Stoneman survivor speaks out

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Jag
Posts: 14435
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: SoFla

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Jag »

Papa Smurph wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm3. If owning a gun is more important to you than the lives of others, esp. children, you are fucked up. I have shot guns since I was 8 or 9, but I don't own one because I don't want to kill people. Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
Agreed. I could shoot as soon as I was able to hold a rifle. I grew up around guns, literally. My dad is a gun collector. Mostly Revolutionary and Civil War period, but we had plenty of modern guns. He told me he is getting out of the gun business and moving to military antiques. He's just sickened by the attitude he's seen in gun owners and dealers. They won't even discuss a compromise or reasonable regulations. It really is a disease with these people.
User avatar
Papa Smurph
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: Smurfy Land

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Papa Smurph »

Fitzy wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:53 pm
Papa Smurph wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Absolutes. Things like 1+1=2. The force of gravity on Earth is ~9.8 meters per second squared. The Earth is round.

So, saying facts makes one a Sith? I think you might want to reconsider your position... or are you saying you are a Flat Earther?
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63531
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Daehawk »

I don't own one because I don't want to kill people
I dont want to either. I dont plan to. But I own a few and if someone breaks in my house Ill kill them. I dont want to. And I may be sick from it the rest of my life. But I will be alive and so will my wife and dog. People who break in dont plan to come in and give you a party. They are there for criminal actions. Id be mad as hell at them forever too for making me kill them but Ill do it.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Zaxxon »


Daehawk wrote:
I don't own one because I don't want to kill people
I dont want to either. I dont plan to. But I own a few and if someone breaks in my house Ill kill them.
Statistically unlikely.
User avatar
Victoria Raverna
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:23 am
Location: Jakarta

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Victoria Raverna »

Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:55 am I’m sure those Olympic competitors in the biathlon and those competing in the Summer Games in rifle, pistol, skeet and trap will be glad to know that their weapons’ only purpose is to kill things.
Just because you have competitions where the competitors are shooting at lifeless target, doesn't change the fact that guns are created to kill things.
User avatar
Chaz
Posts: 7381
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:37 am
Location: Southern NH

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Chaz »

Daehawk wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:50 am
I don't own one because I don't want to kill people
I dont want to either. I dont plan to. But I own a few and if someone breaks in my house Ill kill them. I dont want to. And I may be sick from it the rest of my life. But I will be alive and so will my wife and dog. People who break in dont plan to come in and give you a party. They are there for criminal actions. Id be mad as hell at them forever too for making me kill them but Ill do it.
If someone breaks into your house, it's way more likely they want your stuff than to kill you. Is there really no other option to deal with a break in than to murder someone? Like, that's literally the only thing that can be done? And again, if the main fear is a break in, wouldn't the better thing be to have an extremely secure perimeter, with barred windows and a security system? If you have the gun but not the other stuff, I feel like there's a step missing in your security process.
I can't imagine, even at my most inebriated, hearing a bouncer offering me an hour with a stripper for only $1,400 and thinking That sounds like a reasonable idea.-Two Sheds
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63531
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Daehawk »

Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Isgrimnur »

Victoria Raverna wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:55 am I’m sure those Olympic competitors in the biathlon and those competing in the Summer Games in rifle, pistol, skeet and trap will be glad to know that their weapons’ only purpose is to kill things.
Just because you have competitions where the competitors are shooting at lifeless target, doesn't change the fact that guns are created to kill things.
And ballistic missiles were designed to do the same. Shut down NASA!
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by YellowKing »

Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
That's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.
User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 7157
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by msteelers »

Chaz wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:00 amAnd again, if the main fear is a break in, wouldn't the better thing be to have an extremely secure perimeter, with barred windows and a security system?
Not to take away from your main point, but are bars on your home windows a good idea? I would be worried about not being able to get out if there is a fire.
User avatar
Chaz
Posts: 7381
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:37 am
Location: Southern NH

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Chaz »

There are quick release devices for window bars for escaping in case of fire.

Daehawk, you yourself just said that killing someone is something that you don't want to do and would probably stick with you forever. That being the case, wouldn't you want to avoid doing that? Especially when the chances are that someone who broke in probably did so trying to steal stuff, not physically hurt you? I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but it's definitely in the minority. What I am saying is that there are nonlethal options to deal with potential intruders, either by preventing them from getting in (perimeter security), or subduing them without killing them (tasers, pepper spray, hell, rubber bullets). Obviously, none of those are without risk, but they're much less risky than introducing a gun into the house, especially when, as you just said, shooting someone is not your desired outcome.
I can't imagine, even at my most inebriated, hearing a bouncer offering me an hour with a stripper for only $1,400 and thinking That sounds like a reasonable idea.-Two Sheds
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Remus West »

If you don't want to kill anyone spend your money on a panic room rather than a gun. That way even if they want to kill you they can not unless they have planned ahead very well and if you have that type of enemy well.......good luck.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Combustible Lemur »

Remus West wrote:If you don't want to kill anyone spend your money on a panic room rather than a gun. That way even if they want to kill you they can not unless they have planned ahead very well and if you have that type of enemy well.......good luck.
Gun $1000 with ammo and accessories vs. panic room over 10k?

Also, self defense isn't murder but it is homicide.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Remus West »

Combustible Lemur wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:18 am
Remus West wrote:If you don't want to kill anyone spend your money on a panic room rather than a gun. That way even if they want to kill you they can not unless they have planned ahead very well and if you have that type of enemy well.......good luck.
Gun $1000 with ammo and accessories vs. panic room over 10k?

Also, self defense isn't murder but it is homicide.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Self defense only counts if the other party is actually trying to kill/injure you. Shooting someone for trespassing or home invasion/burglary is not self defense.

Also, where do you get your numbers? $1000 for buying the guns and ammo? What about training? Storage location (assuming you do not just leave them laying around)? Converting a closet into a panic room is not going to be near 10k. Should be much much less. Not to mention the cost of taking a life.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Combustible Lemur »

Remus West wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:18 am
Remus West wrote:If you don't want to kill anyone spend your money on a panic room rather than a gun. That way even if they want to kill you they can not unless they have planned ahead very well and if you have that type of enemy well.......good luck.
Gun $1000 with ammo and accessories vs. panic room over 10k?

Also, self defense isn't murder but it is homicide.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Self defense only counts if the other party is actually trying to kill/injure you. Shooting someone for trespassing or home invasion/burglary is not self defense.

Also, where do you get your numbers? $1000 for buying the guns and ammo? What about training? Storage location (assuming you do not just leave them laying around)? Converting a closet into a panic room is not going to be near 10k. Should be much much less.
Not if your state has castle laws.

And who needs training, a small gun safe can be had for 500 a modest hand gun can be had for 3, and 100 for ammo and then maybe a holder or lock with the last 100.

Panic room, ventilation500 to 1000, wiring for emergency call1 to 500, steel door 500to 1000. Labor, are you going to reinforce the walls? Install seating? If you're talking just putting a lock on an interior door. Sure. 10k may be high for a simple one but remodeling costs add up fast, especially when you are connecting to hvac and electrical.

Regardless it's much more expensive than just a gun.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Fitzy »

Papa Smurph wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:50 pm
Fitzy wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:53 pm
Papa Smurph wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Absolutes. Things like 1+1=2. The force of gravity on Earth is ~9.8 meters per second squared. The Earth is round.

So, saying facts makes one a Sith? I think you might want to reconsider your position... or are you saying you are a Flat Earther?
Actually I was mocking a ridiculous statement, using an equally ridiculous quote.

There is a really ugly turn in politics towards black and white thinking (and then denying it by claiming "facts" or "truth"). You expressed it perfectly. Another example: Abortion kills. It's a fact. Yet it does nothing to help solve the problem. Nothing.

And then to top it off you tossed in an insult, stupidity. So anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong and not just wrong, but stupid.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by LawBeefaroni »

YellowKing wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 am
Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
That's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.
Some are. Usually because they have no proper training. In my experience, people who commit time and/or money for training learn the grave responsibility of being armed and do not want to shoot anyone. And by training, I don't mean how to shoot. Any good defensive firearm class will have hours of legal and ethical training that very much discourages looking for trouble.


Chaz wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:26 am There are quick release devices for window bars for escaping in case of fire.

Daehawk, you yourself just said that killing someone is something that you don't want to do and would probably stick with you forever. That being the case, wouldn't you want to avoid doing that? Especially when the chances are that someone who broke in probably did so trying to steal stuff, not physically hurt you? I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but it's definitely in the minority. What I am saying is that there are nonlethal options to deal with potential intruders, either by preventing them from getting in (perimeter security), or subduing them without killing them (tasers, pepper spray, hell, rubber bullets). Obviously, none of those are without risk, but they're much less risky than introducing a gun into the house, especially when, as you just said, shooting someone is not your desired outcome.
If someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense? Requiring an unbreachable perimeter isn't reasonable. And requiring non-lethal methods is a bit uninformed. All the above mentioned methods (taser, pepper spray, non-lethal rounds) are far less effective at stopping a threat and can introduce their own dangers (ever fire off pepper spray in a confined space typical in the home?).

Either you are allowed to defend your own home or you aren't. Putting on unreasonable pre-requisites is just another way to say you aren't.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Remus West »

Papa Smurph wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:50 pm
Fitzy wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:53 pm
Papa Smurph wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Absolutes. Things like 1+1=2. The force of gravity on Earth is ~9.8 meters per second squared. The Earth is round.

So, saying facts makes one a Sith? I think you might want to reconsider your position... or are you saying you are a Flat Earther?
1+1 = 3 for large enough values of 1. :P
Spoiler:
due to rounding 1.4 is 1 but 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 which is 3.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Remus West »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 am
YellowKing wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 am
Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
That's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.
Some are. Usually because they have no proper training. In my experience, people who commit time and/or money for training learn the grave responsibility of being armed and do not want to shoot anyone. And by training, I don't mean how to shoot. Any good defensive firearm class will have hours of legal and ethical training that very much discourages looking for trouble.
None of which is required to own a gun and shoot someone.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Carpet_pissr »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by noxiousdog »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
Is this something we can average though? There's virtually zero chance of anyone in my neighborhood getting assaulted in a home invasion. There's other places where it happens daily.

While I don't feel it necessary to own a gun, if I lived in a high crime area I might feel differently. If I had been in an abuse situation or lost someone close to me it would certainly increase the likelyhood.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Smoove_B »

A few years ago there was big news in our area of rural NJ when a group of 6 individuals seemingly arrived at a random home, forced their way inside at gun point, restrained the wife with zip ties and threatened her life. As you could imagine, this caused lots of people to repeatedly indicate it's exactly why they have guns and they're ready to shoot anyone that comes in their home. If this type of thing could happen in rural NJ, it can happen anywhere, etc... Well, as it turns out, the husband was a drug dealer, so this wasn't a random home invasion.

My point here is that when it hit the news, it was a big deal - and everyone around here was talking about it. I don't recall the same type of discussion occurring when the state police reported it was a drug-related invasion, not a random crime. If people only focused on the breaking news as opposed to what actually happened...
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Remus West wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:41 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 am
YellowKing wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 am
Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
That's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.
Some are. Usually because they have no proper training. In my experience, people who commit time and/or money for training learn the grave responsibility of being armed and do not want to shoot anyone. And by training, I don't mean how to shoot. Any good defensive firearm class will have hours of legal and ethical training that very much discourages looking for trouble.
None of which is required to own a gun and shoot someone.
Which is a problem. That doesn't mean the solution is window bars.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
How do I think is is going to go?


Also, implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense seems a bit disingenuous, no?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Carpet_pissr »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:31 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
How do I think is is going to go?


Also, implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense seems a bit disingenuous, no?
Your position seems to indicate that having a gun for home defense is a good idea. Is that not correct? Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Yes, agree that implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense is very disingenuous (and a stupid argument), which is why I neither implied it nor believe it.
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Remus West »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:30 pm
Remus West wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:41 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 am
YellowKing wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 am
Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
That's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.
Some are. Usually because they have no proper training. In my experience, people who commit time and/or money for training learn the grave responsibility of being armed and do not want to shoot anyone. And by training, I don't mean how to shoot. Any good defensive firearm class will have hours of legal and ethical training that very much discourages looking for trouble.
None of which is required to own a gun and shoot someone.
Which is a problem. That doesn't mean the solution is window bars.
I'd go with the solution being nobody owning guns. Since that can not happen realistically I hope for banning the more high powered and rapid fire type guns that are capable of maximizing damage in a minimum time frame.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Rip »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
The Lion's share of those gun deaths are either suicides or gang related street violence. There is no unacceptable rate of gun deaths related to home defense.

Suicide is its own issue because suiciders gonna suicide.
Last year, we produced a series of stories on American gun deaths and the people behind the statistics. From that reporting, and other sources, we know mass shootings are different from other kinds of gun deaths in several ways.

First, they’re rare, and the people doing the shooting are different. The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides
And while people who commit suicide and people who commit mass shootings both tend to be white and male, suicide victims tend to be older. The median age of a mass shooter, according to one report, is 34, with very few over 50. Suicide, however, plagues the elderly as much as it does the middle-aged.

Second, the people killed in mass shootings are different from the majority of homicides. Most gun murder victims are men between the ages of 15 and 34. Sixty-six percent are black. Women — of any race and any age — are far less likely to be murdered by a gun. Unless that gun is part of a mass shooting. There, 50 percent of the people who die are women. And at least 54 percent of mass shootings involve domestic or family violence — with the perpetrator shooting a current or former partner or a relative.
You could, theoretically, cut down on all these deaths with a blanket removal of guns from the U.S. entirely — something that is as politically unlikely as it is legally untenable. Barring that, though, policies aimed at reducing gun deaths will likely need to be targeted at the specific people who commit or are victimized by those incidents. And mass shootings just aren’t a good proxy for the diversity of gun violence. Policies that reduce the number of homicides among young black men — such as programs that build trust between community members, police and at-risk youth and offer people a way out of crime — probably won’t have the same effect on suicides among elderly white men. Background checks and laws aimed at preventing a young white man with a history of domestic violence from obtaining a gun and using it in a mass shooting might not prevent a similar shooting by an older white male with no criminal record.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ma ... -violence/
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by GreenGoo »

Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pm Suicide is its own issue because suiciders gonna suicide.
That's not actually true.
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Remus West »

Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
The Lion's share of those gun deaths are either suicides or gang related street violence. There is no unacceptable rate of gun deaths related to home defense.
So guy breaks into a home and the homeowner shoots at him but the bullet misses goes through window and strikes the homeowner next door's infant child killing it but that's alright in your book because there is no unacceptable rate of gun death related to home defense.

What an idiotic position to take. Anything above zero is unacceptable. Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:40 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:31 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
How do I think is is going to go?


Also, implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense seems a bit disingenuous, no?
Your position seems to indicate that having a gun for home defense is a good idea. Is that not correct? Sorry if I misinterpreted.
I'm saying that having a firearm for home defense should be allowed. It is a good idea for someone who is properly trained and who has the proper firearm for their environment. It may not be a good idea for someone else.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:40 pm Yes, agree that implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense is very disingenuous (and a stupid argument), which is why I neither implied it nor believe it.
I may have misunderstood but this was the sequence:
If someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one.
I understood it to imply that home defense guns are responsible for the unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence. If not wholly responsible, at least enough so that people shouldn't be allowed to have them.





Here's what I'm fine with, to start with. Firearms and ammo "driver's licenses" that are required for all purchases. License to include basic shooting and legal training requirement. Background checks for all dealer purchases (current practice). License recorded and submitted to state/feds for both parties for all personal purchases/transactions, to include gun shows.

Advanced training required for CCW. Permit and similar training required for open carry ( where open carry is allowed). CCW reciprocity and shall-issue. I know that sounds only pro-gun but I'd have a national permit requirement and training and renewal.

Strict enforcement of firearms laws, including illegal possession and UUW.

Bans are going to be tough. I'm not opposed to banning certain firearms but I'm well aware that it is almost impossible to ban a "style" of firearm. Semi-auto is far too broad.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:25 pm
Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pm Suicide is its own issue because suiciders gonna suicide.
That's not actually true.
Your opinion. But the fact is the US suicide rate is well behind a lot of places where guns are almost non-existent. So any hope that making guns disappear is going to put a big dent in suicide deaths is fallacy.
BACKGROUND:
Suicide is one of the most important public health issues in both Japan and the United States. This study is to clarify the differences in methods of suicide between the two countries, among various races within the United States, and between genders and age-groups.

METHODS:
Vital statistics mortality data and the estimated population in 1999 in Japan and in the United States were used. Age-adjusted mortality rates were calculated using the age-specific total population of Japan and the United States as a standard population. In addition, the proportionate distribution of suicide methods was calculated.

RESULTS:
Age-adjusted mortality rates from suicide in Japan were about 2 times higher for males and 3 times higher for females compared with the United States. The most common method among both genders in Japan was hanging, followed by jumping from a high place. In the United States, it was firearms among both genders, followed by hanging among males and drugs among females. For Asians in the United States, hanging was the method of choice for about half among both genders; hanging was the most common method for the age group of 40 years or more among males and for all age groups among females. Firearms were the method of choice for the 20-39 age group among males.

CONCLUSIONS:
Although the overall suicide rates among Asians in the United States were lower than Japan, the methods were similar to those in Japan.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15617392
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Rip »

Remus West wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:26 pm
Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
The Lion's share of those gun deaths are either suicides or gang related street violence. There is no unacceptable rate of gun deaths related to home defense.
So guy breaks into a home and the homeowner shoots at him but the bullet misses goes through window and strikes the homeowner next door's infant child killing it but that's alright in your book because there is no unacceptable rate of gun death related to home defense.

What an idiotic position to take. Anything above zero is unacceptable. Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
The position that there are enough kids getting killed by stray bullets fired by people defending their homes to justify denying them the right to defend themselves with a firearm is idiotic.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:51 pm
Remus West wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:26 pm
Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amIf someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one. Data also shows that having a gun is not going to go the way you think in most home invasion situations.
The Lion's share of those gun deaths are either suicides or gang related street violence. There is no unacceptable rate of gun deaths related to home defense.
So guy breaks into a home and the homeowner shoots at him but the bullet misses goes through window and strikes the homeowner next door's infant child killing it but that's alright in your book because there is no unacceptable rate of gun death related to home defense.

What an idiotic position to take. Anything above zero is unacceptable. Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
The position that there are enough kids getting killed by stray bullets fired by people defending their homes to justify denying them the right to defend themselves with a firearm is idiotic.
Rare as it may (or may not) be, someone who shoots a neighbor's kid is responsible for shooting that kid, even if they were trying to shoot an intruder. The courts will usually decide their fate.

One of the key tenants of responsible gun ownership is that you're responsible for every single bullet that leaves your firearm. If you fire without knowing your target AND what is behind it, you are being negligent. Whether or not your are justified in shooting, you are still taking great risk when you aren't aware.



I have pre-determined no-shoot zones and angles at home. My Creedmoor doesn't even have it's bolt in the same safe. It'll never be fired in my home because the odds are too high that the bullet could get outside.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Remus West wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:26 pm Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
If pretty burglars announced their peaceful intent prior to entering a home, I bet there would be a lot less lethal force applied. Maybe knock a few times to ensure that no one is at home. As it is, there is no way of knowing that someone breaking in is a pretty burglar. That's the risk petty burglars take I guess.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Moliere »

I hope some pretty burglars break into my house. :pray:
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Kraken »

You'd think this argument could be easily settled with statistics, but I couldn't readily answer two questions:

What are the odds that your home will be invaded while you are there?

and

What are the odds that you'll be shot if there's a gun in your home?

I found sources (mostly biased) that skirt both questions, but no trustworthy answers. So argue away.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Isgrimnur »

Credit Donkey has a laundry list in their source links, so I'm going to trust them for the moment (Aug 2017)
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 1.03 million home invasions occur each year.
...
The DOJ reported 1 million burglaries occurred with people in the home. 27% of them became victim of a violent crime.
...
The DOJ reported the use of weapons in a majority of robberies. 41% of robberies involved firearms and 7.8% included knives or other cutting devices. In addition, 42.5% used strong-arm tactics, whether verbal or physical.
...
Criminals don't get anything 55% of the time when the home is occupied. Non-occupied homes have a 75% chance of theft.
...
A shocking 2.5 million victims use a gun to scare their offender. That's almost 5 law-abiding citizens a minute. However, victims only shoot their offender 8% of the time. They mostly use the firearm to scare their offender away.
...
In a 5-year span ranging from 2005 to 2010, 3,800 people died at the hand of a gun accidentally. Of those victims, almost 1,300 of them were younger than 25 years old. Generally, the states with looser gun laws had the higher number of deaths.
Statista - "In 2017, there were about 126.22 million households in the United States."

Assuming all other things being equal, there's a 0.82% chance of a home being the target of a home invasion per year.

Giffords - "The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat."

CDC (PDF)
Table 17. Emergency department visits related to injury, poisoning, and adverse effect, by intent and mechanism: United States, 2014

Unintentional injuries: (total) 30,642
-- Other mechanism: [^3] 1,975

Intentional injuries: (total) 2,530
-- Assault: 1,909
-- -- Other and unspecified mechanism: [^4] 680

^3 Includes drowning, firearms, and other mechanism
^4 Includes assaults by firearms and explosives, and other mechanism.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Fitzy »

Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:46 pm
Your opinion. But the fact is the US suicide rate is well behind a lot of places where guns are almost non-existent. So any hope that making guns disappear is going to put a big dent in suicide deaths is fallacy.
It is entirely possible to prevent suicide through multiple methods.

Means restriction is one method. It works. It works with guns. It works well when done right. It saves lives. Period.

If you'd like other references, I promise you I can bury you in paper on this issue.

It is a myth that suicidal people can't be helped and will commit suicide no matter what. Please don't perpetuate it. You're potentially hurting people by preventing them from getting help.
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Little Raven »

If we're going to do this...and I mean, really do this...then we're going to need a Constitutional Amendment.

I don't think there's really any way around it. For better or worse, the Constitution puts gun ownership right up there with voting and free speech when it comes to guarantees that we get from our government. I don't personally care about gun ownership that much, but I'm pretty solidly for the other two, and I don't see any way to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment that doesn't put the whole thing up for grabs.

Fortunately, the Constitution isn't scripture. We CAN amend it. We just need broad cultural agreement that an Amendment is necessary. I don't think we're there yet, but maybe we're getting closer.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out

Post by Rip »

Fitzy wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:16 pm
Rip wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:46 pm
Your opinion. But the fact is the US suicide rate is well behind a lot of places where guns are almost non-existent. So any hope that making guns disappear is going to put a big dent in suicide deaths is fallacy.
It is entirely possible to prevent suicide through multiple methods.

Means restriction is one method. It works. It works with guns. It works well when done right. It saves lives. Period.

If you'd like other references, I promise you I can bury you in paper on this issue.

It is a myth that suicidal people can't be helped and will commit suicide no matter what. Please don't perpetuate it. You're potentially hurting people by preventing them from getting help.
I didn't say they will commit suicide no matter what. The point is that whether they could lay their hands on a gun or not will not be the deciding factor. The is always a rope, vacuum hose, medicine cabinet, or tall building around. As far as means reduction, tell it to the people trying to figure out how to curtail jailhouse suicides.

http://theconversation.com/in-2015-more ... cade-45196

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/st ... 149f9ac149

Jail suicides are 4X the external rate. You can't reduce the means much more than being in jail.
Post Reply