The gun control supporters are unbelievable with some of the arguments they make. I’m not talking about the blatantly dishonest arguments, like about magazines holding ten rounds being dandy, while ones holding eleven rounds are baby killers. I’m talking about when they fail to do some basic math on their own assertions:
Regulation efforts have failed as courts hold the 2nd amendment to permit virtually anyone a gun, allowing 25% of the population to threaten the remaining 75%. Unequivocally, people have the right to self-defense, however, just 1.5% of the population has used guns for this purpose while over 23,000 die and 52,000 were maimed in 2010.
Even assuming those statistics are correct, which they are not, the United States, as of the 2010 census, has 308 million people. If 1.5% of them have used a firearm for self-defense, that represents 4.62 million people. Assuming an average life expectancy in the US of 78 years, that would average out to about 59,230 self-defense cases with a gun every year, and that’s without weighing the fact that children are typically not permitted to own or carry guns under most circumstances. That sounds like a great case for private gun ownership, then, if you ask me. This is more evidence the gun banning crowd doesn’t think much about what they are saying.
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant 1.5% of the 25% that own guns, that still works out to 1.155 million people who’ve used guns defensively.
I guess they were told there would be no math.
Using their numbers (granted they are BS) doesn’t that also mean that one in 20 gun owners have used their firearms in self defense.
Sounds pretty good numbers to me.
(25% of the population/1.5% of the population using for self defense=1in 20)
I’m still hung up on the 25% vs 75%. WTF is up with that? If I sniffed it, would it have that fresh from the colon smell?
If he’s threatened by me then he needs to get his meds adjusted.
Since when does possessing a gun equal ‘threaten’? They’re making some serious accusations there. What a bunch of morons.
“This is more evidence the gun banning crowd doesn’t think.”
Fixed it for ya.
What’s neat is he does seem to get one point correct, the 2nd Amendment is not set in stone, and can be repealed the same as prohibition of alcohol.
What he fails to realize is why this hasn’t happened, and instead athoritarian safe-havens have neutered or destroyed the 2nd Amendment on the state or local level.
Because repeal of the 2A has NEVER been possible in US history, so the gun-banners have been forced to cheat.
blatantly dishonest arguments, like about magazines holding ten rounds being dandy, while ones holding eleven rounds are baby killers
They actually believe that >0 is too many rounds for us plebes to have, but they realize that’s a non-starter. The real goal is to get some number, any number, of rounds on the books, then they can legislate it down after the next tragedy.
SO can we now cite, ad infinitum, “according to reputable gun banners, you are 4 times more likely to defend yourself with a gun that you are to be killed by one”?
Cuz their side would ride a quote like that into the earth for decades.
“just 1.5% of the population has used guns for this purpose while over 23,000 die and 52,000 were maimed in 2010.”
Is that “1.5% of the population” the number for 2010, or the total to date.
The former sounds a bit high, the latter sounds way too low.
Let’s readjust the presentation: “just 1.5% of the population has used guns for this purpose, while over 0.0077% die, and 0.017% were maimed in 2010.” Sounds like a pretty big advantage to me. Orders of magnitude, they call it.
“Math is hard, let’s go banning.”
Notice the publication date…