Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there.

You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you.

Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.

> And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.



>You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you.

What a hilariously arrogant statement.

>Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.

Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many.

>As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.

You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.


> What a hilariously arrogant statement.

Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments.

> Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control.

Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent.

Your statements are not helping your case.


>Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments.

No other statement is required to address yours because it's a naked assertion.

>Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent.

What does that have to do with the safety of my family?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: