I found a Utube video on why you keep a gun chameberd

Warp said:

No, it isn't.

You have to realize that I already know all of this, and I already know you are lying or intentionally deceiving with your posts. I only ask to give you a chance to maybe show me something that nobody else has ever been able to before, and to be polite.

But really...I know what you keep posting is false...and I want anybody who happens upon this thread, nor or in the future, to know the truth.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I said that my personal experience isn't science. Its anecdotal. Then I posted some of the statistics involved.

I realized you don't like me, but I don't think you know what you're objecting to at this point. Kinda makes for a weak denouncement, don't you think?

Walkalong said:

In 45 years of going to those places I have never seen it. I have, however, needed a gun before.

But neither of those two facts are relevant, and neither is your argument, which is straight from the antis playbook. Have they fooled you into believing that tripe? You know, the old, you're more likely to shoot yourself than a robber/mugger etc, and you're more likely to be killed with your own gun than use it against a robber etc.

Click to expand...

I think you're falling into the trap of believing that any statistic that could be used against you must be inherently false. You are also guilty of reading what you want in my post, and not what is actually there:

I said that most of us (suburban and rural white guys) are more likely to shoot ourselves than end up in a statistically rare gun fight. And I said that to explain why some CCer's might prefer to carry chamber empty (even though I wouldn't).



I'm sorry that upsets you, but guns are dangerous and sometimes mishandled. Post a poll about people getting guns pointed at them at ranges, observing NDs, etc, and you will find plenty of fodder. But you're jumping to the conclusion that observation means that anyone who observes it thinks gun control is the solution to that problem.

I do not.

I do think that many gun owners have an unrealistic overconfidence in their abilities. The reason I mention this on a gun website, to fellow gun people, is because I think we ought to be more careful.

The guy I saw shot at a gun show could have been me or my brother who was standing next to me. I believe it was in Richmond, VA around 2001, but I've lived lots of places being in the military.

RX-79G said:

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I said that my personal experience isn't science. Its anecdotal. Then I posted some of the statistics involved.

I realized you don't like me, but I don't think you know what you're objecting to at this point. Kinda makes for a weak denouncement, don't you think?

Click to expand...

You made a simple, blanket, matter-of-fact claim. Seen here:

RX-79G said:

...

Most of us are more likely to shoot ourselves than get in a gunfight.

Click to expand...

To quote what I have already stated

"You don't need to get into a "gunfight" to benefit from having your carry gun ready to use right out of the holster."

"... I already know you are lying or intentionally deceiving with your posts."


If you are going to post an anecdote, in order to do so with intellectual honesty, it needs to be something like "the gun owners I know have shot themselves more times [with their carry gun, as a result of carrying it chambered] than they have needed a carry gun for defense"...if that is indeed the truth

RX-79G said:

Then I posted some of the statistics involved.

Click to expand...

Which conclusively proved that your statement was wrong.. so, I'm trying to figure out what exactly you are attempting to accomplish here.

Warp said:

You made a simple, blanket, matter-of-fact claim. Seen here:



To quote what I have already stated

"You don't need to get into a "gunfight" to benefit from having your carry gun ready to use right out of the holster."

"... I already know you are lying or intentionally deceiving with your posts."


If you are going to post an anecdote, in order to do so with intellectual honesty, it needs to be something like "the gun owners I know have shot themselves more times [with their carry gun, as a result of carrying it chambered] than they have needed a carry gun for defense"...if that is indeed the truth

Click to expand...

And I agree with you, which is why I authored this thread recommending another type of chambered carry:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=810149


Intellectual dishonesty? Get over yourself, guy. There was no deception, unless you just don't understand conversational English. This isn't academia, and I doubt most folks here would feel comfortable in that environment. It is a "chat board" and we are chatting.

ClickClickD'oh said:

Which conclusively proved that your statement was wrong.. so, I'm trying to figure out what exactly you are attempting to accomplish here.

Click to expand...

They don't prove anything either way - there is no system for gathering data from NDs, there is no Federal system for reporting gun accident injuries, and there is no good system for reporting defensive gun use - especially when no shots are fired. That's why the DGU estimates are all over the place.


I did not create the idea that many Americans will go their whole lives without encountering a violent attack - I have read plenty of other people on plenty of other forums opine the same.


What many of you seem to be confused about is that this isn't about gun control. I was just pointing out that some people who carry chamber empty do so because that's the way they are evaluating their odds. That isn't right or wrong, just the way they see it.

Me? I carry chamber loaded. It's a handgun, not a handsgun.

RX-79G said:

They don't prove anything either way

Click to expand...

Let's go over this again, because yes, they do in fact prove your statement was false.

RX-79G said:

The CDC lists the firearm accident injury rate as being between 14,000-19,000 per year.

Click to expand...

Let be generous to you and use the 19,000 number

Your source on DGUs said:

Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million incidents per year.

Click to expand...

Again, we will be generous to you and this time use the lowest number, 55,000.

So, explain to us again how in your mind 19,000 represents more than 55,000.

Honestly, a person with even a pinch of decency and credibility would concede that they were wrong. You provided the data that refutes your position. There is no question left.

RX-79G said:

That's why the DGU estimates are all over the place.

Click to expand...

That's why I used the absolute lowest number, 55,000, instead of 4.7 million. This is the number which is most favorable to your statement. Except, that number refutes your statement completely. By any reading of the numbers, even in the most favorable light for your position, your position is completely, totally and thoroughly refuted. No possible reading of the data supports your statement.

RX-79G said:

I did not create the idea that many Americans will go their whole lives without encountering a violent attack

Click to expand...

So? Many Americans will also go their whole lives without shooting themselves. Neither of those statements independent of fact means anything though.

ClickClickD'oh said:

Let's go over this again, because yes, they do in fact prove your statement was false.



Let be generous to you and use the 19,000 number



Again, we will be generous to you and this time use the lowest number, 55,000.

So, explain to us again how in your mind 19,000 represents more than 55,000.

Honestly, a person with even a pinch of decency and credibility would concede that they were wrong. You provided the data that refutes your position. There is no question left.



That's why I used the absolute lowest number, 55,000, instead of 4.7 million. This is the number which is most favorable to your statement. Except, that number refutes your statement completely. By any reading of the numbers, even in the most favorable light for your position, your position is completely, totally and thoroughly refuted. No possible reading of the data supports your statement.



So? Many Americans will also go their whole lives without shooting themselves. Neither of those statements independent of fact means anything though.

Click to expand...

The problem is that I said "most of us", and the membership of firearms message boards do not represent the average distribution of firearms users in the US. Ever notice that whenever some racist stuff slips out, no one says "Hey, I'm Black!" That's because the demographics of the "most of us" that I mention in my first post are people that live in low crime areas and avoid them.

On the other hand, the distribution of firearms accidents has little to do with firearms defensive use demographics, but on the amount of time people spend handling firearms. Peaceful firearms enthusiasts handle their guns out of proportion to their defensive "needs". That's because it is a hobby for us, which is why we meet on this board.

That is why I so unscientifically (but reasonably) concluded that gun enthusiasts (us) that live and work in largely low crime areas (us) are more likely to receive an injury from gun handling accidents than be in a violent crime.



I would suggest that you accept this possibility rather than trying to prove what the crime to accident ration is exclusively for the members of THR. You're going to find that to be tough, and pointless.


BUT, I was mainly observing that this commonly observed notion that you're more likely to have an accident than a gunfight is the reason for the behavior. And whether it is a statistically provable fact or not, it doesn't change the fact that it is the reason some people carry a gun with an empty chamber. People make choices all the time based on unproven or even completely mistaken ideas.

I disagree that your supposition is reasonable, and postulate that it is in fact incorrect.

RX-79G said:

Blah Blah Blah

Click to expand...

Hey, it's not our fault that you provided the statistics to destroy your own argument. That's the worst attempt at BSing your way out of being wrong I've ever seen.

RX-79G said:

Ever notice that whenever some racist stuff slips out, no one says "Hey, I'm Black!" That's because the demographics of the "most of us" that I mention in my first post are people that live in low crime areas and avoid them.

Click to expand...

I just noticed something racist slip out. Perhaps you should think about what you just wrote...


Good night troll. May the mods have mercy on your poor soul.

Warp said:

I disagree that your supposition is reasonable, and postulate that it is in fact incorrect.

Click to expand...

Okay. So what?

You aren't having a televised debate with Bloomberg. You're having a pointless argument with a fellow gun owner over whether his unprovable assertion is right or wrong in a thread unrelated to that debate.

Let's say you could prove me wrong. Does that change my point about why some guys carry chamber empty? Nope.

Let's say I proved you wrong. Is that going to change anything, anywhere in any important way? Of course not. We are gun enthusiasts talking on a gun board. No one else cares what we think.


You guys are so angry, you don't even know what you're angry about.

Whether or not "we" are more likely to shoot ourselves or use a firearm in defense is not a pointless thing.

Of course it is. You, me and everyone else who is getting so upset are all gun owners and defenders of the second amendment, having a chat on a gun board. There is no possible downside to my assertion.


You seem to be so afraid of something that you can't even stand any dissent within our ranks about gun stuff. If you put all that energy you pack into denouncing other gun owners, you could probably get something useful done.

RX-79G said:

Of course it is. You, me and everyone else who is getting so upset are all gun owners and defenders of the second amendment, having a chat on a gun board. There is no possible downside to my assertion.


You seem to be so afraid of something that you can't even stand any dissent within our ranks about gun stuff. If you put all that energy you pack into denouncing other gun owners, you could probably get something useful done.

Click to expand...

Afraid? That's what you call wanting to get the facts correct?

There is no possible downside to (wrongly) proclaiming people are more likely to shoot themselves than use their carry gun in defense?

Warp said:

Afraid? That's what you call wanting to get the facts correct?

There is no possible downside to (wrongly) proclaiming people are more likely to shoot themselves than use their carry gun in defense?

Click to expand...

No, there isn't Mr. Thoughtpolice. I am not a "trusted news source" or a policy maker. There is nothing dangerous about gun people discussing such things among ourselves.

There is something dangerous about a group of people so political that they can't discuss anything without questioning each other's loyalty.

RX-79G said:

Why don't you decide whether you want to call me a liar or not?


I've been shooting since 1983. The six incidents I can think of hand were pretty evenly distributed over that period, so about once every 5 years I saw something really screwed up happen. Does that seems wildly unlikely to you?

Click to expand...

I don't need to say it. I just stand aside and let you do all the work.

And I've been shooting since 1976.

Most of us are more likely to shoot ourselves than get in a gunfight.

Click to expand...

Welcome to THR, Mr, Sugarmann...

RX-79G said:

No, there isn't Mr. Thoughtpolice. I am not a "trusted news source" or a policy maker. There is nothing dangerous about gun people discussing such things among ourselves.

There is something dangerous about a group of people so political that they can't discuss anything without questioning each other's loyalty.

Click to expand...

As long as we are discussing how your statement about shooting yourself vs needing the gun in defense is incorrect.

You guys are so funny.


Let me be clear. It doesn't matter what the stats do or do not say. It wouldn't matter if someone could prove that guns are really, really dangerous. It is still a protected right, regardless of the downsides.

All our rights are like that - they all have downsides, but are still worthwhile. You don't have to sugarcoat everything about your rights to protect them, and you don't need to shout down your comrades in the process.


Your behavior is no different than people getting upset that someone said their Taurus is junk, or their Serpa is dangerous. We are all fans of the Second Amendment, but some of us can comfortably talk about it in a mature and open minded way. And some of you are acting like someone has blasphemed.


Who taught you to be so afraid of ideas and discourse? It's so Soviet.

RX-79G said:

It doesn't matter what the stats do or do not say.

Click to expand...

But it does.

It shouldn't, in this context, but in reality, it does. So making false claims about the stats, well, it does matter, at least enough to correct and set the record straight.



Saying the stats don't matter is akin to saying the NFA is unconstitutional.

Warp said:

But it does.

It shouldn't, in this context, but in reality, it does. So making false claims about the stats, well, it does matter, at least enough to correct and set the record straight.



Saying the stats don't matter is akin to saying the NFA is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

What you're not getting is that every stat isn't going to always prove your case or make your cause. Sometimes a few of the facts are going to run contrary to your wishes, and that doesn't mean that the cause is weak or without value.

If every gun were to be rounded up tomorrow, there would be some benefits. But that isn't the point - guns aren't about everyone being safe every moment of the day. They are about protection against tyranny and the expression of personal freedom, DESPITE the downsides of an armed society.

That is the most important thing to articulate, not your outrage that other gun owners won't pretend with you that everything is black and white.

Ok, so I'm navigating around to get my self acclimatized to the new and improved THR.
I'm also insomniac (chronic pain is a female dog).
These are the only reasons I plowed through all three pages of diatribe; and quite a lot of it was a perverse vicarious thrill in spotting the posting which closed the thread. Only it's not--go figure.

Too many triggers to make this a sensible discussion anyway. Over-inflated injury statistics a la antis; lack of uniform crime/violence/injury statistics; reliance on spuriously-edited sources--none of these are good ways to have a reasoned discussion. Forensic errors compounded upon themselves--arguments from the specific to the general; argumentum ad populum, then far too much argument, even argumentum ad infinitum.

So, let's pile all the arguments into heap, shall we.
Let's see, as a frequent gun handling group, we are, as a result more likely to have an ND.
What cannot be asserted is how many ND result in injury (and individual anecdotes cannot help us here).
Further, while crime is highest in high-crime areas (QED), and injury risk may also be assumed , per premise, to be as well, simple avoidance of those areas does not eliminate all risk. Foxes do not go to chicken coops to quarrel with other foxes, but because chickens are afoot.
The true number of defensive gun uses is not really knowable, and must needs be estimated, with all of the investigation bias that entails.

So, I'm not sure that N(total potential number of lifetime gun combats) can be solved for </> X(total potential lifetime self-inflicted gun injuries).

george burns said:

If one is so feeble that they are adpt of feel so threatned that they are going to pull that 5-10 lb trigger, "by mistake". Then they really should reconsider carrying a gun and perhaps opt for a taser or a knife.

Click to expand...

I carry guns that I feel I'm safe to handle. I can't do anything about anyone else's lack of training, understanding, awareness or decision making aside from saying "don't point that at me" or "you have the hammer resting right on the primer" or "I'm still hanging up my target! COLD RANGE, COLD RANGE!"

Moreover, I don't want any extra "gun control" measures enacted to deal with all the yahoos I have encountered over the years. I would much rather we police our own and simply tell people when they are being unsafe.

THR is one of two forums I've encountered where a Moderator was singing the praises of carrying handguns with no FPB at half cock. One of them retracted that suggestion when the dangers were explained, the other did not. This is the kind of frustrating ignorance that leads to news stories that makes us look like we aren't safe and don't care.