Stoneman survivor speaks out

[Remus West]

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. 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.

and kids that get killed playing with their parents' guns, and friends that play with guns killing each other,....point is that not all gun deaths occur on purpose or in defense but I'm glad to know you're alright with kids getting killed as long as you have the opportunity to defend your home by shooting someone rather than using some non-lethal means to protect yourself.

[Carpet_pissr]

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.

Yes, correct. Note I am not attacking, just a little raw with this particular issue for many reasons. I am ardently (obviously) for a lot more gun regulation, but FWIW, I was born and raised in a home with guns, and have been around them all my life. I've fired many (actually got an expert marksman medal in ROTC), but I just think the cost we are paying as a society has far outweighed the good of ownership. Obviously, we CANNOT be responsible gun owners (as a country) as the laws currently stand. I would be on board with a ban, but if not that, then regulation out the ass. I'm definitely for some kind of liability (insurance) law as well.

[Rip]

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. 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.

and kids that get killed playing with their parents' guns, and friends that play with guns killing each other,....point is that not all gun deaths occur on purpose or in defense but I'm glad to know you're alright with kids getting killed as long as you have the opportunity to defend your home by shooting someone rather than using some non-lethal means to protect yourself.

Easy solution, don't let the kids have access to your guns. The failure of some people to is not a reason to take weapons from those who store them properly.

Not wanting a gun ban != alright with kids being shot. Just like not wanting open immigration != being racist.

The tendency to accuse anyone not onboard with the legislative agenda of the left racists or saying they want to kill young people or old people is getting old. It is right up there with people on the right who say liberals want kids abused because of their positions on bathroom bills or marriage equality.

[Remus West]

I will give you that. I shouldn't have limited it to kids. You're alright with people getting killed. You have decided that death for some is an acceptable price to pay for you to continue to own a gun.

[Rip]

I will give you that. I shouldn't have limited it to kids. You're alright with people getting killed. You have decided that death for some is an acceptable price to pay for you to continue to own a gun.

It is part of life. I don't like babies being aborted either.

There is always a balance between safety/security versus freedom. When at all possible I choose freedom. Even when it comes to abortions which I despise.

[Fitzy]

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.

You literally said suiciders gonna suicide. It's right there. You can't claim you didn't say it Donald.

And again. You are still wrong. Means reduction works. Throw out all the misunderstood articles you want, you'll still be wrong. Denying a person with suicidal intent the means to commit suicide reduces the chances they will commit suicide. It doesn't eliminate it. Nothing works perfectly. But it significantly reduces the successes. The harder it is to find a means, the more likely the person will seek help or will be discovered and given help.

It works. The evidence is overwhelming. But I doubt you bothered to read it.

Again, stop spreading misinformation. It's dangerous. If you want to live your life being wrong about this, that's your choice. Just don't spread your misinformation around.

Reducing a Suicidal Person’s Access to Lethal Means of Suicide

Controlling Access to Suicide Means

Reducing Access to Lethal Means

Safety Planning and Means Reduction in Large Health Care Organizations

These are available without even going into the research databases and they are a fraction of what's available.

Means reduction is not the one solution to solve suicide, it's a part of a comprehensive program. The key being it does work.

Stop digging.

[Zarathud]

When you carry a gun to term for 9 months, you can continue this bullshit analogy between guns and abortion. It's a false equivalence that you don't really believe, Rip.

A fetus' sole purpose is not to kill. And it's not necessarily part of a well regulated militia to be a Constitutional right. And it's not a biologically intimate part of your life, no matter how much the gun compensates for your small...hands...and insecurities.

And abortions are more regulated than guns, so you prove nothing anyway.

[Jag]

Saw Dead & Co. at the BB&T Center last night. They were all wearing MSDStrong shirts. Mickey Hart (Drummer) posted this pic:

Met these amazing teens tonight during set break. These leaders of the next generation are inspiring. #MSDStrong #deadandcompany

[GreenGoo]

Mayer is such a douche. Can't help but notice he is not wearing one of the t-shirts.

Wife was watching a stream of the concert last night and it was messing up my PUBG bandwidth.

[Jag]

Mayer is such a douche. Can't help but notice he is not wearing one of the t-shirts.

Wife was watching a stream of the concert last night and it was messing up my PUBG bandwidth.

That pic was taken during the break. He came back out wearing one

[GreenGoo]

Wife already updated me.

She's seen them in NYC and Detroit.

[Remus West]

Wife already updated me.

She's seen them in NYC and Detroit.

You were in Detroit and didn't give us a heads up to get together?!
Next time you make it you have to buy each of the Detroit crew here a beer.

[Rip]

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.

You literally said suiciders gonna suicide. It's right there. You can't claim you didn't say it Donald.

And again. You are still wrong. Means reduction works. Throw out all the misunderstood articles you want, you'll still be wrong. Denying a person with suicidal intent the means to commit suicide reduces the chances they will commit suicide. It doesn't eliminate it. Nothing works perfectly. But it significantly reduces the successes. The harder it is to find a means, the more likely the person will seek help or will be discovered and given help.

It works. The evidence is overwhelming. But I doubt you bothered to read it.

Again, stop spreading misinformation. It's dangerous. If you want to live your life being wrong about this, that's your choice. Just don't spread your misinformation around.

Reducing a Suicidal Person’s Access to Lethal Means of Suicide

Controlling Access to Suicide Means

Reducing Access to Lethal Means

Safety Planning and Means Reduction in Large Health Care Organizations

These are available without even going into the research databases and they are a fraction of what's available.

Means reduction is not the one solution to solve suicide, it's a part of a comprehensive program. The key being it does work.

Stop digging.

So you want the rest of us to give up our freedoms so suicidal people will be slightly less likely to be successful. No thanks.

[Xmann]

wow

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[hepcat]

So you want the rest of us to give up our freedoms so suicidal people will be slightly less likely to be successful. No thanks.

Many of your kind want women to give up their freedom of choice for similar reasons.

[GreenGoo]

Wife already updated me.

She's seen them in NYC and Detroit.

You were in Detroit and didn't give us a heads up to get together?!
Next time you make it you have to buy each of the Detroit crew here a beer.

*I* wasn't in Detroit. First, that would involve being in Detroit. Second, that would also involve watching John Mayer and worse, watching my wife drool over John Mayer.

However, if I'm ever in Detroit, I promise to announce it here and drink a beer with anyone willing. I will even buy the first round.

[Carpet_pissr]

48% of all civilian-owned guns worldwide are in America
70% of Americans do NOT own a gun
48% of all civilian-owned guns in the world, are owned by 30% of Americans.

We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution.

[Skinypupy]

48% of all civilian-owned guns worldwide are in America
70% of Americans do NOT own a gun
48% of all civilian-owned guns in the world, are owned by 30% of Americans.

We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution.

Source? (not doubting you, just curious where the numbers came from)

[LawBeefaroni]

48% of all civilian-owned guns worldwide are in America
70% of Americans do NOT own a gun
48% of all civilian-owned guns in the world, are owned by 30% of Americans.

We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution.

Source? (not doubting you, just curious where the numbers came from)

On the %of Americans who own a gun:



More numbers here.

[Remus West]

Wife already updated me.

She's seen them in NYC and Detroit.

You were in Detroit and didn't give us a heads up to get together?!
Next time you make it you have to buy each of the Detroit crew here a beer.

*I* wasn't in Detroit. First, that would involve being in Detroit. Second, that would also involve watching John Mayer and worse, watching my wife drool over John Mayer.

However, if I'm ever in Detroit, I promise to announce it here and drink a beer with anyone willing. I will even buy the first round.

If you're hanging out drinking beer with Detroiters I can promise it won't be while watching John Mayer so the wife would actually act as a designated driver to get you home safe after festivities.

[noxiousdog]

48% of all civilian-owned guns worldwide are in America
70% of Americans do NOT own a gun
48% of all civilian-owned guns in the world, are owned by 30% of Americans.

We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution.

That's exactly what the Constitution is supposed to protect. Notice that your chart shows that 60%+ could own a gun. Good luck repealing your archaic and obsolete amendment.

[Carpet_pissr]

48% of all civilian-owned guns worldwide are in America
70% of Americans do NOT own a gun
48% of all civilian-owned guns in the world, are owned by 30% of Americans.

We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution.

Source? (not doubting you, just curious where the numbers came from)

Sorry, should have mentioned. It's UN data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/firearms- ... tions.html

[Carpet_pissr]

48% of all civilian-owned guns worldwide are in America
70% of Americans do NOT own a gun
48% of all civilian-owned guns in the world, are owned by 30% of Americans.

We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution.

That's exactly what the Constitution is supposed to protect. Notice that your chart shows that 60%+ could own a gun. Good luck repealing your archaic and obsolete amendment.

Thanks! We'll need it.

[GreenGoo]

On the %of Americans who own a gun:

I don't think that means what you (and possibly Noxiousdog) think it means. Or maybe it does, it depends if there are any criteria to the question.

For example, I could see myself owning a gun in the future. That does not mean I would side with the NRA or am against gun control.

[Fitzy]

So you want the rest of us to give up our freedoms so suicidal people will be slightly less likely to be successful. No thanks.

Show me where I said that. I'd wait, but that information doesn't exist. All I pointed out is that you were wrong about means reduction.

I want you to stop spreading misinformation about suicide. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop claiming suicidal people can't be helped. They can. One method is means reduction. Means reduction includes guns, but does is not limited to guns. For guns, it can include voluntary or involuntary removal of the gun, locking the gun up, locking the barrel, removing the ammo from the gun and other ways, or even better yet, combinations of methods. If you'd read the original link I included you'd know that.

But all you want to do is hold onto your ridiculous notion that suicide can't be stopped. It can. People can get help. You know you are wrong on this issue, but you just can't admit it, so you throw out misinterpreted articles and try to pretend that is proof. Then you move the bar, claiming you never said that, when you did. Then you throw an accusation out that has no merit in reality and try to take the moral high ground. You failed again.

You may not care about suicide, but I do. I will not stand by and watch you disseminate wrong information when I can step in and correct you.

[Holman]

A side note on the issue of gun suicide and availability of other means:

Suicide is a terrible tragedy, but murder-suicide is even worse. With very few exceptions, only guns make it possible for someone to kill his family before killing himself.

[Rip]

So you want the rest of us to give up our freedoms so suicidal people will be slightly less likely to be successful. No thanks.

Many of your kind want women to give up their freedom of choice for similar reasons.

Well I don't agree with them on that. Abortion disgusts me but that is up to people not governments. Same with drugs, alcohol, butt sex, and guns.

[LawBeefaroni]

On the %of Americans who own a gun:

I don't think that means what you (and possibly Noxiousdog) think it means. Or maybe it does, it depends if there are any criteria to the question.

I think it means exactly what Carpet said, that 30% own and 70% do not. Pew was the first big news source that I found. The rest of it is exactly what it says.

For example, I could see myself owning a gun in the future. That does not mean I would side with the NRA or am against gun control.

I do own guns. That does not mean I side with the NRA or am against gun control.

[Isgrimnur]

But how do Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde feel about it?

[LawBeefaroni]

But how do Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde feel about it?

Waka waka.

It was kind if weird that it was basically 1/3 at each position.

[GreenGoo]

I do own guns. That does not mean I side with the NRA or am against gun control.

Hey that's awesome. I guess I don't understand why you thought it relevant to mention that another 30% can see themselves buying a gun in the future then.

Because...maybe someday in the future the percentage of Americans who own guns will increase?

[Isgrimnur]

The failure to exercise a right is not a reliable indicator as to whether someone supports or opposes the use of that right. It's certainly relevant to the culture shift argument being debated.

[GreenGoo]

The failure to exercise a right is not a reliable indicator as to whether someone supports or opposes the use of that right. It's certainly relevant to the culture shift argument being debated.

Sure.

30% of Americans own all the guns.

If it's the minority holding everyone hostage comment that is causing the issue, he's almost certainly right. The NRA is holding everyone hostage. It's the NRA's work that has stopped any attempts at gun control. It's not bob, the non-gun owner 2nd amendment enthusiast who protests these gun control bills, it's the NRA mobilizing its base. That's very clearly true. And the NRA has approximately 5 million members. That's a much smaller minority that the 30% that are gun owners, so as far as I'm concerned, over represents the potential population that supports the NRA's work.

Sure, we can't figure out exact numbers, but is it your proposal that the numbers can't even be roughly estimated based on the limited data available (including polls, obviously)? Because I disagree with that.

[Isgrimnur]

is it your proposal that the numbers can't even be roughly estimated based on the limited data available (including polls, obviously)? Because I disagree with that.

Not in the least. Bob may not own a gun, but Bob may still vote. And he may not spend a dime that ends up in the NRA, but he very well may be a fellow traveler. And seeing as gun legislation ends up in the republic side of our governance rather than the democratic side, his opinion and strength of identity in our broken two-party system matters.

If he's a gun-issue voter, does it matter what his opinion on abortion is when it comes to election day?

[GreenGoo]

I'd argue that since the NRA membership is approx. 5 million, but 30% of Americans own guns, that any non-gun owning single issue pro-2nd admendment voter could just as easily be counter-balanced by a gun owning supporter for gun control.

I'm not actually following you, I guess.

It sounds like you're saying it's unknowable how many single issue pro-gun voters are out there. I'd agree with that, except we can do some generalizations and end up with some usable guesswork anyway.

[LawBeefaroni]

I do own guns. That does not mean I side with the NRA or am against gun control.

Hey that's awesome. I guess I don't understand why you thought it relevant to mention that another 30% can see themselves buying a gun in the future then.

Because...maybe someday in the future the percentage of Americans who own guns will increase?

I didn't mention it. That was the first chart I found from a reliable source that showed the 70/30 split. It happens to have the 36% number bit that's not why I chose it. I also linked the full breakdown.

[Chaz]

I think the argument is that just because someone doesn't own a gun, it doesn't mean they won't vote against the guy who says he wants to (at least in the voter's mind) make it way way harder to buy a gun someday. That voter's willing to vote based on a hypothetical future where the law might impact him negatively.

Same idea as the people in the lowest income brackets might be in favor of repealing the estate tax or lowering tax rates on high earners. Just because that isn't them now, it doesn't mean that it won't be them when they finally achieve their destiny and hit it rich.

[Rip]

Exactly.

I don't currently own a gun. I have before and may in the future.

No matter I am against a gun ban. I am ok with reasonable background checks and restrictions to prevent ownership by high risk persons such as the mentally unstable, domestic abusers, and felons.

[noxiousdog]

I'd argue that since the NRA membership is approx. 5 million, but 30% of Americans own guns, that any non-gun owning single issue pro-2nd admendment voter could just as easily be counter-balanced by a gun owning supporter for gun control.

I'm not actually following you, I guess.

It sounds like you're saying it's unknowable how many single issue pro-gun voters are out there. I'd agree with that, except we can do some generalizations and end up with some usable guesswork anyway.

It means the 2nd amendment is going no where, even if there is broad support for gun regulation of some sort.

[GreenGoo]

It means the 2nd amendment is going no where, even if there is broad support for gun regulation of some sort.

You're really taking a risk there with that wild speculation.