Self defense.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Logician0311, Feb 16, 2014.

  1. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly! The fact that a former police chief, highly trained with firearms, can misuse his "second amendment right" that badly demonstrates how inpredictable and deadly that "guns for all" antiquated amendment really isand how much out of control that fascination with firearms combined with SYG is!

    Washington was too smart of a man not to realize howhis well intended words have, today, been bastardize by the big business DEATH industry, prying on the stupidity of some people addiction with the deadly gun culture!
     
  2. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sadanie- You're as psycho, in your own way, as the theater shooter.
    It's a matter of good luck for you that you have never been in a situation where you've had to defend yourself. I'm guessing here, but I assume that you don't go to places where you're likely to mingle with the lower elements of society who are more likely to assault you.
    In my normal activities, I don't go to places like bars or large social gatherings where idiots are likely to be, but I do reserve the right to go wherever I want to. I have been confronted by people who wanted to kill me and rape my wife. I've been shot at by people who were obviously unhinged. My own experience has proven to me that a man who chooses not to defend himself will die before his time is due.
    There is nothing you can do or say that will sway me from my belief in self defense. Life in the world has proven the need.
     
  3. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so everyone is a murdering bastard? no, it shows that some people are spurious. I don't believe for one second that Gun's r Us is anymore responsible for someone else's action than you are. I don't think you are anymore responsible for my guns and actions than the next guy.
    The gun needs an operator. BTW, did you watch the video where that POS was walking around the crime scene as if he was running the show? That fat (*)(*)(*)(*) was strolling around with a polar pop in one hand watching what they were doing....That's a sick mind, but what strikes me as real odd is that he was never in handcuffs before they put his ass in a car.
    These events are rare when compared to what drug lords and their minions do. Gangs are responsible for the highest rate of murder in the country. So what the hell make s YOU think that by taking my guns away is going to make you any safer? Actually, you're safer around me than them. and I don't care if you trust that or not, you are too far away to fear my guns, regardless.
    it is still the mind, not the tool. Those people who desire to do harm will find a way, any way, to achieve their goal. My not having a gun makes it easier for them to target me and getting away with what ever they want to do. If I had been in that theater, I would have cut that cop down to frickin' pieces, given the opportunity
    so, if you take away the guns from legitimate owners, you leave them at the mercy of someone who intends to do whatever heinous crime thy have on their minds.
    I get it that guns terrify and paralyze you, that you have no working knowledge of them.
    Most anti-gunners are mostly concerned only about themselves and use other examples to rational and justify those terrors.
     
  4. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot of rambling based on a falsehood!
    When did ANYONE talk about "taking your gun away?"

    Believe it or not. . .there is a HUGE stretch between "guns permits free for all" with minimum or no background check, and thorough background checks that would include a mental evaluation and would need to be "relicensed" ever 5 years or so (not unlike driver licenses).

    There is also a huge stretch between a law like SYG that basically gives license to kill to any A. . .H. . . .who "states" that he "felt" threatened, and decided that 'a threat" could consist of anything from a hit on the nose, to a few popcorns nuggets being thrown in your direction, to not complying with one's demand to turn down your music. . . .and standing your ground when one has a CERTITUDE that one's life is in IMMINENT danger. . .not of getting a bloody nose. . .or one's pride being hurt, but to ACTUALLY BE KILLED!

    No extreme is healthy. . .and you are talking about EXTREMES: either guns for all, or NO guns!
     
  5. Pendraco

    Pendraco Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd say EXTREME is putting your legal ability to defend yourself into the hands of some possible biased shrink. Who gets to decide out of the hundreds of possible disorders, (none that as far as I know can be scientifically tested as fact) which ones loose they're right to bear arms.?

    Despite public or media opinion, national studies have indicated that severe mental illness does not independently predict future violent behavior, on average, and is not a leading cause of violence in society. There is a statistical association with various factors that do relate to violence (in anyone), such as substance abuse and various personal, social and economic factors....But we aren't talking about these right?

    In fact, findings consistently indicate that it is many times more likely that people diagnosed with a serious mental illness living in the community will be the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence.

    Stop pissing your pants over the little things, Lets do something about gang violence!!
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    105,281
    Likes Received:
    32,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now there is a baseless "fact". You have proof there are more guns in the South?
     
  7. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What you're dealing with here, Hoosier, is an example of the anti information level. I'm reminded of another thread where someone said that the average anti would be horrified to know just how many guns there are in virtually every place where they go in the course of their day.
    Try this for an interesting little exercise. As you go through your day, try to notice how many people you see carrying ink pens. Pens are actually very much like guns, in that they're only good for what they can do, but when you need one, it's the right thing to use. People who carry them are unusually aware of tool use, and they take responsibility for those tools by keeping themselves from using them in ways that would harm others. For the most part, anyway.
    I would guess that there is more gun violence in the South, and more violence in general, because poverty and ignorance are more common than in most other parts of the Country.
     
  8. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,045
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you don't trust yourself not to EVER overlook a safety precaution, you're right, you might be dangerous. Train, train, train. Use proper equipment. Have the right mindset. Follow the four rules:


    All guns are always loaded!
    Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
    Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!1
    Always be sure of your target!
     
  9. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    correction...There is a background check when you apply for a CCW. If you had any experience about what you are talking about, you'd know that. In Indiana it can take up to 30 days to 2 months to get a CCW, depending on the load. I believe all states run background checks on every CCW that is applied for
    So, you're wrong about that.
     
  10. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whoopi!!!! There is a background check. . .except if you purchase a firearm at a gun show, or if you just get it on the internet, or if you just "borrow it" from your dad, or your mom, or your friend. . .or if you just steal it from the home of a firearm collector with the 22 other firearms he is so proud of. . .which will be replaced soon anyway!

    If that "background check" was effective, it so many "responsible gun owners" wouldn't turn out to be killers!
     
  11. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Perfect example of a psychologist's fallacy. Facts on a national level were made clear (with sources) in the OP that detail the issue on a societal level, rather than an anecdotal one.
     
  12. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Your specific situation - including the large percentage of you that is artificial - has nothing to do with the discussion of an issue at the societal level. I take it you've never heard of a "psychologist's fallacy"?
    http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/psychologists-fallacy/
     
  13. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Please illustrate to me that a fire extinguisher poses a risk to my friends or family. :)
    The OP was about risk assessment and the balance of probabilities in relation to the use/misuse of tools. If having a fire extinguisher in my home produces no risk (and only benefit), then comparing it to having a firearm is a strawman.
     
  14. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    You might as well just stop there... Statistical average is exactly that: the calculation of the average reality.
    In short, you may be right that some people experience more than 3 violent crimes in their lifetime... which would mean that a number of people must also experience fewer than 3 in order for that average to be accurate.
     
  15. Riot

    Riot New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,637
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And some more
     
  16. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Advocating the escalation any conflict into lethal combat is the dumbest idea I can conceive of. We have enough of that BS already: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...and-kill-each-other-after-road-rage-incident/

    Clearly the stats I provided related to aggravated assault that does not fit this profile. Thanks for playing.
     
  17. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    None of which would introduce any additional risk of misuse to members or guests of my household... Strawman.

    I take it you didn't bother reading pages 9-10 of your source?

    "(3)the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which involves—
    (A)a substantial risk of death;
    (B)extreme physical pain;
    (C)protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
    (D)protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty;"​

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/serious-bodily-harm/
    B and C both sound like the aftermath of the average fistfight to me...

    I don't recall saying it should be ignored. Certainly people should avoid putting themselves in high-risk situations. My point is that a lack of responsible behavior with a firearm (including a lack of safe storage) increases risk.

    I can agree that there are steps people can take to make firearm ownership less of a daily risk. Safe storage and actually knowing how to handle the damn thing in the first place would be prime examples. Why not make sure everyone does these?

    - - - Updated - - -

    That depends on whether you read the first half of the 2A and the Militia Act which clearly defined what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated militia".
     
  18. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    If that were true, a person could be pratically guaranteed safety by simply moving to a new metropolitan area every year. Quite obviously, the likelihood that you will be victim of a crime does not increase exponentially with each passing year.

    Interesting.
    "A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults."
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aggravated+Assault

    So, if a robber pushes a cashier while robbing the store (whether he's armed or not), he's committed aggravated assault.
    If you punch someone that hits on your wife and give them a bloody or broken nose, you've committed aggravated assault.
    As I've said elsewhere:
    "(3)the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which involves—
    (A)a substantial risk of death;
    (B)extreme physical pain;
    (C)protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
    (D)protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty;"
    http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/serious-bodily-harm/
    B and C both sound like the aftermath of the average fistfight to me...​

    "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

    Are you asking whether I'd advise my hypothetical daughter to stay out of risk situations to minimize the odds she will face 3 such incidents, rather than encouraging her to be exposed to greater risk of unintentional shootings, homicide, etc?

    I'm also ignoring the many instances it becomes possible for a crime to occur solely because the criminal was armed. That whole "equalizer" thing works both ways.

    Oops: http://digitaljournal.com/article/359264

    I'm suggesting that a lot of people are not competent to own and operate a firearm, but have them anyway. Perhaps a program to raise the level of competence would be beneficial. Not sure why you're attempting to make it a personal issue.

    Once again, only one of this has made it a personal issue about a particular individual (hint: it's not me). I'm looking at a societal issue. Your use of a psychologist's fallacy is duly noted.
     
  19. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Dude, it's not just about handling firearms. The average toddler that shoots a family member (yup, it happens enough that there's an average) doesn't get into that situation because the gun owner had his finger on the trigger. It happens because there are precautions that should be taken when you're not handling the firearm as well.
     
  20. Krak

    Krak New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like how you completely ignored my risk vs. reward analysis.

    When you can't beat em, well, use ad hominem!

    No, thank YOU for playing. Clearly, the stats I provided, trump yours.
     
  21. Krak

    Krak New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Flawed study.

    They only looked at justifiable homicide. Most self defense situations involving a gun don't escalate to that point. Usually all it takes it brandishing and the perpetrator will stand down. Most of these incidents go unreported.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Care to tell us this average? Or are you just BSing some more?
     
  22. Krak

    Krak New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe you should read your article before you post it. The only number that article gives is 259, which is lower than 800. Oops. Everything else is just conjecture.
     
  23. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    then you should get a license to have children because more children are killed by a parent's bare hand than by guns. You should also get a license for your mouth because some attempt to create chaos and incite riots with their mouths. (We should ban free speech) So many gun owners are not killers.
    How many kids have to die before alcohol is banned? How many kids are going to die before we ban pools? How many kids have to die before we ban gangs? How many more kids have to die before we ban cars and cell phones? How many kids have to die before we ban hurricanes and tsunamis?
    Go beat another drum. You are only speaking of your personal terror.
    Go to your house , lock the door, and never leave. No amount of legislation is going to make this world any safer for anyone.
    Based on you logic, we need to execute anyone who becomes pissed, angry, depressed, Righteously indignant, or believes in God
    In live there is no such thing a s a guarantee of safety. You personal safety depends on you, personally.
    Hell, let's just toss the whole BoR....you obviously don't need them.
     
  24. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://freebeacon.com/former-bloomberg-ally-says-mayors-groups-goal-is-gun-confiscation/
    http://www.gunowners.org/notb.htm
    http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#axzz2trOZ2VeR
    http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/02/california-gun-law-expands-infrastructure-for-confiscation/
    http://www.storyleak.com/obama-executive-fiat-backdoor-gun-confiscation/
    so your statement about no one coming for guns is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
    While we are at it, let's destroy all living beings on this planet because they have the propensity for doing harm.
     
  25. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mis-use of statistical data. My mother worked at a hospital in a high crime area for two decades; she carried a pistol in her purse, and pulled it three times in the parking lot there; probably saved her life all three times. She never pulled it once in the neighborhoods we lived in, didn't carry it; it's matter of where you live and work, not some blanket stats covering the whole population as the same. And, stats on how many violent crimes are prevented by civilians with firearms are of course hard to come by, but it's very likely to be many, many thousands, no doubt about it.
     

Share This Page