Have MSNBC become too liberal !

[THE Bigzoman]

Thats precisely the point though. If its 100% secure then it could be to hard to actually use as defense. You could also argue that just because the people that have access to the guns are adults doesn't mean they won't accidentally or intentionally hurt their family.

True. But I don't honestly see the problem with those that choose to take that risk in good faith in exchange for security.

Not to say that there aren't other ways to protect your home. But like guns, But the alternatives stated are situational in stopping someone from harming you.

[Dispersedshadow]

You picked the spouse and raised the children....should have done a better job if you are worried about them shooting ya.

Picked the spouse at a particular point in time. People change. Not saying she won't love you forever, but best sleep with one eye open.

[Helais]

True. But I don't honestly see the problem with those that choose to take that risk in good faith in exchange for security.

Not to say that there aren't other ways to protect your home. But like guns, But the alternatives stated are situational in stopping someone from harming you.

I don't think the argument was originally that it wasn't your choice(I haven't read the entire 49 pages). Wells is simply trying to state that the chance of home invasion while a house is occupied is slim because its not a good target. So does the chance that you'll actually be able to use the gun as self defense outweigh the chances that someone will get hurt with the gun you have for protection.

[a1derful1]

Just because it works for you doesn't disprove statistics. A human as an individual is nearly impossible to predict however as a whole our behavior follows trends.

Doesn't disprove that the data is skewed by bad parenting or being an abusive spouse rather than an inanimate object.

They can't all be winners.

[helmaroc]

When did this thread become about guns in the first place. I wished guns never existed in the first place so people could just have the ultimate swords duels. Yeah that's right I went there. Guns are too easy of a tool to harm people with because you can be killed without even seeing it coming. Background checks do absolutely nothing to effect the 2nd Amendment btw so I don't see how they are possibly saying "we want to take away your guns."

[a1derful1]

Picked the spouse at a particular point in time. People change. Not saying she won't love you forever, but best sleep with one eye open.

Still not the guns fault you didn't make changes to facilitate what was happening in your house.

We die one day...if it comes at the hands of my wife, then at least I know it will be a good shot there ain't much that will matter afterwards.

[THE Bigzoman]

I don't think the argument was originally that it wasn't your choice(I haven't read the entire 49 pages). Wells is simply trying to state that the chance of home invasion while a house is occupied is slim because its not a good target. So does the chance that you'll actually be able to use the gun as self defense outweigh the chances that someone will get hurt with the gun you have for protection.

Well, I have Wells on the first slot of my ignore list so i'll have to try to address it specifically to you.

Statistics or not, a situation in which you may need to use a gun is entirely situational.

Concerning your post about what in the constitution prohibits gun registry. It doesn't. People are just afraid that a registry would lead to other policies that leads to confiscation.

People are just afraid. I kind of feel for them because there are times when I don't want to leave my house, go to partys, or other things because of the fear of what might happen. I have a general mistrust for things.

Concerning the background checks, I've read the bill and don't see why it was stopped. Was kind of upset it didn't address mental health though. Might of had a better chance at passing

[shimerra]

Doesn't disprove that the data is skewed by bad parenting or being an abusive spouse rather than an inanimate object.

They can't all be winners.

You do not understand statistics, sampling, or even a child level appreciation of probabilities.

"The data is skewed because it does not fit my world view" is not a valid critique. What substantial means do you have to attack it's credibility? Obviously the people matter but adding a gun, all else being the same(please read that multiple times so you understand) your odds of a gun related death go up.

[THE Bigzoman]

When did this thread become about guns in the first place. I wished guns never existed in the first place so people could just have the ultimate swords duels. Yeah that's right I went there. Guns are too easy of a tool to harm people with because you can be killed without even seeing it coming. Background checks do absolutely nothing to effect the 2nd Amendment btw so I don't see how they are possibly saying "we want to take away your guns."

Can there be lightsabers and the force to?

PLEASE OH PLEASE SAY YES!

[a1derful1]

You do not understand statistics, sampling, or even a child level appreciation of probabilities.

"The data is skewed because it does not fit my world view" is not a valid critique. What substantial means do you have to attack it's credibility? Obviously the people matter but adding a gun, all else being the same(please read that multiple times so you understand) your odds of a gun related death go up.

Path of least resistance doesn't change anything. Gun deaths go down, the rest go up to fill the void. What did you really accomplish?

"Same amount of ppl got murdered last year but at least none of them were done by guns!!"....uh....grats?

[Helais]

Well, I have Wells on the first slot of my ignore list so i'll have to try to address it specifically to you.

Statistics or not, a situation in which you may need to use a gun is entirely situational.

Concerning your post about what in the constitution prohibits gun registry. It doesn't. People are just afraid that a registry would lead to other policies that leads to confiscation.

People are just afraid.

Concerning the background checks, I've read the bill and don't see why it was stopped. Was kind of upset it didn't address mental health though. Might of had a better chance at passing

Of course its situational however, statistics generally shows a trend that having a gun will do more bad than good. Statistically if you play the lottery or gamble at a casino you will lose money, however, this obliviously doesn't stop people from winning big(I'm not stating that the odds of being shot are the same as winning the lottery).

Being afraid isn't a good enough reason to not do something. An amendment that would require universal background checks for gun shows and internet purchases was shot down because it could possibly lead to a gun registry that was not mentioned anywhere which could possibly lead to the government confiscating all guns.

So the lawmakers are making decision based on two huge hypothetical leaps into future even though there seems to be an overwhelming majority amongst the people for this amendment.

I guess we should ban lasers because this could eventually lead to lightsabers which would obliviously cause the rise to power of our sith overlords. Its a good thing the government is looking out for us we really dodged a blaster there.

[THE Bigzoman]

Of course its situational however, statistics generally shows a trend that having a gun will do more bad than good. Statistically if you play the lottery or gamble at a casino you will lose money, however, this obliviously doesn't stop people from winning big(I'm not stating that the odds of being shot are the same as winning the lottery).

Being afraid isn't a good enough reason to not do something. An amendment that would require universal background checks for gun shows and internet purchases was shot down because it could possibly lead to a gun registry that was not mentioned anywhere which could possibly lead to the government confiscating all guns.

So the lawmakers are making decision based on two huge hypothetical leaps into future even though there seems to be an overwhelming majority amongst the people for this amendment.

It's a risk people are willing to make.

Will have to disagree with the being afraid part though. But then again, it might be bias because of my general mistrust towards things. (Not just the government but society and people)

[Wells]

Doesn't disprove that the data is skewed by bad parenting or being an abusive spouse rather than an inanimate object.

They can't all be winners.

That's not what skewed data means. You seem to have it confused with reality.

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 07:04 AM ----------

I don't think the argument was originally that it wasn't your choice(I haven't read the entire 49 pages). Wells is simply trying to state that the chance of home invasion while a house is occupied is slim because its not a good target. So does the chance that you'll actually be able to use the gun as self defense outweigh the chances that someone will get hurt with the gun you have for protection.

They're not interested in data or statistics. It makes their action movie fantasies seem silly.

[a1derful1]

Being afraid isn't a good enough reason to not do something. .

I believe that you are right!

But....in this case, they actually did do something. They voted it down

[Wells]

I believe that you are right!

But....in this case, they actually did do something. They voted it down

They didn't vote it down. A minority of senators filibustered.

[Helais]

It's a risk people are willing to make.

The issue to me though is that generally its a risk that doesn't always affect only the people directly involved.

Will have to disagree with the being afraid part though. But then again, it might be bias because of my general mistrust towards things. (Not just the government but society and people)

I think its better to analyze why you're afraid of something. With a general distrust of society and people you could argue that with more people having guns for protection you'd be more likely any individual will be shot. This is primarily why I don't understand the people that believe more guns is the answer.

[Grizzly Willy]

Path of least resistance doesn't change anything. Gun deaths go down, the rest go up to fill the void. What did you really accomplish?

"Same amount of ppl got murdered last year but at least none of them were done by guns!!"....uh....grats?

Well, if we're going to be demanding proof, can you show that the number of deaths by other means went up?

[Wells]

The issue to me though is that generally its a risk that doesn't always affect only the people directly involved.

yeah if the only people who ever got shot by guns were the people who were stupid enough to think one was a good choice for home defense I'd really not care.

[THE Bigzoman]

The issue to me though is that generally its a risk that doesn't always affect only the people directly involved.



I think its better to analyze why you're afraid of something. With a general distrust of society and people you could argue that with more people having guns for protection you'd be more likely any individual will be shot. This is primarily why I don't understand the people that believe more guns is the answer.

Depends on what you mean by analyze.

Seeing as this is a conversation about MSNBC and has evolved into something that probably should of been confined in the gun control thread, I dont think this is the right thread to explain to you why I fear things certain things.

[Helais]

Path of least resistance doesn't change anything. Gun deaths go down, the rest go up to fill the void. What did you really accomplish?

"Same amount of ppl got murdered last year but at least none of them were done by guns!!"....uh....grats?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

Australia was a good success story of pretty heavy gun control. I think its pretty obvious that something this scale would be impossible in murica however it shows that the idea can work. If you have a reduced rate of gun deaths you probably will have a reduced rate of homicides. This isn't stating that people won't be killed by other means but it at least should make it more difficult to kill someone.