re: #472 Uncle Obdicut

Any gun owner that takes a decent class or pays any attention to the rather frequent worries about gun violence and accidents seen on the news gets to see a lot of those cautionary stats. The anti violence and rabid anti gun organizations see to that.

Um, if I were to accuse you of being dishonest, I’d use stronger words to that effect. I can see, and you might agree we use certain terms differently, and that has led to a number of non or misunderstandings. I don’t think you lie to me or anyone else. I’m at a loss as to why that needed clarification, but hey that’s what misunderstandings are often made of.

If a person wants to target shoot much, they need a gun to use. That oerson need not delve into deep police or CCW related issues. It’s all about safe handling, storage and range safety.

The 65,000 times a year number is cited as a conservative number for successful gun use in defense. That’s a very valuable stat. With that stat would be the accident rate and the murder rate. But how a person looks at the numbers will vary a great deal. And rightly so. You might look at those and think that very very few people should have guns for defense. One could argue everyone beyond those people did not need a gun. Mathematically accurate. but millions of people who do face risk of being a victim to some human predator can’t know if they will be one of the 65,000 that needed it or one of the millions that did not.

Gun accidents per capita have been on the decline for decades. That’s a great thing, rarely recognized.