky:jarnon wrote:Excuse me for resurrecting an old thread, but this new incident happened less than 2 miles away:jarnon wrote:This story will interest both BiT and SSS. It happened a few miles from my home.
D.A.: Gunman was offended by hospital's 'gun-free' policy
Despite the hospital's gun-free policy, the police and Dr. Silverman's bosses were grateful that he had a gun and used it. Imagine the outrage if he had been fired!
On the other hand, how did Plotts, with a 20-year history of mental treatment and felonies, get a gun?
Police: Gun owner saved cop from attack by kids
But he was not likely shot by a licensed gun owner, but a criminal who would have that gun regardless of laws. He was probably shot by someone who had previously committed crimes against folks who did not resist him out of fear for their own lives.silverscreenselect wrote: Here's one cop who wasn't so lucky:
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local ... /80230290/
Are the school's officers unarmed? Do they not have Tasers or pepper spray?jarnon wrote:Excuse me for resurrecting an old thread, but this new incident happened less than 2 miles away:jarnon wrote:This story will interest both BiT and SSS. It happened a few miles from my home.
D.A.: Gunman was offended by hospital's 'gun-free' policy
Despite the hospital's gun-free policy, the police and Dr. Silverman's bosses were grateful that he had a gun and used it. Imagine the outrage if he had been fired!
On the other hand, how did Plotts, with a 20-year history of mental treatment and felonies, get a gun?
Police: Gun owner saved cop from attack by kids
I'm wondering how the story would have played out if some of the kids had been armed. --BobBob Juch wrote:Are the school's officers unarmed? Do they not have Tasers or pepper spray?jarnon wrote:Excuse me for resurrecting an old thread, but this new incident happened less than 2 miles away:jarnon wrote:This story will interest both BiT and SSS. It happened a few miles from my home.
D.A.: Gunman was offended by hospital's 'gun-free' policy
Despite the hospital's gun-free policy, the police and Dr. Silverman's bosses were grateful that he had a gun and used it. Imagine the outrage if he had been fired!
On the other hand, how did Plotts, with a 20-year history of mental treatment and felonies, get a gun?
Police: Gun owner saved cop from attack by kids
Connecticut must have a gazillion more education dollars than we do. Our school district was rotating which schools were going without school buses for a brief time.jarnon wrote:Yes, I'm extending this topic again, but I couldn't believe this headline:
Teacher arrested for carrying a gun at a middle school in Newtown, Conn.
This may be perfectly normal in Texas, but they're a lot more gun-shy in Newtown. And the schools there already have armed guards.
