Even More Stupid People with Their Stupid Guns....

Sorry. I misread.

[James Cagney voice]You dirty rat![/James Cagney voice]

Two weeks ago I was a cute kitty.

My math doesn't suck. Maybe my opinion does but you're the one recalculating over and over. (But you did admit your math sucks)

I'm not sure what the number you've finally settled on is but since it is far beyond even 5%, you've made the case that the incidents are statistically rare.

This is a question of risk assessment.

Since there is no way on earth that we can be protected from all risks; all danger we need to examine each threat in terms of its likelihood.

Driving in a car is, statistically, more dangerous than gun ownership.

No one has even dreamed of outlawing cars even though there have been incidents where drivers have used their cars as weapons. (A few Islamist attacks come to mind).

We have a constitutionally protected right to own guns. If someone doesn't like that, change the constitution, and then you can move on to knives.

Yeah, your math sucks. The Census Bureau reports that there are in excess of 113,000,000 households in the United States. The Congressional Research Office reports that there are firearms in one third of those households--so 5% of that would be in excess of one million, eight hundred thousand and 10% of that would be in excess of three million, seven hundred thousand. So your math sucks, and you're unwilling to acknowledge it.

You are peddling a false analogy. The purpose of firearms is to kill or wound. the purpose of automobiles is transportation. Reducing the speed limit and enforcing it, as an example, is known to reduce highway deaths and injuries. That's risk assessment in application. Restricting access to assault rifles, the only purpose of which is to inflict casualties rapidly, would be a similar application of risk assessment.

You're just peddling right-wing propaganda, and using a phony-baloney, false analogy to support it.

Hmm.. In 1993, there were 1.3 million crimes committed with guns.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

I've long ago realized you are incapable of backing down. I didn't offer up a mathematical equation I offered an opinion based on two variables 5% and 10%. If you want to go on and on about how you were right in the first place, have at it.

You're introducing your personal opinion into risk assessment.

Whether by gun, auto or honeybee, people are dead.

Were you looking in the mirror when you said that? Irony is a b*tch, karma kicks ass.

As for the rest of that, i can only assume that your have become irreversibly delusional.

Whatever...

I just saw your post. I would point out that the statistics upon which i war relying were for registered firearms, and your statistic probably involves a lot of illegal or otherwise unregistered firearms.

However that may be, Finn's false analogy compares automobiles, which are not intended to kill or injure people, to firearms, which have no other purpose.

Claim: Toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists in 2015.

World’s Worst Customer Injures Himself and 4 Others After Accidentally Firing His Gun at a Restaurant

Once, a long time ago and far away, Marquette was one of the places I thought of for college. Luckily, we didn't have the money.

'Stupid guns'?
Guns are inanimate.
They are not stupid.

Still, a proper usage of the adjective 'stupid'.
An inanimate thing can be regarded as stupid.
To illustrate - your posts are stupid.

Reminds me of a thread I saved today, about the word stupid.

Not particularly about guns, but the word 'stupid' and it's presence in our discourse, and the effects of that:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-war-on-stupid-people/485618/

Edgar, despite our differences I will acknowledge that you certainly seem to be someone of above average intelligence who is fairly well read. I think though that perhaps what you read about political issues is limited to ideological sources with which you feel an association.

Surely you are aware that there are literally millions of law abiding gun owners in this country who have never used them to harm anyone.

There are even a few gun owners who have prevented the nuts in your cartoon from killing people

It's easy to find articles on these folks but not necessarily in MSM outlets. I did manage, though, to find this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

I have owned guns myself and have no agenda to get them taken away. My interest is getting away the guns the mass shooters favor. Stopping mass slaughter is more important to me than mollifying some weenie who thinks we are out to get him if we exert some control in this area.

That cartoon, then, doesn't reflect your agenda.

It just doesn't.