Guns can increase potential for gun related stuff

I personally hate the way stats are portrayed. For example, the "study" claims an increase of 50% and the less informed read that and think "Oh no! 50%! We have to do something!" when in all reality it could be something like it changes from .02% to .03%. Of course, saying you have a .03% chance of risk doesn't help the agenda, does it?

My favorite comedian is Bill Burr and he has a bit on wanting to buy a gun. He says "I know it's dangerous. You put a pool in your backyard you immediately increase your odds of drowning in your backyard. Couldn't do that before, but now you step on a rake, in you go."

Belonging to a gun forum makes you 95% more likely to spend your money on more guns.

bassjam said:

Belonging to a gun forum makes you 95% more likely to spend your money on more guns.

Click to expand...

Oh Lord, quoted for truth !

Breaking into my home increases the persons chances of dying of a gunshot about 100%

The stat is really quite useless without correcting for 'lifestyle'. I'll bet that number is far lower if you correct to remove cases where a member of the household is involved in felony criminal activity.

While I don't remember the stats but I was once in a lecture where we were given the stats for lung cancer rate in the biker community, It was substantially higher than non-motorcycle riders.
The guy then asked so who here belives Harley's cause lung cancer? No one
Then he asked, who here believe that motorcycle riders smoke at a higher percentage than non-bike riders. Most agreed the cigarettes had more to do with the cancer rate than the Harley.

Owning and driving a car makes it more likely that you will die in a traffic accident. Yet, we drive cars because of the undeniable benefits. Many things in life involve a balancing of risks vs. benefits. To me, the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks (and I minimize the risks by following sensible safety and security rules). On the other hand, sky diving is a sport I don't participate in because, to me, the momentary thrills don't outweigh the risks.

Some of the people that tout these gun statistics seem to think that we can live completely risk-free lives. Can't be done, and even if it could be done, it would lead to a very boring existence.

Owning just about anything will increase you or your kids chances of being injured or dying from it. Literally anything that could kill a person will qualify - a pool, a bicycle, a motorcycle, sharp kitchen knives, a kayak, a car, a truck, electric blankets, a gas oven, a dog, a lawnmower. If you live in a house with stairs you are probably 50% more likely to fall down the stairs and break you hip or something worse.

pm8675309 said:

http://www.azfamily.com/story/35376...-hazards-for-kids-adults-alike?autostart=true

"One recent study indicated that having a gun in the home can increase by 50 percent the likelihood someone in that home will die from a gunshot wound."


haha, this is funny to me.

Having a rhino as a pet can increase by 50 percent the likelihood someone in that home will die from a rhino attack.

Click to expand...

If this was true wouldn't up to 1/2 of gunowners be dead or have someone in their household die by gun?

No, it means that you take the risk of someone dying from a gunshot wound, which for academic purposes we will assume is .04%.
You take that .04%, divide by two and get .02%. This is half (50%) of the "risk" at the beginning.
You add that .02% to the .04% you get at the beginning, and get a likelihood of death from a gunshot wound at .06% for having a gun in the home.

Gun in the house, .06% chance of dying from gunshot wound.
No gun in the house, .04% chance of dying from gunshot wound.

*Numbers were invented off the top of my head, and especially chosen for their ease of use!
Pardon my lack of skills in writing a math problem. I have never written a math book, nor do I claim to be a mathematician (I probably made some stupid mistake in my figuring anyway...)!

Now, does that mean that your chances of dying some other way (say, from a stab wound from the guy that broke into your house) are the same? No. It means that one statistic is in view here. Just like the pet rhino comment...

HOWARD J said:

Breaking into my home increases the persons chances of dying of a gunshot about 100%

Click to expand...

Thereby substantially decreasing your and/or your loved one's chances of dying at the hands of someone who broke into your house.

And automobiles are the number one cause of highway fatalities. Statistics get twisted according to the whim of who does the twisting.

When I read this thread title my first thought was that having a gun increases your potential to acquire more gun related stuff. I have never yet bought a gun where I did not need to buy a holster, or a new optic, or ammo, or magazines, or speed loaders, or etc., etc. etc.

In my case, just having gun stuff has led to more guns. I hate to admit it, but I have actually purchased firearms for no better reason than that I found a 1/2 box of ammo laying around and nothing to shoot it in.

Using statistics in a manner like the article does means that I can say with complete justification that mothers are the most dangerous threat to children in the world.

Looking at the statistics of accidental drownings in a pool or tub, Mom wasn't doing her job. Driving? Mom. Allowing her children to associate with others or go play? Mom. Food poisoning? Mom. Chldren shot in the home? Did Mom allow safety training? Ad infinitum.

If the legal system actually considered who was in custody of children at the time of death, judges would place children in the hands of the adult male as a consequence of divorce since it would be much safer. According to statistics.

But we don't do that or even bring it up. There's some old saying about how statistics don't lie and liars quote statistics.

Here is my favorite quote about statistics: Statistics are like bikinis ,ni that, what they show is interesting, what they hide is critical.

I don't know where that came from...but it fits.

Mark

My favorite quote about statistics:

"Many use statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp post, more for support than for illumination."


Kinda like the anti-gun authors that pen a lot of the garbage they put out as news these days.
.

Tirod said:

that mothers are the most dangerous threat to children in the world.

Click to expand...

Well, childbirth does lead to a 100% chance of death.
Only question is when & how.

Unlike guns and holsters; one gun usually leads to several holsters. And rugs. And ammo handling devices. Then someting to store all that in.

What does the percentage look like if you specify "legally owned firearm"?

In addition to manipulation of actual statistics, always question the source, the actual raw data. In advertisements we are told something like, e.g., "every 14 seconds a package is stolen from a front porch," or "Every year X% of [some kind of] students are victims of the crime of ABC." Or 57% of all plumbers over the age of X are XYZ." When the actual source of many such quoted statistics are researched, the research ends at a no-data dead end. It is an undisputed fact (I heard it from a guy who read it) that 47% of all quoted statistics have no reliable identifiable source (and I've heard as high as 54%, but don't quote me). Always ask,"Says who?"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. The Boxer, Simon & Garfunkel
Ha! That's a pretty darned good signature line for this thread, LawHoc.

Well it looks like I won't be around much longer. With all the guns I have, I could die any minute. I guess I better go buy another gun because it could be my last.
I have three kids. The youngest is 13 and can load and unload most of the guns I have. He has his own AR15 that he helped build. He's not scared of guns, but he does respect them and does not pick one up without permission.
Curiosity killed the cat and the kid too. Kill curiosity first and save the kid.
Oh! I bet more kids drowned in pools in Arizona last year then those from guns.

I've heard that as high as 97% of statistics are made up on the spot! Your friend was apparently grossly understating things, LawHoc! I've actually never heard that low. Again, don't quote me though!

Deep South: whether as an intentional smoker or not, motorcycle people must be breathing more car exhaust than most car drivers.

Could be a direct biker/lung cancer relationship? Imagine being stuck for a while in the I-10 tunnel in downtown Mobile AL at rush hour.

This thread has proven my wife to be correct. I AM getting old and cranky, because I don't care what they have to say about a hobby they have no interest of participating in.

But, I could read an entire thread full of quotes about statistics. Those are some funny stuff right there! Any typos from here on out will be immediately blamed on the cold, crusty coffee that will forever be entombed within the keyboard.