More likely to get hurt or killed while carrying a firearm? - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: More likely to get hurt or killed while carrying a firearm?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    So lab rats are 100% more likely to get cancer from Scientists then non lab rats. Warning labels should be affixed to Scientists.
    As for the really already answered your own question.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  3. Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    So lab rats are 100% more likely to get cancer from Scientists then non lab rats. Warning labels should be affixed to Scientists.
    The risk of a lab rat getting cancer caused by a scientist's actions are WAY higher than double the risk of wild or domestic rats.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    washington state
    I have some great ideas. Statistically some model cars are stolen and used in crimes so lets ban them. Statistically some kinds of knives are used to commit murder. Ban those as well. Statistically planes have been used as wepons so ban the kinds of aircraft that were used on 911. Statistically people are beaten to death so force all people to register their fists. Lets ban rental trucks because there are statistics showing they have been used in bombings. Statistics show gasoline has been used as a weapon so lets ban gasoline. Statistics show that spoons are used to eat so lets ban spoons because they help people get fat. Statistics show the back seat of a certain Senators car to be very unsafe so lets ban the back seats in cars belonging to US Senators. Lets ban all firearms so the crimminals will turn in their guns so everybody will be safe. Now if you will excuse me Im off on the yellow brick road to see the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unless a house falls on me.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    SE Florida
    Many of the factors that go into such stats are fundamentally flawed. They assume that the deaths/injuries would never have happened without a firearm present and that's just not true. Of the suicides, domestic incidents, and crimes of passion, most of those would have occured even without a gun. Somebody doesn't just decide to kill themself or their spouse, etc. just because there's a gun around. There are plenty of other ways to get the job done in the absence of a firearm. A kid in the Philly area just murdered his parents and brother....with a knife. It may be more convenient with a gun but that's about it.

    Also, how many of the people killed or injured were involved in dangerous activities, i.e. crime?? And the accidents?? I'd be willing to bet that most of those people were negligent at best or untrained idiots at worst. Social Darwinism at it's most dangerous. I'm pretty sure none of my guns are going to come alive in the middle of the night and try to kill me.......but I'll double-check the lock on my safe tonight just in case
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Parsons, TN
    Yep statistics can appear to show two different things and still be correct.

    Going to use small numbers so as not to hurt my

    Let's say one year 1000 people ride motorcycles and out of them, 200 receive head injuries from an accident.

    The next year 2000 people ride motorcycle and out them 300 receive head injuries from an accident.

    Ok..In year one 20% of people that rode motorcycles received a head injury. In year two 15% of people that rode motorcycles received a head injury.

    But if you leave out the total number of riders and only count the injuries, 200 to 300 was a 50% increase in head injuries from year one to year two. Although the over all percentage dropped 5%.

    Dang...head still hurting a bit... my main point is, you can make statistics say about whatever you just depends on what data you feed in to them (or leave out).
    “Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”

    Posting in …….
    USA Carry
    Glock Talk
    Tennessee Gun Owners
    also check
    Tennessee Laws at: Michie’s Legal Resources

  7. Thanks to all for the info

    Thanks to all for the info concerning the thread on "hurt or killed while carrying".
    Special thanks to Treo and Doc Mustang for the references. Very interesting.


  8. #17
    That antigun person and her attitude will most likely be a victim!

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    State of Confusion
    I recently read this in a newspaper editorial. I contacted the writer and provided him the stats on this. A good source for stats can be found at -->

    Those who don't read the paper are uninformed. Thosee who do are ill-informed.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    I am too old a tired to read these reports over again but as I remember it the stats are greatly skewed because a lot of the injured were gang bangers.
    So for an analogy..... If you are in the Military and carry a fully automatic weapon you are more likely to be killed or injured then if you are not carrying such a weapon. Now that is a fact.
    So let's look a little closer to this reasoning.
    If you are not required to carry such a weapon you probably are not on the front lines.
    Now looking at it this way does the first statement actually make sense?
    As good Ol' JC Hillen used to say.... "Figures don't lie but liars do figure!"

  11. #20
    So I say let those who want to believe Mr. Kellermann's stats stay unprotected in their homes. And let them stop trying to 'protect' the rest of us.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts