And people wonder why they're called "Gun Nuts"

[Revoltingest]

Only roughly 2% of all homicides here in the States are for self-defense, which should tell anyone that relying mainly on having a loaded gun in the house is not the best way to go. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

It's even worse than you say.
0% of all homicides are for self-defense.

 

[BSM1]

It's even worse than you say.
0% of all homicides are for self-defense.

Although you are correct I imagine you'll have to explain this to a few.

 

[Revoltingest]

Although you are correct I imagine you'll have to explain this to a few.

I resist the temptation to over-explain things.

 

[Uberpod]

The shooter looks clearly wrong to me. Do you look at this single case to decide what public policy should be?
People sometimes use guns to save their own lives, & people sometimes use them to wrongfully kill others.

Owning a gun slightly increases the risk of harm to family members overall. Chance of preventing harm from an intruder attack is counterbalanced by increased risk of completed suicide or fatal accident. So I won't be getting a gun. Of course for the vast majority of gun owners, the existance of a gun in their home is inconsequencial beyond psychological comfort and subcultural pride.

Are you a skimmer? And do you have the shinning?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

"40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence
In A Restaurant Parking Lot
​

​

On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT) — an open carry advocacy group — “pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.” The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave.

This is not the first time that gun advocates have rallied at MDA events. In March, a group of armed men crashed a MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis. Other gun advocate groups will hold rallies this upcoming December 14th, the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook shooting. "

source
​

I'm not sure that I understand what makes this give a negative impression on gun activists while this does not give a negative impression on homosexuals. Not saying that either of these activists did a "positive" thing, as I personally view, in both cases, they have done negative things. But honestly, what do you expect from activists in general?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you a skimmer? And do you have the shinning?

I knows nuthin about "skimmer", but aye, I has the shinning...I don't wanna get sooed!

 

[Uberpod]

I'm not sure that I understand what makes this give a negative impression on gun activists while this does not give a negative impression on homosexuals. Not saying that either of these activists did a "positive" thing, as I personally view, in both cases, they have done negative things. But honestly, what do you expect from activists in general?

Homosexuals do show a lot during some of their protests, but at least their weapons are almost always under wraps.

 

[metis]

Well: "Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime." -- FBI — Expanded Homicide Data

 

[oldbadger]

I've seen your pic, bub....you ain't that old.

Slander! I'm five years older than you!
My natural beauty has simply confused you as to my great age!

There should be a poll about who is the biggest jerk here.

I was awarded my Phd in Jerkism and Daftness decades ago. You have no academic status..... you're just a lay-jerk.....

Unless Mrs Badger is on RF, you wouldn't get a single vote!

Mrs Badger is deluded...... she thinks I'm wonderful. She listens to me (sometimes) and just..... wonders.

 

[Uberpod]

Well: "Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime." -- FBI — Expanded Homicide Data

A reasonable follow-up question: how many of those had to die to stop the crime? Were there non-lethal means to reach the same end?

 

[Revoltingest]

Slander! I'm five years older than you!
My natural beauty has simply confused you as to my great age!

I'm working on catching up...& you're not too far away.

I was awarded my Phd in Jerkism and Daftness decades ago. You have no academic status..... you're just a lay-jerk.....

Other engineers look down upon me a a social failure.

Mrs Badger is deluded...... she thinks I'm wonderful. She listens to me (sometimes) and just..... wonders.

She just lets you think that.
Marriage is based upon enlightened dishonesty.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm working on catching up...& you're not too far away.

:no:

Other engineers look down upon me a a social failure.

......... but I'm guessing they look up to your engineering knowledge.......

She just lets you think that.
Marriage is based upon enlightened dishonesty.

.......... Mrs B says I'm just interested in lust and tasty dinners!

So where have we got to with the guns? I tell you straight, if we lived in Michigan I would want Mrs B to go on a course and have some sort of fire-arm personal protection. I would want to look into the options as well.... B
Because guns must be very easy to obtain, many villains must be armed, and for people like us who have never lived in such an environment we would need to swat up on household, vehicle and personal security.
Only a complete jerk would ignore such a huge difference........ ...... ummm.... ...... what have I writ?

 

[Revoltingest]

:no:
......... but I'm guessing they look up to your engineering knowledge.......
.......... Mrs B says I'm just interested in lust and tasty dinners!
So where have we got to with the guns? I tell you straight, if we lived in Michigan I would want Mrs B to go on a course and have some sort of fire-arm personal protection. I would want to look into the options as well.... B
Because guns must be very easy to obtain, many villains must be armed, and for people like us who have never lived in such an environment we would need to swat up on household, vehicle and personal security.
Only a complete jerk would ignore such a huge difference........ ...... ummm.... ...... what have I writ?

I smell detente!

 

[Father Heathen]

A reasonable follow-up question: how many of those had to die to stop the crime? Were there non-lethal means to reach the same end?

That should hardly be high on someones priority list when it comes to their own survival and that of their loved ones. If someone is trying to harm me or someone I love, their well-being isn't something I would have much reason to be concerned about. If they die, that's too damn bad. I suppose it would be sort of sad, but it would be something that they brought upon themselves.

 

[Uberpod]

That should hardly be high on someones priority list when it comes to their own survival and that of their loved ones.

I beg to differ. Human life should be very high on everyone's priorities. You, your loved one, and a third party. Just because you are scared in an ambiguous situation, or in a clear cut attack for that matter, you have no right to be reckless, sloppy, or non-thorough. Just because an offender does have culpability in such an event, this does not mean you have none. And, if you shoot defending property, you have really inverted your priorities!

If someone is trying to harm me or someone I love, their well-being isn't something I would have much reason to be concerned about. If they die, that's too damn bad. I suppose it would be sort of sad, but it would be something that they brought upon themselves.

This is what a silly us and them mentality delivers.

 

[Father Heathen]

I beg to differ. Human life should be very high on everyone's priorities. You, your loved one, and a third party.

My life, and the lives of my loved ones, will always take precedence over the life of anyone attempting of harm me or my loved ones. It would make no sense to take extra risk just to preserve the life of someone who's attempting to take my own, potentially placing myself or my loved ones in further jeopardy. Naturally I'm going to value my own life well above that of someone who's attempting to take mine away.

Just because you are scared in an ambiguous situation, or in a clear cut attack for that matter, you have no right to be reckless, sloppy, or non-thorough.

Of course needs to be as clear-headed, responsible, and meticulous as possible when it comes to self-defense, but that doesn't conflict at all with anything that I've said.

Just because an offender does have culpability in such an event, this does not mean you have none. And, if you shoot defending property, you have really inverted your priorities!

Do you think the current legal system is often too lenient on victims who had to defend themselves?

This is what a silly us and them mentality delivers.

If someone is trying to harm me, or take my life, it essentially is a "us and them" situation. It's rather challenging to show concern for those who do the opposite in return.

 

[Uberpod]

My life, and the lives of my loved ones, will always take precedence over the life of anyone attempting of harm me or my loved ones.

Okay, sure.

It would make no sense to take extra risk just to preserve the life of someone who's attempting to take my own, potentially placing myself or my loved ones in further jeopardy. Naturally I'm going to value my own life well above that of someone who's attempting to take mine away.

What if the circumstance is ambiguous. Someone enters your yard at night or enters your house through a window. There are many reasons for that to occur. You can't shoot just because your scared. That's plain silly. Many folks think it is logical to shoot to kill on that information alone. I think that's crazy and immoral. And, if a thief is leaving your home with the TV, many would support a shoot to kill attitude based on the *what if he is coming back to kill you?*.

Of course needs to be as clear-headed, responsible, and meticulous as possible when it comes to self-defense, but that doesn't conflict at all with anything that I've said.

Okay -Sorry, I am not just responding to you, but using this as a jumping off point for what I hear others say frequently.

Do you think the current legal system is often too lenient on victims who had to defend themselves?

Yes, in Texas and other states with a gun culture gone too far.

If someone is trying to harm me, or take my life, it essentially is a "us and them" situation. It's rather challenging to show concern for those who do the opposite in return.

Yes- it is hard and a moral imperative.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not sure that I understand what makes this give a negative impression on gun activists while this does not give a negative impression on homosexuals. Not saying that either of these activists did a "positive" thing, as I personally view, in both cases, they have done negative things. But honestly, what do you expect from activists in general?

The one involves something that's about affection and is ultimately completely harmless. The other involves tools that have one single purpose: death.

 

[BSM1]

What if the circumstance is ambiguous. Someone enters your yard at night or enters your house through a window. There are may reasons for that to occur. You can't shoot just because your scare. That's plain silly. Many folks think it is logical to shoot to kill on that information alone. I think that's crazy and immoral. And, if a thief is leaving your home with the TV, many would support a shoot to kill attitude based on the *what if he is coming back to kill you?*.

If someone enters your house through a window (especially if you are home) it would be foolish to believe that person means you nothing but harm. I have been in the home security business for many years. I would say that 95 % of the break-ins are drug related. These people are not rational, reasonable, or sane. If you feel that you must give a burglar the benefit of the doubt then, please, make it a quick and forceful warning. If that has no effect then it is incumbent on you to protect your life, home, and family; you must decide when a thug stops being human and becomes target.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone enters your house through a window (especially if you are home) it would be foolish to believe that person means you nothing but harm. I have been in the home security business for many years. I would say that 95 % of the break-ins are drug related. These people are not rational, reasonable, or sane.

They're also not generally looking to kill people; they're looking for money to buy drugs, or stuff that can sold to get money to buy drugs.

If you feel that you must give a burglar the benefit of the doubt then, please, make it a quick and forceful warning. If that has no effect then it is incumbent on you to protect your life, home, and family; you must decide when a thug stops being human and becomes target.

The thug never stops being human, even if he becomes a target.