As I say. You can all keep your guns. You like your guns (well 20 odd percent of you do). But metadata isn’t bollocks and whatever you say, you’re far more likely to use your gun on yourself than on someone else in self defence.I would say that there is so much more to the data than you bring to the table that we can't discuss it. Training, type of gun, storage, children in the home, where it is carried (if carried outside the home), etc, etc, etc... You don't know me or any of the above, so your assertion is...quite literally... bollocks! Metadata is just that...which makes it bollocks for specific conclusions, especially personal conclusions.
No, the trust issue for everyone else is still there. You totally missed the point of his last paragraph.Do they carry? If not, then the weapon is secured at home and not readily available. Ergo, the trust issue is one of home invasion...and anyone who comes into my home without permission has no trust and deserves none.
And, again, I say "Bollocks!" because, again, I say metadata is a large aggregation of data and, based on all the factors I gave you, I am an outlier in that data.As I say. You can all keep your guns. You like your guns (well 20 odd percent of you do). But metadata isn’t bollocks and whatever you say, you’re far more likely to use your gun on yourself than on someone else in self defence.
How about this “one is more likely to use it on themselves”? That way you don’t think I’m say CB is specifically.And, again, I say "Bollocks!" because, again, I say metadata is a large aggregation of data and, based on all the factors I gave you, I am an outlier in that data.
As for me "liking my guns," I like the added layer of protection they provide myself and my family, both at home and at work.
The people you need to be concerned about are the 3%, not me!
How about instead of casting aspersions, we simply stick to facts, that way it isn't personalized to anyone...including trained law enforcement personnel who carry/own guns for their own protection and that of others.How about this “one is more likely to use it on themselves”? That way you don’t think I’m say CB is specifically.
The Magna Carta is more like a bit of guidance, rather than any ossified, immutable rule. It's a deficient analogy.Err, Magna Carta?
It may be amusing to denounce the foundational documents of a country that, in a few centuries, went from a revolutionary war to remove itself from under the boot of Britain to possibly the most powerful country in the world. However, many citizens of that country find almost any denunciation of America from someone from Britain as somewhat laughable.
None of that speaks to how I feel about the Constitution.
Do they carry? If not, then the weapon is secured at home and not readily available. Ergo, the trust issue is one of home invasion...and anyone who comes into my home without permission has no trust and deserves none.
And, again, I say "Bollocks!" because, again, I say metadata is a large aggregation of data and, based on all the factors I gave you, I am an outlier in that data.
As for me "liking my guns," I like the added layer of protection they provide myself and my family, both at home and at work.
The people you need to be concerned about are the 3%, not me!
I’m not casting aspersions in any way. I’m stating statistical facts. You’re the one so holed up in your belief that everything about you that can’t disassociate yourself from what I’m saying.How about instead of casting aspersions, we simply stick to facts, that way it isn't personalized to anyone...including trained law enforcement personnel who carry/own guns for their own protection and that of others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/
I already spoke to suicide by gun in earlier posts.