[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?

Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of. Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.

That is my point. I picked your quote because you were the last person to post but both sides of the gun control debate have a strong tendency to solely cite anecdotes or be completely speculative. As you mentioned, it is impossible to statistically measure the complete impact of guns into positive and negative categories that can be compared. All we have is gun crime statistics, anecdotes, and speculation, all of which are heavily biased and do not give a good picture of the problem. That is why I am trying to frame this debate in a different manner.

How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people - who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.

No, the context is correct. I am saying that because I personally sometimes fall under that category. I think fighting is stupid but I like to mess with people and see how far I can take it. It is usually in good fun but it is possible to hit a nerve and get a defensive response out of someone, especially when alcohol is involved. However, if I was a carrying a gun with me, I would never do anything that could potentially get a defensive response out of someone because I know it could escalate quickly and put me in a very bad situation.

And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.

I made no assertion because this is the discussion that I would like to see. There is no numerical equation but framing it in this way at least shows forces everyone to acknowledge both sides.

If I had a guess, I would say certain regions of the US have many more Type A people than Type B and other regions of the US have many more Type B people than Type A. Once again, it depends on the gun culture of the particular location. That is why I am against any federal gun control ban (besides overly powerful weapons). What may work for New York City will probably not work for Wyoming and vice versa. Gun control laws should be local.

In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !

It was a hyperbole. I made the point that it is currently not politically possible for the government to completely ban guns in the US.

From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion

I agree. They have a very negative role in this.