Pointing out that many mass shooters obeyed anti gunners gun laws....offensive....

[2aguy]

More from the studuy.........

Another way of assessing how serious these incidents appeared to the victims is to ask them how potentially fatal the encounter was. We asked Rs: "If you had not used a gun for protection in this incident, how likely do you think it is that you or someone else would have been killed? Would you say almost certainly not, probably not, might have, probably would have, or almost certainly would have been killed?" Panel K indicates that 15.7% of the Rs stated that they or someone else "almost certainly would have" been killed, with another 14.2% responding "probably would have" and 16.2% responding "might have."[96] Thus, nearly half claimed that they perceived some significant chance of someone being killed in the incident if they had not used a gun defensively.

It should be emphasized that these are just stated perceptions of participants, not objective assessments of actual probabilities. Some defenders might have been bolstering the justification for their actions by exaggerating the seriousness of the threat they faced. Our cautions about sample censoring should also be kept in mind-minor, less life-threatening events are likely to have been left out of this sample, either because Rs forgot them or because they did not think them important enough to qualify as relevant to our inquiries.

If we consider only the 15.7% who believed someone almost certainly would have been killed had they not used a gun, and apply this figure to estimates in the first two columns of Table 2, it yields national annual estimates of 340,000 to 400,000 DGUs of any kind, and 240,000 to 300,000 uses of handguns, where defenders stated, if asked, that they believed they almost certainly had saved a life by using the gun. Just how many of these were truly life-saving gun uses is impossible to know. As a point of comparison, the largest number of deaths involving guns, including homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths in any one year in U.S. history was 38,323 in 1991.[97]

 

[Pogo]

More evidence that M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion and/or dishonesty. Usually you get the package deal.

Nobody wants to make it harder to exercise a "right". I think what they want is to make it harder to exercise a fantasy. Specifically that comic book cartoon shoot-em-up violence fantasy that we get indoctrinated with from infancy. Wailing about "right to arms" to defend mass shooters is a flaming cop-out. It ain't about "right to arms". It never was.

They already have. In NYC I have to spend over $800 of my own money, and prove to the NYPD I have a "need" to get a concealed carry permit.
Even for a home permit the cost is over $400 and it takes months to get one. Meanwhile a retired cop has his own CHECKMARK to pass most of the restrictions, and of course, buddies of the politicians can get bypassed through the system.

How is that not "making it harder" to exercise my rights?

It may be, in effect -- my point is that isn't the intent.
The poster posted, quote, "they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms" --- which speaks of intent. And the intent he posits is a blatant strawman.

Obviously it is neither a "right to arms", nor any infringement thereof, that is killing any innocent bystanders. He's deliberately misstated the issue because he can't address the real one. And I called him on it.

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

No, I know no such thing and I see no evidence thereof. If you think you have a case, make it already.

Nice dodge, there, dickless.

I'm not the one proffering an idea he can't back up, am I?

​

Try to come armed next time, blank-boy.

 

[Brain357]

More from the studuy.........

Another way of assessing how serious these incidents appeared to the victims is to ask them how potentially fatal the encounter was. We asked Rs: "If you had not used a gun for protection in this incident, how likely do you think it is that you or someone else would have been killed? Would you say almost certainly not, probably not, might have, probably would have, or almost certainly would have been killed?" Panel K indicates that 15.7% of the Rs stated that they or someone else "almost certainly would have" been killed, with another 14.2% responding "probably would have" and 16.2% responding "might have."[96] Thus, nearly half claimed that they perceived some significant chance of someone being killed in the incident if they had not used a gun defensively.

It should be emphasized that these are just stated perceptions of participants, not objective assessments of actual probabilities. Some defenders might have been bolstering the justification for their actions by exaggerating the seriousness of the threat they faced. Our cautions about sample censoring should also be kept in mind-minor, less life-threatening events are likely to have been left out of this sample, either because Rs forgot them or because they did not think them important enough to qualify as relevant to our inquiries.

If we consider only the 15.7% who believed someone almost certainly would have been killed had they not used a gun, and apply this figure to estimates in the first two columns of Table 2, it yields national annual estimates of 340,000 to 400,000 DGUs of any kind, and 240,000 to 300,000 uses of handguns, where defenders stated, if asked, that they believed they almost certainly had saved a life by using the gun. Just how many of these were truly life-saving gun uses is impossible to know. As a point of comparison, the largest number of deaths involving guns, including homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths in any one year in U.S. history was 38,323 in 1991.[97]

Not very definitive, but even that is saying only 15%.