@snder Actually my buddy in the netherlands has one and keeps it in his home. Only difference was that it took him more time to be allowed. Basically need to show competence.

@freemo Oh wow! I thought we had a new law that says people can’t take their weapons home if you for example train at a shooting range. Don’t know about cops though. A few years ago a dude called Tristan murder a bunch of people in a mall with his ‘training’ gun and since that moment it was allowed anymore

@snder He wasnt a cop but his shooting range had to give certify him or something before he was allowed. I dont know the details myself

@freemo Some sorts of permit I guess?

@snder He wasnt that specific. I just know the club at his gun range needed to approve him first in some way which took like 2 years of practice.

@dantheclamman Quite a few. It would be far safer than a handgun for example due to improved accuracy (and relatively weak bullets for a rifle). There is a reason it is the most common gun, it performs very well.

@freemo
you need a scope for home defense?

@freemo
I really am not attacking you and its your call but this looks like a weapon for long distance offensive combat.

@dantheclamman combat? no one uses weapons for combat. Its for participating in a sport (shooting is a sport at ranges). In all liklihood it will never be used against a person, just like most guns.

Moreover if the scope was ever used outside of a shooting range most AR-15 are used for hunting (mostly small game) due to its excellent design and small caliber bullet.

@freemo
I mean you said you keep it with magazine ready where you sleep. Sounds like not for sport.

@dantheclamman I do, it will be used for self defence in the one in a million chance i need to. But of the thousands of bullets fired so far (and likely into the future) it has all been sport shooting.

Having a gun for home defence,like insurance, is just being a responsible adult. It hardly means that it is the primary function of the gun, just one of the many benefits should it ever be needed.

@dantheclamman It has a great many useful purposes, sport, decoration, defense, hunting, science experiments (of which i did a few with it). Defence is certainly one aspect where it can play a role, and i am prepared should it need to play that role. But in the end that is truely the least likely role the gun will ever actually play. All the others are far more applicable .

@freemo
I understand non emergency uses you mention, but it doesn't seem like having it avail for action helps for those uses. Meanwhile accessibility of a gun is directly associated with dramatically increased odds ratio of death by homicide. http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

@freemo
Again, it's your choice and right, I am just speaking from genuine concern and curiosity, not telling you what to do. You seem like a statistically minded person though and so I am surprised, just like I would be if you told me you were a chain smoker of unfiltered cigarettes.

@dantheclamman I take no offense to respectable discourse no matter what your intentions.

I am also a scuba diver, specifically a deep ocean/tech diver. The odds of a random person picked from the population of surving a dive to 400 feet is probably extremely low, they have no idea what to do. The odds of me, someone with a great deal of training and understanding has a pretty low chance of dying. So similarly it would be pretty absurd for me to base my decision on the population average rather than considering the risks for me as an individual given my understanding and practices.

@freemo @dantheclamman Jocko Podcast 45 with Echo Charles - Wooden Leg, Native American Warrior "Now you must [surrender] your guns and your horses..."  https://youtu.be/KJK0RF6ULMI?t=1h34m22s

@js290
Nothing i could disagree wit there.

@dantheclamman

@freemo @dantheclamman  "The 21st century version [of 2nd amendment] would be a rule forbidding govt regulation of encryption. A govt that has no way of knowing what who is saying to whom lacks the most powerful weapons for winning an information war. " http://bit.ly/2IRKIZZ

@js290
I'd support a "right to bear encryption" amendment :)

@dantheclamman

@freemo @dantheclamman  technically, the amendment would be that our right to encryption shall not be infringed upon... :-)

Setback in the outback https://signal.org/blog/setback-in-the-outback/

@dantheclamman Odds dont tend to apply for individuals.

Ig you wanted to know *my* odds then youd have to gather statistics for people who are most similar to me in both training, intelligence, ideals, temperment, and practices.

Obviously the odds of someone who is reckless or irresponsible with their guns is on one end of that bell curve and the odds of someone who is responsible and well trained on the other.

So really has little to no applicability to me as an individual.

Now if you want to talk about how we can make guns safer for the general population, sure, there is some relevance here, but that is not what is being discussed.

@freemo @dantheclamman He didn't say risk of accident. He said risk of being the victim of homicide. You being well trained doesn't affect the probability that someone else grabs your gun and shoots you with it?
In fact you are probably at higher risk than average since most people don't keep the gun with a magazine and easily accessible (compared to people who have it unloaded in a gunsafe)

@ayy @freemo @dantheclamman It is very hard to take someone's gun and shoot them with it if the person is trained and using a modern holster, which are designed to make it difficult for others to take your gun.

@nerthos @freemo @dantheclamman That's not the scenario I meant. I meant more

> drunk argument with friend / wife
> they go up and grab the gun
> bang

@ayy @freemo @dantheclamman Well, that's more of a scenario of stupidity than a reasonable risk.
Can't really feel bad for people that get drunk and shoot eachother.

Should learn drunken fist kung fu for those cases

@ayy
yes, its about increased odds of someone dying of a gunshot in the home
@nerthos @freemo

@dantheclamman
Again the odds of some random person, including the vast majority of idiots, picked from the population and thuis having a high chance of negative effects almost never applies to individuals outside of the mean in terms of intelligence, behaviors, training, etc.

You simply cant take a population wide average and think it holds any relevance to someone who does not have qualities that would cause them to fall within the mean.

@ayy @nerthos

@ayy
They were refering to the statistics. Obviously the scenario described by the statistics include the situation described since it is ALL homicides.

@nerthos @dantheclamman

@ayy @nerthos @dantheclamman

So considering how this particular statistic is not the least bit relevant to the conversation, and actually deceptively cherry-picked to prove a point (rather than using data to draw a conclusion as people SHOULD do), I have given some thought to how the statistic could be measured to actually be meaningful.

Since i am both trained and take significant precautions, my gun is locked up if anyone else is staying in my home with me, finger never on the trigger, I practice my aim, etc, well we need stats to represent that if we want to be fair about MY gun. For that matter to make any assertion about ANY gun when owned by a **responsible** gun owner.

So the real question becomes. What is the percentage chance of a random person who has no gun dying or being injured in a home break in. Then as your sample randomly select individuals who are highly trained and are aware of and practice all the proper safety procedures and recommendations both during an encounter and outside of it. Of that sample group what is the percentage of people in that group who die in a home invasion or are injured.

Finally normalize the results against the two groups such that if the percentage is lower among the trained gun users than it is a strong indication guns are a responsible safety measure for break-ins. If the percentage is higher then it is not.

Anything short of this is just cherry picked propaganda to try to win an argument rather than the search of the truth. I myself have never seen a study such as that, so I use my expiernce to make the call. But if and when someone can provide one then I will use that data to adjust my opinion on the matter.

I have to wonder however if, now that dan was made aware of his error if he will continue to share the statistic or if he will add these considerations and seek out stats so he can be more factually accurate in his assertions in the future. My guess would be the goal is to convince people of something, not to reach the truth, just as it is for most people with an agenda (no offense Dan, everyone does it).

@freemo @dantheclamman @nerthos > my gun is locked up if anyone else is staying in my home with me

oh I see, that changes things

@freemo
it's not cherry picked. It's one the best meta analyses of the effects of an unrestricted gun in the home available, which is what this picture shows. Unfortunately, you are part of the group to which this odds ratio applies, and are at higher risk of having someone die of a gunshot in your home.

@ayy @nerthos

@freemo @ayy @nerthos

The odds ratio is a measure of the size of an effect. It is fairly obvious that the best predictor of dying from a gunshot is having a gun in the home, even better if it's loaded in an obvious spot. This includes home invasion because it brings a gun into the situation where one may or may not have been before.

@freemo @ayy @nerthos

Frankly because I learned long ago that it is impossible to convince someone on the internet that they are wrong, and because I only originally replied because out of sincere concern for your safety, I will leave this discussion here. Best of luck to you.

@dantheclamman
No I do think that you had genuine concern, im not questioning that. But it is driven by bias of a concern that doesnt apply. So much so that you seem either unwilling or unable to understand why a professional statistician is telling you that it doesnt apply.

@ayy @nerthos

@dantheclamman
Again broad statistics that tell you about the general population does NOT apply to individuals that do not embody the mean of such a population. Come on man your taught that first year in any statistics class.

@ayy @nerthos

It is a bit like saying "the average life expectancy is 75"... sure that may be true but it doesnt mean YOUR average live expectancy is 75. If you smoke and do heroin it might be 40, if your a marathon runner it might be 90.

Same here, the AVERAGE american might be worse off with a gun. That doesnt mean a **responsible** gun owner is worse off if they are well trained and follow good practices.

General population averages do NOT apply to individuals who do not represent the mean. Not sure how many times I can repeat that.

@dantheclamman
@ayy @nerthos

@freemo @nerthos @dantheclamman pls untag

Will do, np

@ayy @nerthos @dantheclamman

@dantheclamman
I am not claiming it is a bad analysis of what the general population might do. It is a bad analysis (and thus does not apply and is cherry picked) for anyone who is well trained and responsible.

Thats the important distinction here. Just because a study is well done and the facts in their own right is valid does not mean it applies to the argument or situation being discussed. thus why we need to get past our biases and understand the context when making these sort of arguments.

I am a professional statistician, i have tried to explain to you why it is not remotely applicable to trained professionals when the stat includes all people even untrained people. I even cited a very clear example WRT scuba diving to show you why. what part of the explanation did you not understand, perhaps i can explain it better.

@ayy @nerthos

@ayy
**I** never said a risk of an accident either. Your risk of being the victim of a homicide obviously depends on how you handle the situation, thats the point. Just because some random schmuck from the population may use a gun in such a way as to increase their risk of an accident does not mean that I would.

The only way the statistics would apply to **my** odds is if the statistics were drawn from people who specifically would react and behave as I would.

@dantheclamman

@dantheclamman Nope, the scope is used at the shooting range. Laser and the other red dot sight are the ones used for close range. Thakfully due to the multiple mount points of the design you can cover all the ranges well.