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.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.
Stoneman survivor speaks out
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
- Jag
- Posts: 14435
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: SoFla
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
- Papa Smurph
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:38 pm
- Location: Smurfy Land
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Absolutes. Things like 1+1=2. The force of gravity on Earth is ~9.8 meters per second squared. The Earth is round.Fitzy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:53 pmOnly a Sith deals in absolutes.Papa Smurph wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
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?
- Daehawk
- Posts: 63531
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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 don't own one because I don't want to kill people
--------------------------------------------
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"
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"
- Zaxxon
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 28118
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
- Location: Surrounded by Mountains
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Statistically unlikely.Daehawk wrote: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 don't own one because I don't want to kill people
- Victoria Raverna
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:23 am
- Location: Jakarta
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
- Chaz
- Posts: 7381
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:37 am
- Location: Southern NH
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Daehawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:50 amI 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 don't own one because I don't want to kill people
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
- Daehawk
- Posts: 63531
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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"
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"
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82094
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
And ballistic missiles were designed to do the same. Shut down NASA!Victoria Raverna wrote: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.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- YellowKing
- Posts: 30126
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
That's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
- msteelers
- Posts: 7157
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
- Chaz
- Posts: 7381
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:37 am
- Location: Southern NH
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
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
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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
- Combustible Lemur
- Posts: 3961
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
- Location: houston, TX
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Gun $1000 with ammo and accessories vs. panic room over 10k?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.
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.
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:18 amGun $1000 with ammo and accessories vs. panic room over 10k?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.
Also, self defense isn't murder but it is homicide.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
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
- Combustible Lemur
- Posts: 3961
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
- Location: houston, TX
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Not if your state has castle laws.Remus West wrote: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.Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:18 amGun $1000 with ammo and accessories vs. panic room over 10k?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.
Also, self defense isn't murder but it is homicide.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
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.
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.
- Fitzy
- Posts: 2030
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
- Location: Rockville, MD
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Actually I was mocking a ridiculous statement, using an equally ridiculous quote.Papa Smurph wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:50 pmAbsolutes. Things like 1+1=2. The force of gravity on Earth is ~9.8 meters per second squared. The Earth is round.Fitzy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:53 pmOnly a Sith deals in absolutes.Papa Smurph wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
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?
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.
- 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
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.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 amThat's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
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?).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.
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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
1+1 = 3 for large enough values of 1.Papa Smurph wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:50 pmAbsolutes. Things like 1+1=2. The force of gravity on Earth is ~9.8 meters per second squared. The Earth is round.Fitzy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:53 pmOnly a Sith deals in absolutes.Papa Smurph wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:34 pm Guns kill. Any other opinion isn't an opinion... it's stupidity.
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?
Spoiler:
“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
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
None of which is required to own a gun and shoot someone.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amSome 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.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 amThat's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
“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
- Carpet_pissr
- Posts: 19980
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Columbia, SC
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.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?
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
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
"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
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 54567
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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...
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
- 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
Which is a problem. That doesn't mean the solution is window bars.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:41 amNone of which is required to own a gun and shoot someone.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amSome 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.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 amThat's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- 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
How do I think is is going to go?Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Carpet_pissr
- Posts: 19980
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Columbia, SC
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Your position seems to indicate that having a gun for home defense is a good idea. Is that not correct? Sorry if I misinterpreted.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:31 pmHow do I think is is going to go?Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
Also, implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense seems a bit disingenuous, no?
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.
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:30 pmWhich is a problem. That doesn't mean the solution is window bars.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:41 amNone of which is required to own a gun and shoot someone.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 amSome 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.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:49 amThat's the kind of talk that makes me feel like some gun owners are just spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.Daehawk wrote:Seems like you are saying I should go out of my way to protect the asshole who breaks in my home.
“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
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
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.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ma ... -violence/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.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42239
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
- Remus West
- Posts: 33592
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
- Location: Not in Westland
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Rip wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pmThe 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.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
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
- 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
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 pmYour position seems to indicate that having a gun for home defense is a good idea. Is that not correct? Sorry if I misinterpreted.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:31 pmHow do I think is is going to go?Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
Also, implying that all firearms used in gun deaths are firearms kept for home defense seems a bit disingenuous, no?
I may have misunderstood but this was the sequence: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.
If someone takes reasonable measures to secure their home ( locks, alarms), why shouldn't they be able to use a firearm for home defense?
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.See unacceptable rate of gun deaths and violence in this country, for one.
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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15617392BACKGROUND:
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.
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:26 pmSo 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.Rip wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pmThe 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.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
What an idiotic position to take. Anything above zero is unacceptable. Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
- 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
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.Rip wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:51 pmThe 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.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:26 pmSo 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.Rip wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:17 pmThe 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.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:42 amSee 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.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?
What an idiotic position to take. Anything above zero is unacceptable. Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- 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
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.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:26 pm Lethal force should not be the solution to petty burglary.
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Moliere
- Posts: 12297
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
I hope some pretty burglars break into my house.
"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
- Kraken
- Posts: 43690
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
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.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82094
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
Credit Donkey has a laundry list in their source links, so I'm going to trust them for the moment (Aug 2017)
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)
Statista - "In 2017, there were about 126.22 million households in the United States."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.
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.
- Fitzy
- Posts: 2030
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
- Location: Rockville, MD
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
- Little Raven
- Posts: 8608
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.
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."
\/ window into Outside Over There."
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Stoneman survivor speaks out
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.Fitzy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:16 pmIt 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.
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.