Self Defense: Right or Privilege?

[jgoose71 0]

So, not to derail this thread or anything...

But how about for the general discussion we talk about how repealing "Stand Your Ground Laws" are going to make us safer?

I for one have always believed that my rights end where the next persons rights begin. How does letting people walk all over your rights make this place a better country?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lawrocket 3]

tkhayes

Quote

And happen to believe that people should be free to test their capabilities.

given that sort of logic, I should then be allowed to freely test my capabilities as a neurosurgeon without ANY REPERCUSSIONS whatsoever, for the results of my actions.

There you go with the "without ANY REPERCUSSIONS" shit. Wrong. As I wrote, you would deal with the consequences of it should you try it.

[Quote "tkhayes"]

Quote

Yours is a philosophy based on a mistrust of people.

We 'freely accept' regulations in may parts of our lives every single day because we do not 'trust people'. From drugs to speeding, to filing your tax returns, to handshake business deals with a simple signed contract. The 2nd Amendments' biggest flaw is that it assumes that everyone is capable and responsible when handling a firearm. And they are not.

Nice examples. People do drugs. A lot. People speed - a lot. People aren't told, "you shouldn't have cars because you may speed or get in an accident." They simply suck it up and face the consequences if they do. Basically, gun laws are like speeding laws. Or drug laws. Neither actually prevent the activity.

Got any more examples of bans that people ignore en masse?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhaig 0]

tkhayes

more guns = more people getting shot with guns. The USA demonstrates it clearly, and would demonstrate even MORE clearly if the CDC had not been defunded to do any sort of research on the subject.

Well, for having been defunded, there sure are a whole lot of people online talking about the CDC study that was conducted (by executive order) and how it doesn't match the expectations of the anti-gun crowd.

Quote

while there were “about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

Quote

Firearm-related homicides in Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, which have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, skew the national rate. Were the statistics from those four areas removed, the United States would be in line with any other country.

Quote

Background checks, restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy – from friends, family members, or gang members – well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.

Quote

"Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue."

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

--
Rob

[SkyDekker 1,123]

oldwomanc6

I wonder how many 'anti-gun', 'anti-defend yourself effectively' posters on here would change their mind if they were to be attacked and had fear for their or their loved ones' lives?

eta: It's all fun and games hypotheticals until it happens to YOU!

I wonder how many "pro-gun" posters would still own guns after their 10 year old shoots their 8 year old by accident.

It's all fun and games hypotheticals until it happens to YOU!

[Stumpy 256]

SkyDekker

***I wonder how many 'anti-gun', 'anti-defend yourself effectively' posters on here would change their mind if they were to be attacked and had fear for their or their loved ones' lives?

eta: It's all fun and games hypotheticals until it happens to YOU!

I wonder how many "pro-gun" posters would still own guns after their 10 year old shoots their 8 year old by accident.

It's all fun and games hypotheticals until it happens to YOU!

It wouldnt happen to any of them - they of course are all top 1% shots and responsible law abiding citizens with perfect safety practices.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[normiss 622]

Being a good shot and safe storage of weapons are not related in any way.

Gun safes. I have them.
My kids never shot anybody.
Unless you count paper targets.
Or the old windoze laptop we murdered with a .40 Sig.

[Stumpy 256]

normiss

Being a good shot and safe storage of weapons are not related in any way.

Gun safes. I have them.
My kids never shot anybody.
Unless you count paper targets.
Or the old windoze laptop we murdered with a .40 Sig.

I never suggested otherwise. Note the use of the word "and" in my post.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[SkyDekker 1,123]

normiss

Being a good shot and safe storage of weapons are not related in any way.

Gun safes. I have them.
My kids never shot anybody.
Unless you count paper targets.
Or the old windoze laptop we murdered with a .40 Sig.

And how many times have you had to shoot somebody to protect yourself or your family?

[normiss 622]

Zero.

I've also not used my ball joint puller since I inherited a professional one when my dad passed away in in 1984.
I still have that tool safely locked away in my toolbox.
Why do you hate my tools so much?

I have had to actually pull my weapon once.
Very bad neighborhood I exited an interstate in need of gas.
Soon as I started gassing up, gang bangers headed my way.
At about 20 feet from me, I loudly told them to go away, leave me alone, I have no business with you, and pulled my weapon.
They turned around and ran.

[Gravitymaster 0]

normiss

Being a good shot and safe storage of weapons are not related in any way.

Gun safes. I have them.
My kids never shot anybody.
Unless you count paper targets.
Or the old windoze laptop we murdered with a .40 Sig.

Sometimes the level of ignorance is astounding.

[jgoose71 0]

jgoose71

So, not to derail this thread or anything...

But how about for the general discussion we talk about how repealing "Stand Your Ground Laws" are going to make us safer?

I for one have always believed that my rights end where the next persons rights begin. How does letting people walk all over your rights make this place a better country?

Still waiting for some who supports the revocation of SYG to answer this one....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Zero.

Right.

Oldwoman throws out some hypothetical as to why one would want weapons.

I throw out a similar hypothetical why one wouldn't want weapons.

One hypothetical is defended, the other is "reasoned" away.

Just outlining the bias

[Bignugget 0]

normiss

Zero.

I've also not used my ball joint puller since I inherited a professional one when my dad passed away in in 1984.
I still have that tool safely locked away in my toolbox.
Why do you hate my tools so much?

I have had to actually pull my weapon once.
Very bad neighborhood I exited an interstate in need of gas.
Soon as I started gassing up, gang bangers headed my way.
At about 20 feet from me, I loudly told them to go away, leave me alone, I have no business with you, and pulled my weapon.
They turned around and ran.

Lol.

Normiss pulled a gun on some poor kids walking to the gas station to get some food.

I would turn and run as well if i was walking to get some food and some crazy person pulls a gun out and screams at me.


Great example of why everyone needs a gun.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bignugget

I figured out the way a long time ago.

Ban any and all gun possession, punishable by death immediately.

Stop all gun production in the United States.

That's how I defend myself against people like you.

By advocating murder . . . gotcha.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

Zero.

Right.

Oldwoman throws out some hypothetical as to why one would want weapons.

I throw out a similar hypothetical why one wouldn't want weapons.

One hypothetical is defended, the other is "reasoned" away.

Just outlining the bias

You have an interesting definition of "similar."

The case of a 10 yo accidentally shooting his 8 yo sibling has happened how many times? I think my kids are as likely to be eaten by a shark. This is an event that happens every year or two or three, and usually in a crack house.

Meanwhile, even the most conservative values for defensive gun uses is on order of 100,000 times per year (based on reported events only), and a fair estimate is considerably higher.

So yes, if 250,000 = 1 in your book, they are similar.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

jgoose71

***So, not to derail this thread or anything...

But how about for the general discussion we talk about how repealing "Stand Your Ground Laws" are going to make us safer?

I for one have always believed that my rights end where the next persons rights begin. How does letting people walk all over your rights make this place a better country?

Still waiting for some who supports the revocation of SYG to answer this one....People have always had the right to defend themselves, using an appropriate level of force for the circumstance, including deadly force. SYG brings nothing new to the table in that regard.

What has changed with SYG is that people no longer have any legal obligation to take non-lethal actions to avoid or defuse a situation when it is possible and safe to do so. It puts "honor" above human life: you can choose to kill someone, rather than "back down". You can even provoke a confrontation, then use the confrontation to kill someone. You can shoot someone in the back as they are walking away, then claim you were "scared they would come back". You can nearly run over a pedestrian on a sidewalk, then shoot them when they give you the finger, claiming you thought they might be armed.

People have certainly also been killed as a result of belligerent assholes believing SYG gives them the right to order you to turn off your car stereo, or end your birthday party and send everybody home, to give a couple of examples. Even if the aggressor is ultimately convicted, the dead are still dead, and they are dead because SYG encourages people to be assholes.

SYG fosters situations where two people both believe they are "exercising their rights", and neither will back down. SYG is the legal equivalent of the school yard crowd, surrounding the fighting kids and egging them on. It says, "stand up for your rights, back down if you're a coward".

What's next for the NRA? Laws bringing back dueling?

I know that the vast majority of people with concealed carry permits are responsible and do not behave in such a manner. But considering that the legal right to self defense has always existed, if SYG encourages even 1% of the population to be belligerent assholes, how are we better off? I for one do not feel safer, knowing that any asshole with a firearm can kill me, without the threat of legal repercussions, if I in any way, intentionally or not, give them the idea that I might somehow be a threat to them.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

tkhayes

Quote

As was pointed out to you (again), fewer people are getting killed by guns in the USA every year, going on 20 years. In what world is 49% fewer a growth problem?

show me the source for the 49% number. My source shows an increase each year, but granted the rate per 100,000 people has been about the same for 15 or so years.

It was just (re)posted in this thread, but you could find hundreds of confirmations for it. It will show the bulk of the decline occurred in the 90s, but again, despite massive sales after 9/11 and Obama's election, still a gentle decline.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

so the question really is what source did you pull out of thin air that supports your false claim of increasing deaths each year?

Quote

Name something that the NRA has put forth as a solution to gun violence.

Prosecuting criminals, for one. Mandatory sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with guns. Going after people who fail Brady checks - for all the talk about how the Brady law prevented - 2M+, at a rate of 211/day in 2008 - how many prosecutions were there? Only a couple hundred are considered per year, and few of those actually are pursued. The Feds have said it's not a priority for them.

How is a criminal trying to buy a gun not a priority item? You think they stopped with the rejection, or do you think they found another way?

[linebckr83 3]

Bignugget

Normiss pulled a gun on some poor kids walking to the gas station to get some food.

I would turn and run as well if i was walking to get some food and some crazy person pulls a gun out and screams at me.

You must live an extremely sheltered life. I urge you to go to the shitty part of whatever city you live in and hang out for a bit. Considering you have some outrageous belief that any "young" person is an absolute angel and thugs and gang bangers don't exist, it might be an eye opening experience. When they approach you, I wouldn't suggest giving hugs and offering candy.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[wmw999 2,122]

I live in Houston; we have several parts of town that are considered to be undesirable. I've never hesitated to go anywhere in town I wanted to; we regularly eat on one "undesirable" street, and I've been plenty of other places over the years.

Only once have I ever been concerned. I announced to the group of men gathered around the car that I was driving away, and started moving. They moved.

I'm not about to say that my experience is universal or guaranteed. But I will say that it seems that the friends I have who have concealed carry licenses seem to have sensed a need for their weapons that far exceeds those who don't have them, but who do many of the same things.

Is perception reality?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,123]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

Zero.

Right.

Oldwoman throws out some hypothetical as to why one would want weapons.

I throw out a similar hypothetical why one wouldn't want weapons.

One hypothetical is defended, the other is "reasoned" away.

Just outlining the bias

You have an interesting definition of "similar."

The case of a 10 yo accidentally shooting his 8 yo sibling has happened how many times? I think my kids are as likely to be eaten by a shark. This is an event that happens every year or two or three, and usually in a crack house.

Meanwhile, even the most conservative values for defensive gun uses is on order of 100,000 times per year (based on reported events only), and a fair estimate is considerably higher.

So yes, if 250,000 = 1 in your book, they are similar.

Thank you for making my case again
You purposely assume one hypothetical to be very narrow and the other very broad to allow for your reasoning.

Again, just pointing out the bias.

Under both hypotheticals innocent people end up dying from the use of firearms. The rest is just a biased value proposition.

If bad shit goes down I can protect my family.

I am convinced I can make sure accidents will not happen.

Neither one are in any way a guarantee, but it is easy to convince ourselves number 1 far outweighs number 2.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

Zero.

Right.

Oldwoman throws out some hypothetical as to why one would want weapons.

I throw out a similar hypothetical why one wouldn't want weapons.

One hypothetical is defended, the other is "reasoned" away.

Just outlining the bias

You have an interesting definition of "similar."

The case of a 10 yo accidentally shooting his 8 yo sibling has happened how many times? I think my kids are as likely to be eaten by a shark. This is an event that happens every year or two or three, and usually in a crack house.

Meanwhile, even the most conservative values for defensive gun uses is on order of 100,000 times per year (based on reported events only), and a fair estimate is considerably higher.

So yes, if 250,000 = 1 in your book, they are similar.

Thank you for making my case again
You purposely assume one hypothetical to be very narrow and the other very broad to allow for your reasoning.

Again, just pointing out the bias.

Under both hypotheticals innocent people end up dying from the use of firearms. The rest is just a biased value proposition.

If bad shit goes down I can protect my family.

I am convinced I can make sure accidents will not happen.

Neither one are in any way a guarantee, but it is easy to convince ourselves number 1 far outweighs number 2.

Is one apple the same as having 250000 apples?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Neither one are in any way a guarantee, but it is easy to convince ourselves number 1 far outweighs number 2.

uh, yes, it is. To repeat, in what number system does 250000 resemble 1? It's more than 4 orders of magnitude off.

That is stupider than arguing a Sabre 2 190ft and a golf umbrella are equivalently effective parachutes.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

kelpdiver

***
Neither one are in any way a guarantee, but it is easy to convince ourselves number 1 far outweighs number 2.

uh, yes, it is. To repeat, in what number system does 250000 resemble 1? It's more than 4 orders of magnitude off.

That is stupider than arguing a Sabre 2 190ft and a golf umbrella are equivalently effective parachutes.

Yeah, you left out the part wher I don't agree with your math

IE narrow definition against broad definiton.

In the mean time I'll stay here where our human rights are heavily violated and it is against the law to defend ourselves....yet not so many people get shot and even fewer accidents happen.

(notice how I am leaving out your dismissal of the value of a child, just because their parents have made bad decisions)

[turtlespeed 212]

kelpdiver

***
Neither one are in any way a guarantee, but it is easy to convince ourselves number 1 far outweighs number 2.

uh, yes, it is. To repeat, in what number system does 250000 resemble 1? It's more than 4 orders of magnitude off.

That is stupider than arguing a Sabre 2 190ft and a golf umbrella are equivalently effective parachutes.

Actually that is a much closer analogy that his was . . . but I see where you are going with it.

I think a more appropriate one is having an income of 1 dollar per year is similar to having an income of 250000 per year. They are similar only in that they are incomes.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Is one apple the same as having 250000 apples?

Sometimes it is....