School attacks couldnt happen without guns? Bombs and other means of mass attacks

[Angel4Truth]

I need a citation to know how the risks and rewards balance out.

Threads filled with them, read them.

Sure, if you know your home is going to be invaded, you're probably better off with a gun.

Moronic statement, no one knows their home will be invaded before it happens.

The last part is right though, since no one knows, they are better off with a gun to stop it when it does.

But if you take into account the fact that the weapon can also harm the residents, and there's no certainty that you will be able to use it defensively, it could well be a greater liability than a help.

Guns dont harm responsible gun owners. Theres a greater chance you will stop a crime than be harmed by one if you have one. Then if you do not feel you are able to use one responsibly, and figure youll just quake and get it taken from you since you dont appear to have what it takes to use it, then i agree you shouldnt have one.

That's nice. I'm curious, was that three calls after the guy was chased off?

Nope, it was 3 calls while it was happening at near 3 am, they finally decided to come when my mother said if the guy gets in here, my husband is going to kill him.

 

[rexlunae]

Threads filled with them, read them.

I want a citation for your specific claim. You made it, after all. Otherwise, I don't buy it.

Moronic statement, no one knows their home will be invaded before it happens.

That's exactly the point.

The last part is right though, since no one know, they are better off with a gun to stop it when it does.

That's bad math and bad logic. What if the risk in having the gun is greater than the risk of a home invasion? They could literally be worse off. But you don't even seem to be able to acknowledge the possibility.

Guns dont harm responsible gun owners.

They're designed for perfect people. Great.

Theres a greater chance you will stop a crime than be harmed by one if you have one.

Based on what? Another self-report survey? Ever wonder why there isn't more definitive research on the subject?

Nope, it was 3 calls while it was happening at near 3 am, they finally decided to come when my mother said if the guy gets in here, my husband is going to kill him.

Any idea why he was so keen to get into a house that had so many people in it? Seems like a pretty bad idea, in general. Was he armed?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I want a citation for your specific claim. You made it, after all. Otherwise, I don't buy it.

Already been given by me all through the thread, if you dont want to read, too bad, then be lazy.

That's exactly the point.

yes, that people should be able to defend themselves.

That's bad math and bad logic. What if the risk in having the gun is greater than the risk of a home invasion? They could literally be worse off. But you don't even seem to be able to acknowledge the possibility.

Why should i acknowledge something that is far less likely to happen, than what actually happens most of the time? Again see the thread, many examples given, you are going to have to :gasp: read.

Based on what? Another self-report survey? Ever wonder why there isn't more definitive research on the subject?

Lots of research on it, you ignore it, much of it posted in this thread already.

ny idea why he was so keen to get into a house that had so many people in it? Seems like a pretty bad idea, in general. Was he armed?

yes, he was armed and also carried a rape kit. Pedophiles and rapists have removed people from homes with people in them.

Do you need citations for that too?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Utah man arrested for breaking into Sandy home, kidnapping girl from her bed

10-year-old found alive: Girl kidnapped from bedroom by 2 men as parents slept

Police: Man kidnaps, rapes 8-year-old

Need more, there are loads more...

 

[Ktoyou]

I keep my doors locked so there is no confusion. Day,or night, any break in and they face this:

 

[Angel4Truth]

 

[rexlunae]

Why should i acknowledge something that is far less likely to happen, than what actually happens most of the time? Again see the thread, many examples given, you are going to have to :gasp: read.

Hold on just a moment, you're getting ahead of yourself. That's an awfully hasty jump to a conclusion. Because you don't know that it's far less likely to happen until you acknowledge and evaluate the possibilities earnestly. You're so rushed to brush off the chance of it that you can't even give it a thought. But the fact is, if you acknowledge the possibility, you then have a question of fact that can only be evaluated with evidence, and you don't want to do that.

Lots of research on it, you ignore it, much of it posted in this thread already.

That's not true. I've taken on some of the evidence offered directly, but there are a lot of sources, most of which are pretty low quality. I'm not going to go through every blog or book or half-baked source to try to refute them all en masse.

yes, he was armed

You think he might have been emboldened by the fact that he had a weapon?

and also carried a rape kit.

Meaning? What was he found carrying?

Pedophiles and rapists have removed people from homes with people in them.

It's a lot harder if you aren't armed. And in any case, given that he was armed, and your dad was armed, it could also have resulted in a shoot-out. You guys got lucky. Gun nuts like to talk about guns as the great equalizer, but consider that the equalization in this case was making one lone criminal with a gun equal to an entire family with one gun. One lone unarmed attacker is a lot less likely to attack an entire family, even if they aren't armed. Right?

 

[Ktoyou]

To add, they do have a choice, and i have no worry making it available, they can choose to lay in the floor and wait for the police, or they can choose to run away, and have the police come after them. but here is the catch, I do not let them know the second choice. If they choose to attack me, then I have to explain to the police; it really is that simple/

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hold on just a moment, you're getting ahead of yourself. That's an awfully hasty jump to a conclusion. Because you don't know that it's far less likely to happen until you acknowledge and evaluate the possibilities earnestly. You're so rushed to brush off the chance of it that you can't even give it a thought. But the fact is, if you acknowledge the possibility, you then have a question of fact that can only be evaluated with evidence, and you don't want to do that.

See the link in the op, at the bottom, the facts are on my side, not yours. (those pesky things you keep demanding, that have been given and you are too lazy to read)

Ive given it plenty of thought and plenty of research on the facts, since ive seen it up close and personal and my own son was gunned down driving home from work .

If you are too lazy and or dont care to check the facts, thats on you.

You will NEVER change my mind.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Gun nuts like to talk about guns as the great equalizer, but consider that the equalization in this case was making one lone criminal with a gun equal to an entire family with one gun. One lone unarmed attacker is a lot less likely to attack an entire family, even if they aren't armed. Right?

Grisly details emerge in murder of 6 kids, 2 adults

'Whole family killed': 2 adults, 2 young boys found dead in upstate New York home

A Shocking Arrest Breaks the Case of a Missouri Farm Family's Murder—and Rescues a Boy's Reputation

The news broke like a thunderclap on that September morning, and by sundown all of Webster County, Mo., had heard about the carnage on Steve Buckner's farm: Buckner, 35, his wife, Jan, 36, and their sons, Dennis, 8, Timothy, 7, and Michael, 2, had been shot to death in the stillness before dawn. The killer had continued the rampage at the two-story white farmhouse where Steve's sister, Julie, lived with her husband, Jim Schnick. As Jim told it, the gunman had stormed into the house, shot and killed the sleeping Julie and put up a violent struggle before Jim could drive a butcher knife through his chest and finish him off with a bullet.

I could keep going, there are tons and tons more...


You will NEVER change my mind.

Do you live in the US rexlunae?

 

[Ktoyou]

He is on side B

 

[alwight]

Sure it does (the drunk in a a rage) part, because someone like that wouldnt need a gun to kill someone, they do it without them all the time.

More concerning to me is the drunk, period.

I'd suggest that drunks are not predictable, even those not in a rage.
Drunks lose the right to drive in public places firstly because they can be stopped and also because their ability to take rational actions becomes impaired. Keeping drunks away from perhaps their own guns might be rather more difficult to enforce.
I doubt however that drunks typically ever actually intend to kill anyone whether in a car or when within easy reach of a gun.

 

[rexlunae]

See the link in the op, at the bottom, the facts are on my side, not yours. (those pesky things you keep demanding, that have been given and you are too lazy to read)

But you acknowledge that there is a legitimate question of facts, whichever side it falls on?

It's not a matter of reading. As I already noted in this thread, that top source, the Kleck and Gertz survey, is widely discredited, for good reasons including the fact that in some cases, it estimates more than 100% successful defensive gun use rates. Your only response when I pointed this out was "You better check your facts", which isn't exactly enlightening.

More empirical evidence would be helpful, but the NRA has been successful in getting Congress to ban research on gun safety, so we don't have a lot of actual good data.

Ive given it plenty of thought and plenty of research on the facts, since ive seen it up close and personal and my own son was gunned down driving home from work .

That's just a little too personal for me to want to get into. Anecdotes make poor arguments, but they are certainly compelling on an individual basis.

If you are too lazy and or dont care to check the facts, thats on you.

You say that as if it's just that simple. You look up "the facts", it gives a clear and decisive answer, and that's the end of the question. But it's not nearly that easy, and the fact that you lead your case with a discredited survey that clearly overstates reality doesn't give me the impression that you've "given it plenty of thought and plenty of research on the facts".

You will NEVER change my mind.

That, I can believe.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'd suggest that drunks are not predictable, even those not in a rage.
Drunks lose the right to drive in public places firstly because they can be stopped and also because their ability to take rational actions becomes impaired. Keeping drunks away from perhaps their own guns might be rather more difficult to enforce.
I doubt however that drunks typically ever actually intend to kill anyone whether in a car or when within easy reach of a gun.

Please tell me you aren't making an excuse for it?

Thanks for giving yet another reason that law abiding citizens need to be armed though, to protect against the unpredictable drunks and drug users.

 

[Angel4Truth]

But you acknowledge that there is a legitimate question of facts, whichever side it falls on?

"You better check your facts", which isn't exactly enlightening.

The justice department and the fbi were cited also, so apparently any fact that goes against your desires, is "questionable" to you.

That's just a little too personal for me to want to get into. Anecdotes make poor arguments, but they are certainly compelling on an individual basis.

Empirical evidence is something you dont want to get into? I guess not, real facts goes against your fantasy world. I live in the real one, where crime is real and we should be able to defend ourselves, its real bad for those who cant here.

You never did tell me if you live in the US, do you?

PS i blame bleeding heart extremist liberals for the bigger issue, lack of being able to rid ourselves of a problem criminal element that is celebrated and police that are having their hands tied, and activist judges that slap on the wrist, and criminals who have more rights than victims.

 

[rexlunae]

Grisly details emerge in murder of 6 kids, 2 adults

The intruder was armed. Like I was saying...

'Whole family killed': 2 adults, 2 young boys found dead in upstate New York home

No indication if the intruder was armed. Doesn't really indicate anything one way or the other.

A Shocking Arrest Breaks the Case of a Missouri Farm Family's Murder—and Rescues a Boy's Reputation

Again, the intruder was armed. So, again, this seems to support what I said. In the case of a home intruder, the gun equalizes a lone intruder to an entire innocent family.

I could keep going, there are tons and tons more...

Yes. Any that support your case?

You will NEVER change my mind.

What I tell you three times is true. What I tell you three times is true.

Do you live in the US rexlunae?

Yes. Why?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes. Any that support your case?

They all support it, the criminal was armed. Think they give a flying rip about the law? Think they care if their gun is "legal" or not?

Oh and remember you said a lone criminal was not likely to kill a whole family, i proved you otherwise. Weak attempt there of you trying to move the goalposts, and since you are showing yourself dishonest now, conversation between us, is over.

 

[alwight]

Please tell me you aren't making an excuse for it?

I'm not making excuses for drunken behaviour if that's what you mean, I'm simply trying to be pragmatic. Drunk drivers typically don't drive drunk because the want to kill anyone.

Thanks for giving yet another reason that law abiding citizens need to be armed though, to protect against the unpredictable drunks and drug users.

Personally I'd be more worried about drunks with guns rather than just drunks.

 

[rexlunae]

They all support it, the criminal was armed.

Right. The criminal was armed. If no one were armed, the family would have a distinct advantage. However, guns being the great equalizer, if both the family and the criminal are armed, the advantage is unclear. If the criminal is armed and the family is not, the family is at a disadvantage.

Think they give a flying rip about the law? Think they care if their gun is "legal" or not?

No effective gun safety regulation is based on making criminals care. It's about making it harder for criminals to get guns.

Oh and remember you said a lone criminal was not likely to kill a whole family, i proved you otherwise.

That's not what I said. I said that an unarmed lone criminal is less likely to attack a whole family, and that the gun puts the criminal on the same level as the family.

Weak attempt there of you trying to move the goalposts, and since you are showing yourself dishonest now, conversation between us, is over.

Try reading what I write just a little more closely.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm not making excuses for drunken behaviour if that's what you mean, I'm simply trying to be pragmatic. Drunk drivers typically don't drive drunk because the want to kill anyone.

Personally I'd be more worried about drunks with guns rather than just drunks.

Im worried about drunks, period.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33,636 died from firearms.

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5

The rest were suicides.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Close to 70 percent of firearm deaths are because of suicide. And those stats are included in deaths by firearms. Its nowhere near what you think.

Wow no one can kill themselves without a gun...

40,000 suicides annually :think: