My little baby. When I go to bed at night my AR-15 is always in the room and ready to go just in case. Luckily I've never needed to use her.

@freemo
what situation will that enormous gun improve?

@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 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

@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
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
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