Stabbing / Shooting in Self Defense (Legality)

[Dukasaur]

That number seems awfully low Duk, it might be missing the qualifier 'mass'.

Yes, meant to say mass shootings.

[bigtoughralf]

They're not allowed to ban guns though, because some British guys wrote guns into the US constitution during the 18th century. That's how democracy works, and if jones doesn't like the price of freedom then he can go back to Denmark!

[jimboston]

Your examples of people being idiots does NOT mean that every gun owner is an idiot.

Erm, what? Read my post again, I said that those gun owners are all stable and responsible. I don't think anyone who would commit acts of extreme violence in defense of their property could ever be called an idiot.

… but you be and are being called idiot for your idiotic sarcasm.

You think tragedy is a useful tool to make “humorous” anti-analogies to “prove” a point?
You’re not only an idiot, you’re a borderline evil sociopath.

[bigtoughralf]

Your examples of people being idiots does NOT mean that every gun owner is an idiot.

Erm, what? Read my post again, I said that those gun owners are all stable and responsible. I don't think anyone who would commit acts of extreme violence in defense of their property could ever be called an idiot.

… but you be and are being called idiot for your idiotic sarcasm.

You think tragedy is a useful tool to make “humorous” anti-analogies to “prove” a point?
You’re not only an idiot, you’re a borderline evil sociopath.

Do you think you might be over-reacting a little bit?

[jimboston]

You are an ass.

Your examples of people being idiots does NOT mean that every gun owner is an idiot.
That is not how logic and debate works.
That is not how statistics works.

You cannot extrapolate your false narrative from some bad examples.

I’m sure I could find plenty of news reports demonstrating examples were guns were useful and successfully used to prevent or limit harm. It’s a waste of my time to do so and think it might influence you in any way.

Go take a long walk on a short pier.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has posited the "every gun owner is an idiot".

I think most of us will agree that the majority of gun owners are reasonable. The majority isn't enough. When you're talking about the ability to deal out death with only a tenth of a second to think about it, even if 95% are reasonable, it's not enough.

And yes, cherry-picking extreme examples isn't proof of anything, but the fact that examples are so ludicrously easy to find does form at least presumptive evidence. There have been what, 160 shootings in the U.S. so far this year? More than one a day? Is that the failure rate of a reasonable system?

BTR/mrswdk is making this implication with his sick analogy.

… using your logic the only “solution” would be to remove ALL firearms from the citizenry.

1) It’s impossible.
2) It’s against the Constitution… so let’s go get that Amendment passed to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
(It ain’t happening.)
3) It infringes on the Rights of responsible people to an extreme.

I’m not an “everyone should have a gun” guy.

I think there should be background checks and re-licensing requirements and different levels of licensing (with different background checks and requirements at each stage).
1) Basic Hunting Rifle
2) Handgun
3) Concealed Carry
4) Semi-Auto
5) Fully-Auto

I think there should be age requirements. I approve of people under 18 (or maybe 21) with responsible parents learning how safely use firearms… for hunting or just shooting… but I don’t think they should own firearms. So it would be like a permit… my 16yo can drive a car, but only if I’m with her. In these cases the firearm would need to be owned (and thereby secured) by the adult… but with the parent (or uncle or whatever) the kid can carry the gun, go to the range, go hunting, etc.

I think adults should be held responsible for the actions of their minor children.

I think parents should take responsibility for their of-age children with mental disabilities living under their roof. If your kid has issues you should NOT let them have access to a gun. If you do… you should be responsible.

These shootings of people innocently/accidentally going on someone’s property and getting shot… these are horrible but not common. We should look into these things. Is there dementia involved? People need to be more neighborly… and kids need to be aware and responsible (in some way if not legally) for their parents who have turned a corner. 7-8 years ago my wife and I noticed her mother was losing her ability to safely drive… this was well before her dementia started to kick in (4-5 years ago)… but there were signs. So we took her car away. This wasn’t easy… and it created an additional burden for us, as now we needed to make sure we got her out and to places she could take herself previously. But it was necessary and it probably prevented her from a serious accident. The shooting of that black teen is similar in nature IMHO. How many people die in car accidents caused by bad drivers each year??? Do we talk about banning cars? Is society willing to implement serious retesting of people 70-75yo and older?

I would argue the number of responsible legal gun owners is higher than 95%. Let’s focus first on actually upholding the laws we currently have on the books. Yes… many mass shootings are done by legal gun owners…. but the vast majority of shootings overall are committed by illegally owned firearms.

[jimboston]

Your examples of people being idiots does NOT mean that every gun owner is an idiot.

Erm, what? Read my post again, I said that those gun owners are all stable and responsible. I don't think anyone who would commit acts of extreme violence in defense of their property could ever be called an idiot.

… but you be and are being called idiot for your idiotic sarcasm.

You think tragedy is a useful tool to make “humorous” anti-analogies to “prove” a point?
You’re not only an idiot, you’re a borderline evil sociopath.

Do you think you might be over-reacting a little bit?

My reaction is as extreme as your dumb analogy is.

[jimboston]

Different definitions are applied to the term “mass shootings” based on the ideology of the person/group doing the analysis.

Most people hear “mass shooting” and they think of a random (or semi targeted) attack at a public place like a place of business, school, hall, mall. Where a crazy person goes in and generally just wants to kill some people and doesn’t care if he/she lives.

Some groups include targeted one-one or gang violence as “mass shootings” if more than one shot is fired, or more than one person is hit, they will include these as “mass shootings” even though the targets in these cases are very specific. Liberals / anti-gun groups want to include these to increase the number of “mass shootings” even though these are often quite different. They are not random at all and generally happen in specific neighborhoods. Inclusion of these shootings increases the fear-level of the general public and muddies the conversation IMHO.

[jimboston]

They're not allowed to ban guns though, because some British guys wrote guns into the US constitution during the 18th century. That's how democracy works, and if jones doesn't like the price of freedom then he can go back to Denmark!

We can change the Constitution if enough of us want to.

If you don’t like the price of Freedom stay the f*ck in England.

[jimboston]

Guns are actually the leading cause of death in people aged 1-18 in the U.S. I'm not being "smug' or 'America-hating' saying that, it's just true.

The number one cause of death for children under the age of 1 is Abortion.

(Break down your death numbers by sex, race, income-level. Gun aren’t killing people, people are killing people. Guns don’t know your sex, race, income… so why are the stats so different depending on these characteristics? Now look at the perpetrators of these deaths and look at their race, sex, income level. The idea that Mass Murders are killing kids makes no sense when you look at the actual causes.)

[bigtoughralf]

Different definitions are applied to the term “mass shootings” based on the ideology of the person/group doing the analysis.

Most people hear “mass shooting” and they think of a random (or semi targeted) attack at a public place like a place of business, school, hall, mall. Where a crazy person goes in and generally just wants to kill some people and doesn’t care if he/she lives.

Some groups include targeted one-one or gang violence as “mass shootings” if more than one shot is fired, or more than one person is hit, they will include these as “mass shootings” even though the targets in these cases are very specific. Liberals / anti-gun groups want to include these to increase the number of “mass shootings” even though these are often quite different. They are not random at all and generally happen in specific neighborhoods. Inclusion of these shootings increases the fear-level of the general public and muddies the conversation IMHO.

Liberals want to stop gang violence and shootings involving multiple victims.

[KoolBak]

Guess what?

Poor nutrition and hunger is responsible for the death of 3.1 million children a year. That's nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of 5. The children die because their bodies lack basic nutrients. Globally, 822 million people suffer from undernourishment.

I guess the evil guns aren't the worst.

Oh wait. It's the humans, not the guns. Almost forgot.

*plays with two guns laying next to me*

[bigtoughralf]

*plays with two guns laying next to me*

Do you have a big gun?

[saxitoxin]

*plays with two guns laying next to me*

Do you have a big gun?

Mine's a subcompact.




Wait what are we talking about again?

[saxitoxin]

5) Fully-Auto

Well fully auto weapons were banned in 1986 by Reagan under the FOPA , which was endorsed by the NRA.

That year the gun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100K. It's now 6.2.

By gun control advocates' rationale, if we want to reduce gun crimes we should legalize machine guns.

[saxitoxin]

It's been revealed the Louisville mass shooter was a gun control advocate who did the shooting as a publicity stunt to encourage new gun regulation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... oting.html

Why are the mass shooters always wild eyed, angry Democrats?

[Dukasaur]

… using your logic the only “solution” would be to remove ALL firearms from the citizenry.

Wrong. I think it's possible to have reasonable gun laws.

Canada has a high rate of gun ownership and doesn't have the carnage in the streets that the U.S. does.

Switzerland has an even higher rate of gun ownership and a very low level of gun crime.

Reasonable rules are possible, and while nothing can eliminate all problems, they can be reduced dramatically.

[Maxleod]

Switzerland has an even higher rate of gun ownership and a very low level of gun crime.

Reasonable rules are possible, and while nothing can eliminate all problems, they can be reduced dramatically.

Switzerland doesn't have the same "population", to put it mildly, that's the reason, not laws. I don't think I need to elaborate, and if I did I might get in trouble with the PC Police

[KoolBak]

I just just had a guy from Lichtenstein order a bunch of custom stuff.

One was a holster for a sawed off shotgun, which apparently is legal there.

Did some research - that is a very interesting country with a lot of interesting laws. Guns...taxes....hmmmmmm

[jimboston]

… using your logic the only “solution” would be to remove ALL firearms from the citizenry.

Wrong. I think it's possible to have reasonable gun laws.

Canada has a high rate of gun ownership and doesn't have the carnage in the streets that the U.S. does.

Switzerland has an even higher rate of gun ownership and a very low level of gun crime.

Reasonable rules are possible, and while nothing can eliminate all problems, they can be reduced dramatically.

The we agree…

but perhaps we should start with actually enforcing laws on the books?

[jimboston]

… using your logic the only “solution” would be to remove ALL firearms from the citizenry.

Wrong. I think it's possible to have reasonable gun laws.

Canada has a high rate of gun ownership and doesn't have the carnage in the streets that the U.S. does.

Switzerland has an even higher rate of gun ownership and a very low level of gun crime.

Reasonable rules are possible, and while nothing can eliminate all problems, they can be reduced dramatically.

Yet you’re advocating that I shouldn’t get a gun for myself.

So that means you either assume I am a criminal or irresponsible.

Thanks!

[KoolBak]

Dude. You already said you're untrained and inexperienced. You then said you'd get some training but your wife wouldn't and you'd hide the fact from your kids.

As stated previously, that is a PROVEN recipe for disaster.

Get everyone trained, be honest, be safe. It's the only way. Don't perpetuate the stereotype....please.

[Dukasaur]

… using your logic the only “solution” would be to remove ALL firearms from the citizenry.

Wrong. I think it's possible to have reasonable gun laws.

Canada has a high rate of gun ownership and doesn't have the carnage in the streets that the U.S. does.

Switzerland has an even higher rate of gun ownership and a very low level of gun crime.

Reasonable rules are possible, and while nothing can eliminate all problems, they can be reduced dramatically.

Yet you’re advocating that I shouldn’t get a gun for myself.

So that means you either assume I am a criminal or irresponsible.

Thanks!

Wrong again. I expressed NO OPINION on whether you should acquire a gun.

If you want to go skeet shooting, be my guest.

What I advised against was you fantasizing that you're Charles fucking Bronson and that your home is your castle and you will defend it against the unwashed barbarians outside.

Your fantasy depends on two separate and independent delusions. The first is that you're Charles Bronson and you're capable of it. The second is that if you do shoot someone, "self-defense" is a magic wand you can wave in front of the courts to escape all consequences.

Saxi has fairly comprehensively deflated the second delusion for you. If you don't remember his post, I suggest you go back and re-read it, because it was pretty thorough.

I've tried to deflate the first. If you're attacked by criminals, running away is statistically proven to be a more successful strategy than standing your ground. When people stand their ground, someone often gets hurt. Sometimes it's the criminal, but more often it's the victim, and all too often it's an innocent bystander who had absolutely no interest in the case.

[Dukasaur]

Switzerland has an even higher rate of gun ownership and a very low level of gun crime.

Reasonable rules are possible, and while nothing can eliminate all problems, they can be reduced dramatically.

Switzerland doesn't have the same "population", to put it mildly, that's the reason, not laws. I don't think I need to elaborate, and if I did I might get in trouble with the PC Police

Yeah, we can read between the lines. You think Switzerland's lily-white population is less violent that America's many non-whites. It's a position that's often put forward by right-wingers. Easily refuted.

Throughout most of recorded history, the lily-white population of Switzerland and every other European nation were happily slaughtering each other like pigs. Crimes were only punished if they were crimes against the ruling class. Assaulting peasants or stealing from them was largely ignored as a matter of course. Murder of a peasant would still be punished, but not if it was done by a member of the ruling class. That didn't change until the 19th century. Did the genetic makeup of Europe change in the 19th century? No, the laws changed.

In the 18th Century, the Enlightenment started sweeping across Europe and introducing the idea that human rights matter. It too a few generations to become the norm, but by the 19th century most countries in Europe had come around to the idea that all people have a right to be secure, and building that up as the prime focus of their legal systems.

[bigtoughralf]

You do realise you're trying to reason with a guy who is saying that black people are predisposed towards being criminals.

[Maxleod]

You do realise you're trying to reason with a guy who is saying that black people are predisposed towards being criminals.

Not what I said...
Anyways ralph, remind us what you think of the Japanese again?