SBPDPIO
On October 6, 2023, at 12:14 AM, the Santa Barbara Police Department received 9-1-1 calls about “gunshots” in a local bar in the 500 block of State Street.
Officers arrived on the scene and located two adult male victims who had injuries consistent with gunshot wounds. The bar security staff were detaining the believed shooter before police arrival.
Officers learned that the suspect and the two victims were involved in a verbal altercation before the shooting. Adam M. Zaragosa, a 28-year-old Lompoc resident, was arrested at the scene for his believed involvement in the shooting.
There is no further threat to public safety, and detectives responded to the scene to continue the investigation.
Both victims were transported to Cottage Hospital by AMR paramedics. One is awaiting surgery for the injuries sustained during the shooting, and the other has reported minor injuries.
This is an ongoing active investigation, and no other information is currently available.
Men have proven they are too emotional to carry firearms.
WHAT?!?! Now we’re having State Street shootings. Jesus.
There aren’t many places in the 500 block that would be considered a “nightclub” so I’d think this most likely happened at Sandbar, Sharkeez, or O’Malleys. Doesn’t seem to fit the profile for Red Piano. I’d put my money on Sandbar as they seem to attract more of a rowdy crowd.
yep, only way to stop these is to arm everyone in the bar and also on the street. We need all the good guys to have guns to. That’s how you solve the gun problem – give em to everyone!
Yet another gun crime committed by someone who was illegally possessing a firearm. I don’t understand why we continue to push for more laws that target restrict legal gun owners thinking that will help reduce gun crime, rather than cracking down harshly on people illegally possessing firearms – the people that actually commit the vast majority of gun crimes.
It was Sandbar
We do punish them, but by then it’s too late. You need to get over the whole fallacious mindset that the 2A allows unfettered, unrestricted, absolute, limitless access to guns for all.
What laws target “legal gun owners” that you think we should do away with? Universal background checks? Waiting periods? Types of guns they can buy?
Unless you’re a hunter, you don’t need a gun. This isn’t 1776 anymore.
VOICE – hold on now. Where does it say the firearm was illegally possessed? Aside from not being allowed in a bar, how do you know he possessed it illegally?
You said it yourself, the person brought a loaded firearm in an predominantly alcohol serving establishment. Even IF they had a CCW, which I would bet you ever posting on EdHat again this person didn’t, it would still be illegal. In addition, you can’t be consuming alcohol while carrying, and same bet, this person was. You’re other comment is just obtuse and non-sensical so not worth a response. The laws against gun crimes need to be severe enough, and ENFORCED to their fullest extent, to deter criminals (which someone becomes simply by carrying a legal firearm in an unlawful manner like this) from even considering touching a firearm.
Please read the “key findings” before commenting further. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-firearms-offenders
No, you don’t get to dictate what I read. You’re the last person here to demand anything like that, given your love of baseless claims and outright lying.
HOW he got the gun should be the question here. Was it legally purchased or not? You’re so against the laws “restricting” the rights of legal gun owners and then you cite carrying a gun into a bar as the only source of illegality here. Are you against this law? Your logic is confusing, at best. Further, how do you know he doesn’t have a CCW? Because he was in a bar? More assumptions, likely racist (given his name and city of residence being the only facts here) on your part. Par for the course with you
Now, why don’t you answer the question your own comment spawned: What laws target “legal gun owners” that you think we should do away with?
Until you’re able to engage and answer the questions your own words raise, please just stop. The deflection is tiresome.
Anonymous – humans in general are too emotional to carry firearms, period. No one should be able to carry around something so easily capable of causing mass death within seconds. One bad choice, one angry mistake, one over sensitive trigger finger will cause a lifetime of pain for too many. The only a place a gun belongs is in the hands of a trained police officer, soldier, or certified hunter. Civilians don’t need guns. We’re the only developed nation that has this problem. It’s not the people, it’s the guns.
Tens of millions of responsible, law-abiding male gun owners who have never fired their weapon outside of target practice, hunting, and/or self-defense prove otherwise.
So shooting people (a crime) and illegally bringing a gun in bar “the only source of illegality here”… seriously, that isn’t enough “illegality” for you? FYI, the only racism here is you bringing race into this based on his name and where he lives, that’s on you. He absouteltly wasn’t a CCW holder because they don’t give those permits to felon’s and drug users: https://syvnews.com/news/local/lights-and-sirens/article_a58b3922-1a1f-5175-9763-ee50d1473975.html
My comment was made in jest about how women are often told they’re “too emotional” for x,y,z. But since we’re going there:
Men are responsible for 98% of mass shootings
Men were behind 94% of 240 mass shootings from 2009 to 2020
“So why are American men so much more prone to gun violence? Experts cite a variety of reasons, from brain chemistry and evolution to how men and boys are socialized…The ideology of masculinity is not all that different in Spain or Britain than it is here. But they don’t have mass shootings like this. Why? I think that has to do with a specific version of American masculinity.
But other experts said it really just comes down to what they say is arguably America’s most dangerous combination: toxic masculinity and gun availability.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/guys-guns-men-vast-majority-americas-gun-violence/story?id=79125485
VOICE – of course you didn’t read that correctly. I meant YOU calling it an “unlawful possession” based on your assumptions (before you went scrambling online to find something to back you up). YOU made the claim that he was one of the many “people illegally possessing firearms.” You had no idea that it was illegal until you got called out for your assumptions, again.
Nah, not spending my Friday with you. We all know what assumptions your comment relied on.
VoR – FYI the syvnews article clearly states “Those appearing as “arrested” have only been arrested on suspicion of the crime indicated and are presumed innocent.”… So your statement of “…they don’t give those permits to felon’s and drug users” is making the assertions that he was actually found guilty of those offenses (nothing like that has been posted?). but hey if “Guns” were actually not a viable option we wouldn’t be here (at this point).
You are right, men are responsible for the vast majority of violence throughout the world. Regarding mass shootings, in the US they were an extremely rare, nearly unheard of occurrence until the 90’s, even though firearms were just as prevalent, even powerful high capacity firearms with much less regulation. So something in our society changed. I believe a lot of the blame lies with the mass prescribing of SSRI’s especially in adolescents. While they’re beneficial to 10’s of millions, for a small % (even a tiny % of 10’s of millions adds up), they can have a very negative effects including suicide, which nearly all mass shooters are doing. If it wasn’t for Big Pharma’s strangle hold on politics, government agencies, and the media, we’d be finding out if and what medications each mass shooter was on and it would provide very relevant information that would be key in helping minimize this in the future.
Sacjon, the approx. 182,000 civilians who use use their gun defensively each year prove otherwise. source: 2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned;
When you life is in danger and seconds matter, the police are only minutes away….
Interesting thought, although the researchers who study this for a living would have likely included that in their findings if it was indeed relevant. I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories that affect scientific research.
Wouldn’t need it if all our criminals weren’t armed, thanks to stolen (legally purchased) guns, black market (legally purchased originally) guns, etc etc. Yeah, the toothpaste is out of the tube in this country thanks to some short sighted old men in the 1700s, so unfortunately, a gun can be useful protection now, but it still stands that no civilians (criminal or not) NEED guns. If we never had that ancient “right,” we’d be living much happier and safer lives. Google gun deaths in countries that don’t allow 18 year olds to walk into a sporting good store and buy firearms with minimal to no requirements…..
Whoops, now I’m done.
The data isn’t collected so they have nothing to research. Would you agree that knowing what medications mass shooters were on, or stopped taking recently, would be valuable information in determining why mass shootings are occurring, a phenomenon that’s was nearly unheard of prior to the 90’s? It’s not the guns, because they were widely available for over 1/2 a century prior and these incidents weren’t occurring. Something changed, but what?
Bicyclist. It says he was on probation (guilty of a prior crime) admitted to being high on meth, meth was found in the car, and he tested positive for numerous other drugs – guilt verdict forthcoming. The probation would have prevented his CCW, the drug use would have prevented him from legally owning a firearm (like Hunter Biden). Why you and Sac are defending this criminal, who shows zero regard for the law or the safety anyone else in the community (as shown by firing a gun in a bar and speeding while high on meth) should be a sign you need to reevaluate your positions.
VOICE – “Why you and Sac are defending this criminal,” —- NO. You do not get to say that and keep “reason” in your name. That is got to be one of the most illogical and childish things I’ve heard you say yet…. aside from me “defending” cartels because I was trying to explain the difference in how the State Dept. defines “terrorism” and “criminal” so…. basically the same. Liar.
Where did ANYONE say he shouldn’t be punished? Gads man, have some self respect. That’s just awful. Sorry, but I can’t let lies and childish “reasoning” like that stand.
Who brings a gun to a nightclub?
LOSERS and those looking for trouble. I hope the guy sees a jail cell for years to come.
I’m very pro 2A but guns and substances DON’T MIX.
Hopefully the two victims are stabilized and have a speedy recovery.
Voice – That’s a very interesting point. I think that is a very valid possible cause of the issue ant hand and I agree that the “SSRIs fix everything” campaign has done a lot more harm than good.
I’ve been through a courses of multiple different meds and chose to seek other treatments since they always made me spacey, zombie-like and more disconnected from life than I have ever been before.
The other issue is the lax penalties regarding illegal gun possession and prior offenses. Those who do wrong are likely to do it again. It would be interesting to see if he has any prior convictions and what for.
The thing about the gun control debate is this. It’s easy for people to draw the conclusion that our availability of guns is the problem but that is looking at a symptom and not at the cause.
People go on sprees with knives, build explosives at home, chemical weapons, or drive cars into crowds in places where there is strict gun control.
It’s a multifaceted issue but taking the guns out of abiding citizens hands will not help and will actually just lead to a generally unsafe environment for anyone who has anything to lose.
Taking everyone’s firearm that is on the roster will just leave millions of illegally possessed guns in the hands of the same people who rob, loot, murder and steal. Gangs, thieves and murderers would run amok and as someone who has never and will never harm an individual with a firearm unless they are a threat to my family, I cannot stand to hear people support that type of unlawful enforcement upon the citizenry.
There are a lot of other things to crack down on when looking at mass murder in the U.S. and the over prescription of pharmaceuticals is a great place to start.
It’s a moot point since millions of people are on and off SSRIs and those millions are not committing mass shootings. It’s more likely the people committing these crimes NEED SSRI’s and other mental health services. But the research DOES SHOW that gun availability and toxic masculinity are common factors.
We’ll you two were defending the criminal, as you wrote in your posts below. Please point to where I said you said they shouldn’t be punished. I think you have arguments with me in your head and think they actually happened.
Show me where I or Bicyclist defended this criminal. State the exact words. Deflecting and making things up (your well documented MO) is tiresome. Back your claims or stop making up lies. Choice is all yours.
“carrying a gun into a bar as the only source of illegality here” [well that and shooting people, is that not enough illegality for you?]
“how do you know he doesn’t have a CCW? Where does it say the firearm was illegally possessed? Aside from not being allowed in a bar, how do you know he possessed it illegally?” [you sound like his defense attorney?]
And Bicyclist’s entire comment was defending this criminal as only being “arrested” for those crimes but “not actually found guilty” [yet! which also ignores his actual admission, the meth found in his car, and positive drug test for a whole host of stuff].
Are you two volunteering for his defense team?
Gads you’re something else. Questioning your assumptions is not defending him. Use some of your famous “reasoning” skills there pal.
I am completely against guns. Why would I “defend” someone for carrying/using one?
You’re just wrong, again. No other truth exists here.
Anon – It’s not a moot point.
Millions more Americans own guns and have never committed crime or used their legally owned firearms in a malicious manner.
The research into whether mass shooters are generally on SSRIs or other medicines has not been done and as VOR pointed out is not likely to be done given that big pharma still has considerable sway in politics across the globe.
Blaming the availability of guns is ignorant and so is downplaying the possibility that there are other factors at play.
Blaming the availability of guns also ignores the fact that guns, even high powered high capacity ones, have been widely available, with much less restrictions, since the early 1900’s and we went nearly an entire century before mass shootings started to happen regularly. It isn’t the guns, it’s something else that has changed in our society starting around the 1990’s. Looking into what changed is key to understanding this relatively new issue and how to minimize it going forward. But that’s hard, many business and political interest may not like what’s found, while it’s easy to point to the guns as the problem.
Blaming the availability of guns is exactly what all the data say. The mere presence of a gun in your household vastly increases the chance that you or somebody in your family/vicinity will be the victim of gunshot violence. The facts don’t lie, though the gun nuts do.
Wait so the presence of “X in the household” greatly increases the chance of dying to…. “X in the household.”
Now replace X with whatever your mind can conjure and you will see how bad that argument is.
LOL really? I don’t know, Anon has pretty solid logic there. The presence of deadly object/substance in your home OF COURSE increases the possibility of you interacting with it, thus being killed by it. How is that in any way a difficult concept? If it weren’t in your house, you’d be less exposed to the threat as you would be on a DAILY basis if it were in your house……
Being around anything on a daily basis increases your chances of interacting with it. “Interacting” with a gun is almost always deadly for someone. Ergo, being around a gun on a daily basis means you’re more at risk of gun death than someone who doesn’t have a gun around them every single day.
So yeah, solid, basic, 101 logic.
Sac – “Interacting with a gun is almost always deadly for someone.” That is a bold faced lie.
Millions of people “interact”with guns every day with no harm done to anyone.
If you find my guns and the guns of millions of other Americans threatening, why stay?
Europe is a pretty nice place and they mostly have gun laws that are more in line with your fear driven posture.
Anon is saying guns are the cause of the shootings and that is a shallow, leftist perspective because you have demonized guns as a scapegoat for the failings of society in America.
VOR and others on here have said it reasonably, but you and “Anon” can’t get it through your thick skulls that there are other causes for shootings and mass murder sprees.
Apparently, going clubbing dt on State Street raises your chances of getting in a bad “interaction” with a firearm. Tell me again how staying home with my arms stored safely and legally is dangerous?
STONER – “Sac – “Interacting with a gun is almost always deadly for someone.” That is a bold faced lie.” – of course you missed the context there. Quotations marks can be confusing if you don’t understand how they’re used. I was talking about in the home, you know…like you were crying about earlier.
Please use a clear head when arguing and also when “interacting” with your guns…..
Sac – How about an educated, civilized response for once that doesn’t end up in the penalty?
Only if you are able.
Don’t get your hopes up, he operates on feelings rather than facts. You really hit the nail on the head here though: “demonized guns as a scapegoat for the failings of society in America”. As I mentioned above addressing why very very small portions of our society commit these crimes is a lot harder for politicians than saying “look scary gun bad!” and actually addressing the cause they would end up contradicting other polices they support.,
STONER – My comments are going (and apparently staying) right to the Penalty Box, along with some other commenters here, due to some glitch, confirmed by Ed. So, nice try but there it is.
VOICE – Nice job you two with completely deflecting from and ignoring STONER’s comment (“Wait so the presence of “X in the household” greatly increases the chance of dying to…. “X in the household.”…..) that I am replying too. Once again, you employ the Motte and Bailey fallacy to avoid the more difficult argument (guns in homes increase chances of deadly interactions more than homes without guns) because you know you have no way to actually rebut that simple, impenetrable argument.
Always taking the easy route. Heck, if I was a “stoner” or a habitual liar, I’d take the easy way out too!
Lol. I’m looking at you Sac. I don’t know what you’re still on about. Leave the country if you have such a problem with legal gun ownership.
They’re here to stay.
Just because you complain and make up fallacies and claim people are putting words in your mouth (actually you’re the one putting words in peoples mouths) doesn’t mean you win the internet.
You must have some super strong thumb muscles from all that typing.
Keep flexing bud, I will never be “hitting up” the likes of you.
Yeah, you’re fundamentally unable to respond without deflecting and making things up. Sounds like you’re all done.
Before you go, though…. I’d love to hear what “words I put in your mouth?”
Also, just because you don’t know or understand the fallacies, doesn’t mean I made them up. Does your school have today off too? LOL!
It’s hilarious watching you complain that I’m commenting, WHILE YOU’RE NONSTOP COMMENTING HERE. Real stoners have more self awareness than that.
Yeah, I bet you could keep dodging and deflecting all week. It’s easy when you make up your own things to “argue” against. Now, how about you man up, do the hard work and answer the actual question I asked: “What words did I put in your mouth?”
Come on, kid, “keep up” like you promised!
You’re not a very deep thinker, are you? The increase is on the order of 70 times. You won’t find the presence of a pat of butter causing that.
Better not let anon and sac hear about what the death rate involving operating or riding in a car or walking or biking where cars drive is 🤯
Cool whatabout….
Dude have all the guns you want. And also having guns in your house creates more danger for you than not having guns in your house. It’s not complicated. Personally, IDGAF if you have guns in your house. Of course if someone breaks in and steals your guns and uses them to kill some poor innocent bastard then yeah, that would suck.
Alex – While I appreciate that you aren’t openly calling for no one to have guns, I disagree entirely that it is more dangerous for me.
Speak for yourself.
My point is that given the sheer number of gun owners you cannot judge the behavior or outcomes for everyone based on those few irresponsible souls. The people who don’t safely store and manage their firearms are a small minority of legal gun owners.
As I have pointed out, the same exact claim could be made about people driving cars. Plenty of irresponsible people driving on the daily. Plenty of them get themselves, their families or other people killed daily too.
Way more Americans driving around piss wasted, recklessly, street racing, speeding than those who misuse or mismanage their firearms.
I would say having a car in your driveway creates more danger for you and the average American than not driving at all. And much more danger than the guns in mine and other peoples houses.
SBStoner,
yeah, now tell me how many days a week you get on your gun and go to work. How many days a week you use your gun to pay your bills.
Comparing things that are necessities to daily life, like owning a car, or having electricity in your house (electricity can kill you too!!!!!, or having food (people choke to death every damn day!!!) is laughable.
Nah. Guns are not a necessity to live your daily life, they are for sport or fun, or hedging against a future threat against you which isn’t terribly likely to materialize.
So, I will speak for you. Having a gun in your house creates a higher level of danger for you and your family. That’s just a fact. You are okay with that elevated level of danger because you like what you get in return, i.e., fun going shooting, hunting, feeling more secure.
But don’t argue silly things like a car is equal to a gun, that’s just silly.
Alex – The thing you miss is that loooonng before we had cars, firearms have been a part of American life and you are totally missing the point of my claim.
I never said cars are not a necessity (they actually aren’t for billions of people so watch your facts) but if people want to look at it like that, did you know that another unnecessary but highly deadly thing are swimming pools in the backyard?
Where are the “ban all the swimming pool” nuts? What’s your continuation of this debate going to look like? Do we take away anything that is not 100% necessary on the daily basis that causes a higher risk to human life?
Have fun living like that, comrade.
Alex, to many having a gun in the home and (key part) being safe and proficient with it’s storage and use, is like having life insurance. You really really hope you never need it, and most won’t, but if you do, you’re very glad you have it.
SBStoner,
“Comrade”!!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Yeah, I’m a commie and I want to take away your swimming pool.
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
“Lots of people don’t use cars.” Yeah. Like, not typically in the USA. We aren’t talking about Dorkistan.
“Guns been around a long time, even before cars”. Yeah, and three hundred years ago you might have been thrown in a lake as a witch. We are talking about now.
“Where are all the ban the swimming pool nuts.”
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!
DUDE YOU ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE SAFETY MEASURES TO KEEP YOUR KIDS FROM DYING IN YOUR SWIMMING POOL UNLIKE YOUR GUNS!! LOLOLOL
Nice fail.
Beyond your failed and ridiculous analogy, I never called for banning anything, you’re just making that up.
I said one thing and one thing only–you having guns in your house puts you in more danger than not having guns in your house.
And dude. Literally. I don’t care how much danger you create in your house because I will never go there.
So buy more guns. Build a little castle of guns in every room, LOL, IDGAF.
VOR, yeah, you just restated what I said. Well done.
VOR, by the way, though, on the topic of “insurance” and guns. My life insurance can’t kill my kid. And it can’t be stolen and used to kill someone else’s kid. So ya, “insurance”.
Alex – The funny thing about your comments is that they always feel like you are just saying something for the sake of saying something?
Do you want a little pat on the back? A cookie?
Your “IDGAF” attitude has no power here 🤣
Alex: “DUDE YOU ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE SAFETY MEASURES TO KEEP YOUR KIDS FROM DYING IN YOUR SWIMMING POOL UNLIKE YOUR GUNS!! LOLOLOL” That is false. In CA you’re legally required to keep firearms in a DOJ approved locked device if there are, or might be, children present, and you’re criminal resposbnile if they access and use it, even if accidentally. You and Sac also skirt around the “responsible” part of of owning a firearm, and with a responsible owner, the firearm wouldn’t ever be accessible to a child, unlike everyone’s car keys.
VOICE – the only ones “skirting” anything is you and STONER. The argument was made days ago that having a gun in the house increases the risk of you being hurt by a gun more than if you had no gun in the house. Simple, basic and logically sound. SBSTONER railed against that premise, then you came in to follow the off topic train making up scenarios and comments that don’t exist.
If you truly believe that having a gun in your home doesn’t increase the chance of someone being harmed by a gun, then there’s nothing more to say. The vacuousness of that argument is absurdly beyond simple reason (which you’ve shown time and time again to have zero of) and logic. I think we’re done here.
Stoner, wow, thanks man. I hadn’t thought of things that way. I say things to…say them. Wow. So….maybe….I do GAF. Maybe….I really care about your safety in your home with your guns…
Ah, nope. Still don’t GAF!!!
VOR–thanks for the correction. I don’t own guns because I’m not scared in my own home so I don’t need to keep up on the laws. Awesome that gun owners are now required to secure their weapons in their homes (I don’t actually GAF about that) and have caught up to swimming pool owners. Good job!
Beyond that, you’re still at greater risk if you have a gun in your house because kids are pretty smart and more than one has figured out how to access a “secured” weapon.
STONER – wait a second, hold on…. In your comment late last night, you say “I would say having a car in your driveway creates more danger for you and the average American than not driving at all.”
Yet, yesterday you scoffed: “Wait so the presence of “X in the household” greatly increases the chance of dying to…. “X in the household.”
Now replace X with whatever your mind can conjure and you will see how bad that argument is.”
So….. didn’t you just “replace X” with “Car” and make the same exact argument you were railing against yesterday? Yeah, you did. See how much sense it makes now?
Just like a car, having a gun in your house puts you at more risk of injury from a gun than if you had no gun at all in your home. Again, simple and solid logic that even you understand, despite your complaints.
Yes, this is off topic, but did anyone else notice what appears to be a faint column of smoke in the photo of State St. on this article? Just me?
Sad talking about taking the “easy way out” but relies on brute force commenting, ignorance and non factual claims.
Lol.
*Sac.
Btw where exactly did Ed confirm that your comments are going straight to the penalty box? And why is your comment attempting to trash my response to your “guns always harm people” fallacy still there?
1) In my email to them. I don’t bitch at Ed in the comments, like a troll. 2) I never said “guns always harm people.” Learn to read with a little more clarity. 3) It’s still there because of what I state already….. see #1.
LOL dude…. you’re dodging and running like a scared cat. YOU said “Wait so the presence of “X in the household” greatly increases the chance of dying to…. “X in the household.”
Now replace X with whatever your mind can conjure and you will see how bad that argument is.”
^ THAT is YOUR “argument” and it was easily proven wrong. Now you want to make it about something I never said. Cool…. you keep on deflecting and inventing new scenarios.
You and VOICE have only one way to argue – against comments that never existed. When you two are ready to act like adults and actually stay on point and use words that were actually said, hit me up. Until then….. have fun kiddo.
What are you “LOLing” at? Your comment made no sense. Making up comments that other people “said” and then arguing against them is the easy way. You and VOICE are pros at it. “Non factual claims” like what? That if you have a gun in your house, you’re more likely to get hurt by it than someone who doesn’t have a gun in their house? Yeah, man I’m such a liar LOL
Sac – “”Interacting” with a gun is almost always deadly for someone.”
Enough said about non factual claims lmao.
I can keep this up all week.
Again…. you’re missing the context that YOU provided in your comment yesterday.
“”Interacting” with a gun is almost always deadly for someone.” – What you ignored, AGAIN, it that comment referred to using with a gun that you have in your house. That’s why I used quotation marks around “interacting.” Maybe I underestimated my audience, but it was clearly about USING a gun that you have in your house. So yes, USING a gun almost always results in someone getting hurt. Not carrying, not storing, but USING a gun.
It’s mind-blowing I have spell this simple concept out for you, but not surprising given you think having a gun in the house does not increase the chance of getting hurt by that gun more than if you didn’t have one at all……
Sac – If you are talking about in a home defense capacity, then yes, people might get hurt.
This wishing to inflate statistics for their own personal ideologies online should research and make sure to address their claims accordingly.
Is that a correct interpretation of your claim? Using a gun for home defense? I didn’t say anything about that prior, just that millions of people in this country use their guns daily for sport shooting or hunting.
Anons claim that having a gun in the house leads to 70 times likelihood of gun death is inflated and unfounded.
As I mentioned, you are more likely to die being in or in proximity to a car operating on the road than to a gun in your house.
I love the term “gunshot violence” being applied to accidental discharge, suicide etc. it very much fits the bill of “all guns are bad guns” and is so commonly communicated in certain circles that would refuse to recognize that there are those of us who keep guns for a number of reasons, shooting people intentionally or unintentionally not being amongst them.
What do you have against responsible firearm owners?
*overestimated, not under…. lol
“USING a gun almost always results in someone getting hurt” wow, just wow. I, and many people I know, have used a gun many times. No one has gotten hurt. If your assumption had a shred truth, there’d be a constant stream of ambulances coming down from Winchester Gun Club and the NRA would have eliminated themselves by now.
VOICE – using a gun in YOUR HOME …….. the whole point of the original comment. Like I said, it’s “clearly about USING a gun that you have in your house.”
Try to keep up.
STONER – “Sac – If you are talking about in a home defense capacity, then yes, people might get hurt.” – Yes. That is exactly what I’ve been talking about since you guffawed at ANON for saying if you have a gun in your home, you have an increased chance of being hurt by it. That’s literally the ONLY thing I’ve been talking about.
Sac, who “USES” a gun in their home other than for self defense? ! ? If it’s a home/self defense capacity, yes someone will get hurt, that is exactly the point of having and using a gun for home defense, stopping the person(s) before they can harm you and your family. That’s like saying if you “use” a fire extinguisher in your home it will make a mess, YES…. but the fire would be put out.
VOICE – lol uh…. yeah, that’s my point but you missed the original comment that spawned this. Really man, try to keep up!
——————————————————————————–
“Anonymous 3 days ago Copy Link of a Comment
Blaming the availability of guns is exactly what all the data say. The mere presence of a gun in your household vastly increases the chance that you or somebody in your family/vicinity will be the victim of gunshot violence. The facts don’t lie, though the gun nuts do.
SBStoner a day ago Copy Link of a Comment
Wait so the presence of “X in the household” greatly increases the chance of dying to…. “X in the household.”
Now replace X with whatever your mind can conjure and you will see how bad that argument is.”
———————————————————————–
Glad you seem to agree with ANON in the fact that having a gun in the house increases the chances of getting hurt by a gun more than if you didn’t have one in your house. Took you a while to get there, but bravo!
Lol, another news article on edhat that has devolved into a political argument. Classic!