Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:24pm PT
|
Yosemite NP isn't the only national park; I always felt naked in remote Kings Canyon w/o a *piece of protection.* Double that in Yellowstone, the Tetons, or other really remote places.
A gun is simply a force multiplier, not a mystical tool of the devil. Another thread here on climbing responsibly for the protection of loved ones hasn't gotten this rabid. Think: responsible individuals vs. irresponsible individuals. It takes responsible individuals with *force multipliers* to offset the irresponsible members of society similarly loaded.
And yes, I am usually carrying. Nobody ever knows until my *force multiplier* is really needed.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:29pm PT
|
every study on guns for defense comes to the conclusion that having a gone makes you more likely to be killed by one.
oh, but that doesnt apply to any of the gun nuts in this thread, they are special, not like all those other gun nuts.
dktem--this is aother example of why people resort to making "anti-liberal" comments.
franky just made this statement up and it's absurdly wrong, as about 30 seconds of research shows. He's either lying or so reckless with regard to the truth that it's tantamount to a lie. Then some other liberal repeats it, either thinking it's true or not really caring, I don't know.
Sorry be accusatory, but I'm getting tired of some of the crap being spewed on this site and I'm going to start calling BS when I see it.
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:40pm PT
|
A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
|
|
dktem
Trad climber
Temecula
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:46pm PT
|
dktem--this is aother example of why people resort to making "anti-liberal" comments.
franky just made this statement up and it's absurdly wrong, as about 30 seconds of research shows. He's either lying or so reckless with regard to the truth that it's tantamount to a lie. Then some other liberal repeats it, either thinking it's true or not really caring, I don't know.
But exactly why are you calling franky, and "that other" liberals?
I'm really not trying to pull some sort of "gotcha" here, but you are making my point perfectly for me.
Did franky identify himself as "franky the liberal?" No.
It was you that introduced the word "liberal" when describing his comments. Sure, some have used the word "gun-nut" but that's at least specific to this issue.
Why not just call them "anti-gun," or even "incorrect" or "misguided" or even "idiots" if you want to be derogatory.
Why do you automatically use the word "liberal" for anyone with an opposing opinion? For all you know these folks may be admirers of Ronald Reagan.
The political spectrum has many facets, it is not partitioned into simple "teams."
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:49pm PT
|
Once again, if thay study has any real-world application, why do cops carry guns?
Do cops carry guns in order to have a better chance of getting themselves killed?
Franky didn't make up that study, but somebody certainly did!
|
|
JakeW
Big Wall climber
CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:53pm PT
|
Humans survived for millions of years without guns. They even extinguished entire species, including animals way scarier than bears...without guns. Since guns and other high tech crap were invented, most animals are gone, there are way to many humans, and life kinda sucks.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 07:54pm PT
|
Got to wonder about "studies".
In the Seattle Study the "researcher" looked for a city that had the highest number of accidents and suicides per justified use and drew conclusions accordingly.
Flawed methodology for sure, but was it deliberate?
YES!!!!
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:01pm PT
|
what you actually have to wonder is if that gun is really making you safer (it is not, on a statistical level).
There may be a situation where a gun would save you in an otherwise terrible situation, sure. The problem is, for each one of those situations there are more situations were your gun will cause you harm.
For gun owners, the helpless situation is so terrifying that they would rather increase their risk than face it. It is that simple. Can't blame them for being scared, the world is a scary place. (of course being scared isn't a reason to be stupid)
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:09pm PT
|
i'm shocked and awed that you used to be a cop, ha.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:34pm PT
|
what you actually have to wonder is if that gun is really making you safer (it is not, on a statistical level).
The statistics on this vary a lot. I have saved my ass with a gun, and I know the incedent is not in the statistics. This happens a lot. Whereas every accidental or domestic shooting is on the books.
For gun owners, the helpless situation is so terrifying that they would rather increase their risk than face it. It is that simple. Can't blame them for being scared, the world is a scary place. (of course being scared isn't a reason to be stupid)
I do not choose to own a gun out of fear. You are making a big judgement/assumption there about a lot of people. I think it is kind of silly to view the world as a scary place and then voluntarily go climbing, at least if you choose to climb anything serious.
I do see that there are bad things hapenning to good people all the time. It is my right and responsibility to be prepared to defend my amazing wife and myself should the need arise (maybe even my friends too ;-)
So here is the nut of it: Can you deny the rights of responsible law abiding citizens in an attempt to control the behavior of criminals and dumbasses?
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:34pm PT
|
One could say statistically that climbing gear isn't needed because statistically you won't wall. But in that rare instance you do fall, you really do need it.
Even though climbing gear is heavy, expensive and get's in the way of folks enjoying the freedom of moving over stone, they seem to grasp the value in using it. Even if many times it doesn't protect them in a fall.
My preference is to stay out of situations and locations where I have higher odds of needing a gun for protection.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:45pm PT
|
I wouldn't walk through parts of Oakland without a gun,
Man, I wouldn't drive through parts of Oakland with a gun!
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:48pm PT
|
KS, what you said makes my point exactly. The possibility of your wife being assaulted and you being powerless is so scary to you, that you are willing to accept the increased risk of gun ownership just to avoid that.
That is despite the fact that statistics say you are more likely to get killed by your own gun than save your wife with it, but at least you have a shot!!!
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 08:50pm PT
|
tolman paul, your analogy is wrong because climbing gear is essentially harmless if it goes unused, a gun on the other hand is not (used by another to kill you, or you kill yourself with it).
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 09:04pm PT
|
A gun unused isn't going to jump up of it's own volition and shoot me or a member of my family.
You can use your statistics to make yourself feel good that your abdocating your ability to protect yourself and loved one's makes "sense", but you are wrong.
I can assure that my kids are much safer because they have been properly instructed how to handle and use guns, from a very young age then if they were told they should be scared of them and hence formed an unhealth curiosity about them. I can leave a loaded gun in the house and none of the kids will touch it (I don't because I don't think that's prudent). They are also welcome to handle them after they have asked, and we both are sure that it is unloaded. They are also welcome to shoot the guns in a safe and supervised situation.
Remember, statistics lie, and liers use statistics.
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 09:12pm PT
|
Hey, whatever floats your boat. I feel safer without a gun, you feel safer with, the stats side with my view, but the chances are it won't matter one way or another.
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 09:21pm PT
|
How about my right to not be subjected to some untrained person's judgment in the use of deadly force? I don't want some gun toter decided whether or not they can shoot their gun in a place where i'm potentially in their line of sight.
If that person is specifically trained in the use of deadly force, then they are a cop, and that is ok (or at least the best we can do).
|
|
dktem
Trad climber
Temecula
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 09:28pm PT
|
Remember, statistics lie, and liers use statistics.
Be careful what you say: zeroing a sight on a weapon is an application of statistics.
I agree with your perspective on guns and kids. I plan to have the same approach with mine. It's better that they learn from me than some nitwit at school. I don't want them to think guns are mysterious. I want them to have the attitude "big deal, I can go shooting whenever I want, I just have to ask dad."
Interesting that you mention that you don't keep loaded guns in the house because it wouldn't be prudent. If you trust the kids, what's the difference? (I'm not suggesting that anyone does keep loaded guns in the house...)
I trust my kids also. But the price is too high if I'm wrong. It's trigger locks and a safe for me.
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 09:39pm PT
|
LEB, you are just simply bad at reasoning, it isn't one of your strong suits. I'm sure you are aware of that at this point in your life though.
Cars are potentially as deadly as a gun, none of the other stuff you mentioned is anywhere near. it is hard to build an explosive that would hurt someone in the next site over, and anything that could is illegal.
as far as cars go, we do have some mandatory training, not enough from my point of view. but it is much harder to kill someone with a car than with a gun. cars kill many many many more people, just because they are used more. If half the people in this country shot guns every day in places where people frequented, hundreds of thousands would die by accident.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 09:42pm PT
|
So given that motor vehicle accidents are a leading cause of death and injury in national parks, what sort of weapon do I need to defend myself against them? I take it that a handgun, rifle or shotgun would be inadequate. Stinger? IED? Bazooka? Mortar?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!