“Statistics show that the majority of people who buy a gun for self-defense are less than 1 percent likely to actually use the gun for its intended purpose. That means placing certain restrictions on laws regarding conceal-and-carry permits would not affect the safety of the general population.” – Emily Peterson in Gun laws are to increase safety, not take guns [via sctimes.com]
Fire extinguishers are seldom used for their intended purchase…
Another brainless child who ignores the facts that the majority of murders using a gun are committed by gang members, who didn’t obtain the weapon legally. More importantly, relying on the delusion that black swan events like school shootings can somehow be prevented by more regulation.
Beat me to it. I came to the comments section to make the extinguisher point.
Many things are bought to protect us from things we cannot bear to withstand alone.
Commonly, we only have to use our health insurance and maybe our car insurance. Our homeowners insurance, fire extinguishers, fire alarms, carbon monoxide alarms, and personal defense weapons aren’t needed for years at a time.
Maybe we should just get rid of them, if we’re as brainless as Emily is.
Ha. Me too. See also: seat belts.
I think this young woman needs to toss her life jacket aside and go jump in a lake.
Too many people don’t realize that risk is made up of two factors: likelihood and consequence. Yes, the likelihood of being attacked is incredibly low, but the consequence (potential loss of life) is sufficiently high that we can still justify wanting to take precautions. (Similarly with the fire extinguisher argument above).
In 30 years of home ownership, I’ve never made a homeowner’s claim. Yet, if my insurance lapsed today, I wouldn’t sleep well until the policy was re-instated. A stupid statement by someone who really thinks she is smart and knows what’s best for the masses.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, of all places:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/30/murder-trial-begins-in-death-of-homeless-man-hit-with-fire-extinguisher-2/
Bah, me too.
Extinguishers, homeowner’s insurance, that 20 year old bottle of syrup of ipecac, etc. etc.,
Thank you, I’ll continue to keep all of the above. (And get a few new bottles of syrup of ipecac…ick)
It’s not the odds that are important. It’s the stakes!
Brain cells are also not used by a large percentage of the population….
Somebody else knows how to “ring” a pig. Must be a lot of farmers in the world.
I dunno about farmers, but there sure are plenty of nose-ringed pigs among the prog-left herd.
It’s all part of the plan to provide more work for dentists. The studs must play holy hob with their front teeth enamel…
Somebody has a problem with that whole ’cause-and-effect’ concept.
People waste a lot of money on lotto tickets for longer odds than “less than” 1 in 100.
Yeah … I’d think firearm ownership would tend to provide a sort of “herd immunity” to a community. If enough people have one, it changes the risk/reward ratio for criiminals.
Most of the murders with firearms involve gang members who are for all practical purposes universally armed. Now people carrying will reduce victimization of law abiding individuals such as mugging, but that is not going to have much of an effect on the overall body count.
Agreed .. but that’s something her letter never even touched on. My guess is she couldn’t care less about the gang violence related murder rate, except when her SJW community trends in that direction.
But it likely won’t, because then there might be a call to actually, you know, visit one of “those” neighborhoods.
“Also, if someone is not a felon or dangerous criminal, and would pass any background checks, they have no moral reason to object to any extensive checks to insure safety of the general population.”
Apart from pronoun confusion, sure he/she/they does/do. It’s called the principle of the thing. This completely apart from the fact that it would neither insure nor ensure the safety of the general population.
Also, if someone is not a felon or dangerous criminal, and would pass any background checks, the State has no moral reason to prevent them from carrying a firearm. There fixed it for her
“Apart from pronoun confusion,…”
Slightly off-topic, yet related, we have some cheerful SJW ‘pronoun-bullshit’ news to brighten your day:
‘His Majesty’: Student single-handedly defeats an army of gender neutral activists
“The University of Michigan recently announced a new initiative to allow students to select their preferred gender pronouns through an online service.
It was designed as a way to help professors tell the difference between the guys and the gals and the zi’s and the zir’s.
“Asking about and correctly using someone’s designated pronoun is one of the most basic ways to show your respect for their identity and to cultivate an environment that respects all gender identities,” wrote Provost Martha Pollack in an email to students and faculty.
It’s all part of the university’s effort to foster an “environment of inclusiveness.”
The university actually created a “pronoun committee” to ensure that faculty members “play a vital role in ensuring all of our community feels valued, respected and included.”
It was in that spirit of inclusivity that Grant, a Fox News Campus Associate, decided to have a bit of fun.
He logged into the university’s computer system, clicked on the “Gender Identity Tab” and promptly declared his new designated pronoun.
“You could put anything you wanted into the system,” Grant told me. “So I did.”
And so it was in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Sixteen that Grant Strobl came to be known as “His Majesty” – Noble Ruler of the Wolverines.
Yes, good readers – Grant Strobl changed his designated pronoun to “His Majesty.”
“’His Majesty’ is not a pronoun, but neither is zir or zi,” His Majesty told me. “None of them are recognized in the English language. Everything is completely arbitrary now. You can identify as anything you want.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/30/his-majesty-student-single-handedly-defeats-army-gender-neutral-activists.html
I saw that earlier. It was both brilliant and effective.
Thanks for posting that. Harvard of the Midwest / People’s Republic of Ann Arbor is in my backyard but I missed out on that one.
That’s the argument of statist and fascists everywhere: if you have nothing to hide or aren’t doing anything wrong, what’s the problem?
Just like if I have nothing to hide, why would I mind if the police did a spot check by searching my house or if the government has access to all my phone calls or e-mails? The problem is that I am a free citizen intending to conduct lawful business that does not call for government or police interference/intervention in my transaction.
Am I correct in thinking ‘use’ means both firing the gun and causing injury or death to the offender, and not simply brandishing?
Or you could go with 1% of the population per year.
Travis, did you mean “displayed”, “drawed” or “presented” a firearm instead of “brandishing” ?
I prefer bear. it’s the correct term use in the LAW OF THE LAND……^_^
Agree. I “use” my carry gun around 18 hours a day, every day. So if what she says is true, you other guys are slacking.
Wow, that’s some messed-up thinking. Out of about 2.6 million deaths last year, only about 30k involved firearms. That’s about 1 percent. Therefore we need make no effort towards reducing deaths by firearms, as it would make no difference in public safety.
Zing !!!!!!
You, sir, win the Intertubez today!
How ’bout out of 400 million guns in the country, the number used in crime of any kind over a 10 year period, rounds to zero, so there is no problem, forget the whole thing.
30k 2/3rds are suicides the other 1/3rd almost all are criminal activity accidental death is a really small number
that could be improved through education not legislation.
look at those two cops one shot the other “accidentally” even though they had years of “training”.
I’m surprised that it’s as many as 1%. To put it more simply (for the Emily Peterson’s of the world), that means 1 out of every 100 gun owners has had cause to use their weapons in self defence. If 50 million people own guns for self defense, that means 500,000 have used them in self defense! And the Emily Petersons of the world want to create 500,000 rape, murder or assault victims with the stroke of a pen……. To me that’s the definition of tyrant!
I would go with vapid idiot on this one. not tyrant.
I mean, she is just a mugging/rape/home invasion away from becoming a gun toting conservative anyways. A undiluted dose of reality is all that is required.
if your assaulted it’s because you have too much freedom. people who don’t know you at all know what’s best for you
even if you aren’t smart enough to understand your betters. …..^_^
on a side note how did they get that pig to smile for that picture?
The percentage rule reflecting herd mentality of anti-gunners.
November 9th. Gimme some of that chunk!
I work at a Gun Shop and Range and we teach gun safety classes as well as cwp classes and tactical classes. I would say 90% of all gun sales are for self-defense so I don’t know what or how they’re getting their statistical numbers but it would look like they’re getting them the same place the media gets their numbers and Hillary Clinton as well they make them up themselves.
Statistics show that 0.01% of people in the United States die at the end of gun (including suicide) a year. That means that we shouldn’t enact any gun control as efforts to lower that potential. As they are generally not going to be be felt by the public at large. Especially since the rate of people dying at the end of a gun have been steadily declining since the 90’s.
She probably thinks those glasses make her look smart.
Is it just me, or does the look on that face sort of harken back to Misery?
That movie turned me into an instant Kathy Bates fan.
And to think it was Stephen King’s (that insufferable sanctimonious prick) own fans that inspired that book.
*snicker*
Just uninformed opinion. Kinda sad when opinions escape into the world without facts.
Wow. This quote sounds less like a serious idea advanced by an educated adult, and more like one of those examples of deeply flawed arguments they use in middle school to teach students rudimentary critical thinking skills. You know, things like false dichotomy, circular reasoning, and such. Yet, she’s serious about this? Wow.
“This quote sounds … like one of those examples of deeply flawed arguments they use in middle school to teach students rudimentary critical thinking skills.”
Schools teaching critical thinking skills? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Well, private schools, anyway. Who knows what fresh hell passes for education in the public indoctrination system these days?
Let me guess, she quantifying “the intended purpose” as justifiable homicide…
So, when I was the victim of an attempted robbed years back by some BG and only had to pull my gun to defuse the situation, it wasn’t the guns “intended purpose.”
Therefore, I should’ve just killed him, right?
So, she thinks as a “white hispanic” I should’ve just killed the disenfranchised, young, black man, no questions asked… racist!
Another pretty fascist white woman who wants to take civil rights away.
Well, I’ll give you “fascist”, “white” and “woman”. Three out of four ain’t bad.
Funny … I read “pretty” as meaning “tending towards; somewhat” as opposed to “attractive.”
But I agree, three: she may be female, but I doubt I’d consider her a woman.
What is that on her lip?
A zit.
I was trying to be nice.
Usually these people are physically very unattractive.
Now if her sperm donor had learned to use a condom we would have 1 less pseudo intellectual in the world. Why are all the women trying to look like Hillary before her plastic surgery?
They want to be an empowered victim.
This, from the “if it saves one life” crowd.
Yep, the ultimate in hypocrisy/duplicity.
*triggered*
Risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence. Self defense is a low likelihood / high consequence scenario. The odds of using a firearm defense are low, but the consequences of not having one when you need it are extremely high.
For example, ask dancers at the Pulse nightclub or teachers at Sandy Hook a day before the Islamic terrorist attack or the psycho loner hit. They’d have the same worthless attitude as this young lady.
We have the benefit of hindsight. A good guy with a gun, when you desperately need one, can literally be the difference between life and death. Why do you think politicians take self defense so seriously and surround themselves with armed guards? The risk of attack, at any given time, is low but the consequences are high.
Which is it? Guns are a problem of epic proportions? or guns are so seldom used they only register at about one percent?
Why is she so keen on adding more laws to something that happens so seldom?
Both my wife and my daughter then are “1 percenters.” Both times they defended with a gun and both times police cleared them.
The “intended purpose” comment is a red herring. A invalid argument. She cannot accept any other use for a gun. No target shooting, no hunting, no collecting.
This writer is so on-the-money! We mostly use our ordnance for ballast when sailing. Hopefully, we won’t suffer a horrible boating accident before registration and confiscation can save us from ourselves.
“Gun used for self defense” – Counts: shooting someone. Doesn’t count: an assault that never starts.
These anti-some-violence folks seem unimpressed when a gun, or anything else, peacefully helps. Strange.
Well duh…dumb as a box of rocks. I’ll get rid of my seat belts,auto insurance and fire extinguisher. Oh yeah-as far as I can tell an armed cop has never used his/her gun to protect me…
Insurance is an interesting example as, not only do relatively few people have to make insurance claims (or at least, claims that are more than they themselves have paid), but that’s actually the entire basis of the insurance system! The whole reason insurance companies can afford to pay as they do is because for every member who makes a claim, there are hundreds/thousands/tens-of-thousands of members paying without making claims! If this were not the case, the entire insurance system would break down completely!
What is that, a deer tick on her lip??
My response: “So sweetheart, since I’m a male, it’s ok to ban abortion because I’ll never need one?”
Yet again, we see that it’s virtually impossible to have adult reasoning ability and be a “movement” anti-gunner.
Have you ever gotten a reply to that? Somewhere along the lines of, “No one ever died by an abortion?”
By the way, did you hear that the Chicago Cubs won the World Series?
Less than one percent of one percent of those who own fire extinguishers ever use them to put out a fire. I guess that means it’s time to start requiring classes in the safety (and chemistry) of fire extinguishers, and permits to have one, because obviously having a fire extinguisher isn’t necessary.
That a small percentage of gun owners ever need them for protection indicates that criminals are looking to avoid interactions with anyone who might have a gun. The sensible conclusion would be to raise the number of gun owners to the point that the number drops to a tenth of what it is.
Whose statistics? Mine or yours? According to my statistics there are at least, least, 50,000 Defensive gun uses each year. That is a net positive in our society.
“… That means placing certain restrictions on laws regarding conceal-and-carry permits would not affect the safety of the general population.”
Umm… what evidence do you have that such laws would do anything given the fact that statistically CCW permit holders are the least likely people to commit crimes?
Why is placing impediments to the background checked, and statistically safest part of the population such a hot shit idea? It seems to me that at best this would do nothing other than inconvenience the law abiding and at best create a situation where people who really need a gun for protection (say a violent ex situation) can’t get one in a timely manner.
This is in the running for literally the dumbest idea ever voiced.
How would prosecuting Shaneen Allen for exercising her 2nd Amendment rights kept us safe?
Comments are closed.