ST Alpha - "I'd be willing to bet that the #'s for both home invasion gun-defenses and accidental shooting deaths in the home are roughly equivalent" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 157

In response to "I think if you crunch the numbers, you could argue that the 'need' for your seat belt comes down to 'nearly zero'. " by Dr.Vermin

I'd be willing to bet that the #'s for both home invasion gun-defenses and accidental shooting deaths in the home are roughly equivalent

Posted by Will Hunting (aka kelly) Feb 16 '09, 15:49

the seat belt thing is an insurance policy vs catastrophic injury, same as a bike helmet. You use it not cuz it's likely to happen, but if it does, the risk/consequence is so great, while the 'cost' is so minor, it's stupid not to.

A home with no gun, there's zero chance of a gun-related accident and a minor risk of home invasion. A home with a gun has a much higher chance of a gun-related accident with that same minor risk of home invasion.

Responses:

the average person is in what, at least 3 accidents in their life? that's not an unlikely event. -- nm - loosilu Feb 16, 15:50 5
- Oh shit! I have 3 accidents that are going to happen still. -- nm - Redmond Feb 16, 15:51 1
  - I've been in 3 that were not my fault at all. -- nm - loosilu Feb 16, 15:54
- Every time you put it on, it's a 3 in a lifetime event. - Will Hunting Feb 16, 15:51 2
  - of course any GIVEN outing is unlikely to result in a crash. - loosilu Feb 16, 15:53 1
    - Let's not quibble over the definition of unlikely here. - Will Hunting Feb 16, 15:55

Post a message top

I'd be willing to bet that the #'s for both home invasion gun-defenses and accidental shooting deaths in the home are roughly equivalent

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.