Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (868588)	6/27/2015 5:54:57 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1579682

>> everybody should know at least one person who had done that. Most people know zero. In fact, most people don't know someone who knows someone who knows someone... You just have to love the scientific mind. This is how we got Warmism.

To: combjelly who wrote (868588)	6/27/2015 6:31:59 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579682

I know several people just in my extended family who have used firearms defensively. None of them had to shoot a human being. Warding off would be burglars, shooting a violent pitbull that killed one pet dog and wounded another, warding off a would be attacker ..... etc. Letting a would be criminal know you're armed will deter a lot of crimes. everybody should know at least one person who had done that. Most people know zero

To: combjelly who wrote (868588)	6/27/2015 7:15:08 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 1579682

Nice work...........you haven't heard from Shorty yet.....he'll say his kid's professors have all used their guns to ward off bad guys dozens of times........

To: combjelly who wrote (868588)	6/29/2015 3:43:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579682

Taken at face value, that would have meant that close to 1% of the population was using guns defensively every year. Unless you assume that some small population was supremely unlucky, everybody should know at least one person who had done that. Close to 1 percent per year doesn't imply everyone would know about it. There would be some concentration in terms of defense use, also not everyone would talk to all their friends and family about it, let alone more distant acquaintances. Both factors would be greatly increased by the fact that during the time period for the study it was more difficult to legally carry around a gun in many places, so fewer people would do so, and the defensive use would be more concentrated, also fewer people would talk about it. No carrying around a gun legally is much easier (witch would reduce the concentration), and crime is lower (which would reduce the need for defensive use). There is some reason to think some of the cases considered defensive use were false positives, there would also be false negatives (as pointed out by the quotes in my last post). Hard to say how many of each but even if the estimate was too high by a factor of 10 that would be a lot of defensive use.