Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Trayvon in Tulsa? [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)27. I'm willing to risk it. No insurance-policy is cost-free.
But even if you don't accept those studies, there's still no evidence that a gun helps.
I'm willing to risk it.
No insurance-policy is cost-free.
I may never be a victim of a violent crime. My firearm might be misused. Statistically, I might be at a higher risk for firearm accidents or other misuses than I am to be a victim of a violent crime.
I'll risk it.
I am supremely confident in my own ability to keep and use firearms. I am, quite frankly, an expert. I've used firearms frequently over the last 30 years and I have never once had an accident of any kind.
I may not have any study that shows I'm safer because I have guns, but I would rather have them and not need them than not have them and need them, even if there is an increased chance of accidents or some other firearm-related mishap that outweighs keeping them.
No insurance policy is cost or risk-free.
My smoke detectors contain trace amounts of radioactive material in them. My insurance policy costs me money. My seat belts might trap me in my vehicle.
I'll risk it.
I'm willing to risk it.
No insurance-policy is cost-free.
I may never be a victim of a violent crime. My firearm might be misused. Statistically, I might be at a higher risk for firearm accidents or other misuses than I am to be a victim of a violent crime.
I'll risk it.
I am supremely confident in my own ability to keep and use firearms. I am, quite frankly, an expert. I've used firearms frequently over the last 30 years and I have never once had an accident of any kind.
I may not have any study that shows I'm safer because I have guns, but I would rather have them and not need them than not have them and need them, even if there is an increased chance of accidents or some other firearm-related mishap that outweighs keeping them.
No insurance policy is cost or risk-free.
My smoke detectors contain trace amounts of radioactive material in them. My insurance policy costs me money. My seat belts might trap me in my vehicle.
I'll risk it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well, we could just opt for a POLICE STATE where only the police can legally possess guns...
LAGC
Apr 2012
#15
"I imagine that would make the streets quite a bit safer, but at what cost?"
Starboard Tack
Apr 2012
#24
Why did UK have even less crime, including violent crime, before any gun laws?
Starboard Tack
Apr 2012
#34
Not so, 96% of population walk around in public everyday without need for a gun. They do fine.
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#5
96% of the population drive in cars without having car accidents, too.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#26