Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.
Indeed. Various studies indicate that merely having access to a firearm makes you anywhere from 2 to 10 times as likely to commit suicide as someone without access.

Now for accuracy are they more likely to TRY or just more likely to succeed?


pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Pan wrote:
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.
While unfortunate, this is the headline on a news snippet from a website named "OMG Ghana". I haven't seen any well-respected news site sensationalizing this story to demonize the shooter, and even the source link (the AJC) from OMG Ghana is a pretty level-headed report of what happened.

msnNow Twitter page.

If you click on the link and go to their main site, you'll see they have since scrubbed off the "trigger-happy" description, though if you do a google search I think you can still find evidence of it.

Of course this might not qualify as a "well-respected news site", depending on one's view and current needs.

At least they got rid of it. It's highly irresponsible to represent the woman that way when she took her kids and hid, using the gun as a last resort when their hiding place was discovered.

Also note how the author gives the burglar a name, but the woman remains anonymous. Nice touch.

Sovereign Court

Shadowborn wrote:
pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Pan wrote:
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.
While unfortunate, this is the headline on a news snippet from a website named "OMG Ghana". I haven't seen any well-respected news site sensationalizing this story to demonize the shooter, and even the source link (the AJC) from OMG Ghana is a pretty level-headed report of what happened.

msnNow Twitter page.

If you click on the link and go to their main site, you'll see they have since scrubbed off the "trigger-happy" description, though if you do a google search I think you can still find evidence of it.

Of course this might not qualify as a "well-respected news site", depending on one's view and current needs.

At least they got rid of it. It's highly irresponsible to represent the woman that way when she took her kids and hid, using the gun as a last resort when their hiding place was discovered.

Also note how the author gives the burglar a name, but the woman remains anonymous. Nice touch.

If you read the source article the sheriff asked that they not include her name in the story.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Widow of the Pit wrote:
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.
Well, dogs serve more often as alarms and deterrents than by actually killing the intruder.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm almost positive that the majority of dog-related death victims are under 5 years old.

EDIT: Now I'm actually positive. Of the 31 reported dog fatalities in 2012, 16 were young children.

Well, I wouldn't advise a pit bull with small children, but other than that, it doesn't really have anything to do with the claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pit-bulls-surprising-past-nanny-dogs-195 612543.html


Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Widow of the Pit wrote:
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.
Well, dogs serve more often as alarms and deterrents than by actually killing the intruder.
And unlike a gun CAN kill on their own with no human choice.

What do you think that shows?


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Widow of the Pit wrote:
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.
Well, dogs serve more often as alarms and deterrents than by actually killing the intruder.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm almost positive that the majority of dog-related death victims are under 5 years old.

EDIT: Now I'm actually positive. Of the 31 reported dog fatalities in 2012, 16 were young children.

Well, I wouldn't advise a pit bull with small children, but other than that, it doesn't really have anything to do with the claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pit-bulls-surprising-past-nanny-dogs-195 612543.html

I knew their bad rep was largely undeserved, but I didn't know that.

Still, I'd hesitate to recommend any large dog for a house with young children. Much like I wouldn't recommend guns in a house with young kids. Though actually, I suspect it's slightly older children who are more at risk from guns.
It'll probably be fine if the particular dog has a good temperment and the owners know how to train and handle him, but it's hard to know that up front. Much like a gun is probably safe if the owner (and others in the house) are responsible and safety conscious, but it's hard to know that when someone gets a gun. I'm sure many owners of guns involved in accidental shootings would have said they were responsible.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Widow of the Pit wrote:
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.
Well, dogs serve more often as alarms and deterrents than by actually killing the intruder.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm almost positive that the majority of dog-related death victims are under 5 years old.

EDIT: Now I'm actually positive. Of the 31 reported dog fatalities in 2012, 16 were young children.

Well, I wouldn't advise a pit bull with small children, but other than that, it doesn't really have anything to do with the claim.

Remember the home defense purpose of a dog isn't to kill the intruder, but to alarm the house and scare the intruder off. Since the intruder isn't killed, he won't show up in dog fatality stats.

That was exactly what I was saying. Dogs tend not to kill home intruders - they might injure them on occasion, but I'd wager that more often than not home invaders would just pass on any home with a pit bull. In fact, in 2012, not a single dog-attack fatality was the result of a home invasion. The fact of the matter is that a healthy human being is usually not at risk from being killed by a dog even if they were attacked. The overwhelming majority of dog-attack fatalities are either under 5 years old or over 55 years old.

Sovereign Court

Andrew R wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.
Indeed. Various studies indicate that merely having access to a firearm makes you anywhere from 2 to 10 times as likely to commit suicide as someone without access.
Now for accuracy are they more likely to TRY or just more likely to succeed?

I don't have that data but I'd assume they're both, that they're more likely to attempt suicide and also more likely to succeed. Just guessing at the moment though.


Pan wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:


At least they got rid of it. It's highly irresponsible to represent the woman that way when she took her kids and hid, using the gun as a last resort when their hiding place was discovered.

Also note how the author gives the burglar a name, but the woman remains anonymous. Nice touch.

If you read the source article the sheriff asked that they not include her name in the story.

Again, something that could have been stated in the article, rather than simply providing a link to the source. Sloppy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dogs are a big responsibility, they need to be trained, fed, walked, and cleaned up after. Many times when you have an animal lashing out and attacking other dogs or children it's because the dog hasn't been properly socialized or trained. I don't think a dog is more dangerous then a gun, but if you're an irresponsible person I don't think you should be allowed to buy either. I wouldn't mind seeing people having to go through some sort of course before they're allowed to own a dog or earn some sort of dog owning license. I've seen too many people not properly train or look after their dogs. It makes me sad when you read about a mauling and the dog or breed automatically blamed when it's probably just as likely the idiot owner not taking the time to properly train or look after their animal.


Shadowborn wrote:
Pan wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:


At least they got rid of it. It's highly irresponsible to represent the woman that way when she took her kids and hid, using the gun as a last resort when their hiding place was discovered.

Also note how the author gives the burglar a name, but the woman remains anonymous. Nice touch.

If you read the source article the sheriff asked that they not include her name in the story.
Again, something that could have been stated in the article, rather than simply providing a link to the source. Sloppy.

Perhaps, but it's very common to provide names of the alleged criminals, but not release the victims names. Far more likely an attempt to preserve the privacy of the innocent than something nefarious.


Guy Humual wrote:
Dogs are a big responsibility, they need to be trained, fed, walked, and cleaned up after. Many times when you have an animal lashing out and attacking other dogs or children it's because the dog hasn't been properly socialized or trained. I don't think a dog is more dangerous then a gun, but if you're an irresponsible person I don't think you should be allowed to buy either. I wouldn't mind seeing people having to go through some sort of course before they're allowed to own a dog or earn some sort of dog owning license. I've seen too many people not properly train or look after their dogs. It makes me sad when you read about a mauling and the dog or breed automatically blamed when it's probably just as likely the idiot owner not taking the time to properly train or look after their animal.

True. The owner is ultimately responsible. Responsible breeders are careful about placing their dogs. Unfortunately, pet stores and puppy mills are not.

That said, temperment does vary from breed to breed and even between lines within breeds.

Small children can be very stressful on dogs, because the kids are not responsible enough to treat the dog properly. Or aware of the signs that the formerly cuddly fluffy pet is upset with you.


Andrew R wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.
Indeed. Various studies indicate that merely having access to a firearm makes you anywhere from 2 to 10 times as likely to commit suicide as someone without access.
Now for accuracy are they more likely to TRY or just more likely to succeed?

For accuracy? Come on. You just want to find some flaw in the conclusion because you don't like it.

That's not how suicides work. Firearms are overwhelmingly preferred by male suicide victims - in the absence of firearms, they will resort to other methods that are nearly as effective.

Female suicide victims overwhelmingly choose poisoning/overdose or self-mutilation (e.g. wrist-cutting) when attempting suicide, and are successful far less often. They tend not to resort to firearms.

Owning a firearm makes you much more likely to try, and more likely to succeed.


thejeff wrote:
I knew their bad rep was largely undeserved, but I didn't know that.

It isn't undeserved.

Pit bulls are responsible for the majority of dog-attack fatalities, period - a figure drastically out of step with their population. In 2010, 55% of dog-attack fatalities were from pit bulls. In 2011, 69% were from pit bulls. In 2012, 58% were from pit bulls. These figures do not include fatalities from attacks by pit bull mixes.

While irresponsible owners certainly share some portion of the blame for their dogs' behavior, it is also certain that all breeds of dog have irresponsible owners but most breeds kill 0 people annually, and that pit bulls are a clear anomaly that irresponsible ownership alone does not even come close to explaining.


Detect Magic wrote:
Just gonna go ahead and leave this here...

Nice try, but no cigar. NSFW


thejeff wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Pan wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:


At least they got rid of it. It's highly irresponsible to represent the woman that way when she took her kids and hid, using the gun as a last resort when their hiding place was discovered.

Also note how the author gives the burglar a name, but the woman remains anonymous. Nice touch.

If you read the source article the sheriff asked that they not include her name in the story.
Again, something that could have been stated in the article, rather than simply providing a link to the source. Sloppy.
Perhaps, but it's very common to provide names of the alleged criminals, but not release the victims names. Far more likely an attempt to preserve the privacy of the innocent than something nefarious.

Yes, nothing nefarious from the guy who calls the victim "trigger-happy," I'm sure.

Shadow Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
While true, its a smok screen arguement as the vast majority of crimes and violence do not involve ARs or automatic weapons. They involve handheld pistols followed by knives followed by basically everything else (clubs, cars swords, etc) followed by automatic weapons/ARs.
Scott Betts wrote:
And yet you wouldn't be in favor of restricting civilian ownership of handguns, or firearms in general, I would imagine.

:) You would be wrong.

Scott Betts wrote:
Regardless of what types of weapons are used in the majority of homicides, it is certain that AR-15s have enormous destructive capability that far outstrips their practical, legal, civilian use. Unsurprisingly, they have been employed on multiple occasions by mass/spree killers in events that likely would have resulted in a lower body count had they not had access to a weapon like an AR-15. It's not a smoke screen argument if we're only advocating a ban on those weapons. It may not dramatically reduce firearms-related homicide, but it might reduce them marginally (and remember, we're talking about lives, here) and it wouldn't harm anything but firearm enthusiasts' pride.

Arguing that banning AR's will in any way help when they are not an actual problem is a smokes screen arguement. I think you have significantly misunderstood my point, or I was not clear. I am not against a realistic, way to reduce firearm ownership. I've just never heard of one. I have heard vote-mongering political BS plenty. :) I have heard unrealistic, inpracticle plans, and the vast majority of the time those plans will only remove the legal firearms from people that either use them for self, family, or mercantile defense, (ie the ones that follow the law) and will not actually do much of anything to those that would break it and are already going to use them for criminal activities or violence. At best, such a plan would just make the illegal market for fireamrs steps ahead of any gov trying to control them, but will not in any way reduce the number of firearms in the "wrong hands". More likely it will increase the number of unknown illegal firearms.

I might actually rather have pistols be MORE difficut to purchase than ARs. Ammunition is much more costly, they are much harder to conceal, the whole destrutive power thing is kind of a lie, and realistically there are going to be less oportunities to use it for criminal reasons if you can't easily conceal and/or ditch it with ease. Takes more training to really use it, and I think a lot of people would think twice (both criminal and defence) before actually using it. (This last section is partially a joke and theorycraft, by the way)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When looking at pitbulls and attacks, you have to also consider that the perception of these being vicious dogs is what gets certain people to purchase them and abuse them. Basically the reputation is a self-fulfilling prophecy type thing. People think they are vicious, so people that are likely to abuse them, treat them poorly are exactly the type of people looking for an animal with that reputation. Thus they are treated poorly and end up being violent and thus getting a violent reputation which only makes those people looking for such want to get them so ...

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I knew their bad rep was largely undeserved, but I didn't know that.

It isn't undeserved.

Pit bulls are responsible for the majority of dog-attack fatalities, period - a figure drastically out of step with their population. In 2010, 55% of dog-attack fatalities were from pit bulls. In 2011, 69% were from pit bulls. In 2012, 58% were from pit bulls. These figures do not include fatalities from attacks by pit bull mixes.

While irresponsible owners certainly share some portion of the blame for their dogs' behavior, it is also certain that all breeds of dog have irresponsible owners but most breeds kill 0 people annually, and that pit bulls are a clear anomaly that irresponsible ownership alone does not even come close to explaining.

Pit bulls are massive. It's likely that their higher ranking in the statistics stems from the fact that they're far more capable of killing then any other breed. I mean if a cocker spaniel goes ape$hit it's not going to kill anyone, sure it might require someone to get stitches and probably some shots, but they're not likely to kill anyone. A pit bull on the other hand . . .

I don't think pit bulls should be banned but these animals, more then any other breed, really need to raised and trained by capable people.


Guy Humual wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I knew their bad rep was largely undeserved, but I didn't know that.

It isn't undeserved.

Pit bulls are responsible for the majority of dog-attack fatalities, period - a figure drastically out of step with their population. In 2010, 55% of dog-attack fatalities were from pit bulls. In 2011, 69% were from pit bulls. In 2012, 58% were from pit bulls. These figures do not include fatalities from attacks by pit bull mixes.

While irresponsible owners certainly share some portion of the blame for their dogs' behavior, it is also certain that all breeds of dog have irresponsible owners but most breeds kill 0 people annually, and that pit bulls are a clear anomaly that irresponsible ownership alone does not even come close to explaining.

Pit bulls are massive. It's likely that their higher ranking in the statistics stems from the fact that they're far more capable of killing then any other breed. I mean if a cocker spaniel goes ape$hit it's not going to kill anyone, sure it might require someone to get stitches and probably some shots, but they're not likely to kill anyone. A pit bull on the other hand . . .

I don't think pit bulls should be banned but these animals, more then any other breed, really need to raised and trained by capable people.

Pit bulls aren't massive. They're a large breed, not a giant one. The breed standard has a max weight around 80lbs. Compare to something like a English Mastiff, with a minimum weight of 150lbs.


Interesting.
Several studies have determined that pit bull owners and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Pit Bull, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix) are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study comparing owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., Pit Bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions then those of "low risk" dog owners.[45] A 2009[46] and a followup 2012[47] study generally supported these conclusions.

Sovereign Court

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2254479/Sausage-dog s-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html

Re statistics: Check the source of the numbers. Frequently they are sourced from collections of news reports, not an actual survey or census of dog attacks. I'm not saying they are wrong, but it's not the most rigourous of survey methods.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And now for a an alternate view form a gun owning family, and victim of crime.

Crime and violence are most effectively dealt with by preventative measures. There is no evidence I am aware of which suggests that gu ownership decreases the likelyhood of being the victim of crime. Infact their is significant evidence that weapon carrying increases your risk of being a victim of crime. There are measures that demonstrably decrease the likelihood of a break in however, such as appropriate locks, external property lighting, active neighbourhood watch schemes, alarms, and avoiding displays of conspicuous wealth.

I trust each of these infinitely more to ensure the safety of my partner and myself than I ever would a gun.
Should in the statistically unlikely event of a burglary occur, under the even more unlikely conditions that we are present when it occurs, then our household SOP is to identify where the intruder is, and leave the house by a route that will not bring us into contact with the intruder, take shelter with neighbours, and call the police via mobile phone or neighbours land line.

The family firearms do not factor into this plan for one very simple reason. We are responsible firearms owner, our arsonal of a rifle, and three shotguns is securely locked in a firearms safe. Getting them out of the safe prolongs the risk period of encountering the intruder, which increases the risk of violence in which my self, or a family member, or even the intruder might be injured. It is simply far safer to leave.

And that is before you take into account the fact that I am in no way certain that any member of my family would be able to pull the trigger on another human, or the fact that the weapon might be taken from one of us, increasing the risk, or the police mistaking use for a danger on their arrival(not so much an issue here in the UK because our police are not as a rule firearms office).

- Things I would not do, get myself cornered in a crawl space.

- Get my self into a position where my children have to witness me shoot some one.

- Get myself into a position where I feel I have no option but to shoot some one, and there by have to live with the fact I had done so.

I grew up with guns, in a way that most brits do not. I love my grandfather guns, and when my grandfather passes, it is my great hope that I will inherit them.

I was shooting under controlled conditions form around 6 years old, Hunting both with air rifles and shotguns is something I have been doing since about the age of eight(though my first hunting experiences go back as far as four, watching the local hunt, and helping with coursing with our lurcher). Because of all this, one nursery rhyme was drilled into me more than any other.

A father's Advice said wrote:


If a sportsman true you’d be
Listen carefully to me. . .

Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
Matters not the least to me.

When a hedge or fence you cross
Though of time it cause a loss
From your gun the cartridge take
For the greater safety’s sake.

If twixt you and neighbouring gun
Bird shall fly or beast may run
Let this maxim ere be thine
“Follow not across the line.”

Stops and beaters oft unseen
Lurk behind some leafy screen.
Calm and steady always be
“Never shoot where you can’t see.”

You may kill or you may miss
But at all times think this:
“All the pheasants ever bred
Won’t repay for one man dead.”

Keep your place and silent be;
Game can hear, and game can see;
Don’t be greedy, better spared
Is a pheasant, than one shared.

Like I said, I love my grandfathers guns, but I don't do so because of some silly notion that they make me safer. I laugh at the idea that they protect my liberty in this day and age. A Military family has taught me enough to laugh at that idea.

They are tools, used for hunting, and dangerous tools I wouldn't let a single one of my friends get within ten feet, let alone touch.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2254479/Sausage-dog s-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html

Re statistics: Check the source of the numbers. Frequently they are sourced from collections of news reports, not an actual survey or census of dog attacks. I'm not saying they are wrong, but it's not the most rigourous of survey methods.

Weiner dogs may be the most aggressive, but hardly the most dangerous. They're not likely to kill you or anyone but possibly the smallest baby, who should never be alone with any pet.

Part of the reason they're more aggressive is that many owners don't bother to train them properly. Since you can just manhandle them, there's no need. A large breed, it's obvious that they have to be trained. Similarly, there wasn't as much need historically to breed aggression out of them.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I knew their bad rep was largely undeserved, but I didn't know that.

It isn't undeserved.

Pit bulls are responsible for the majority of dog-attack fatalities, period - a figure drastically out of step with their population. In 2010, 55% of dog-attack fatalities were from pit bulls. In 2011, 69% were from pit bulls. In 2012, 58% were from pit bulls. These figures do not include fatalities from attacks by pit bull mixes.

While irresponsible owners certainly share some portion of the blame for their dogs' behavior, it is also certain that all breeds of dog have irresponsible owners but most breeds kill 0 people annually, and that pit bulls are a clear anomaly that irresponsible ownership alone does not even come close to explaining.

Pit bulls are massive. It's likely that their higher ranking in the statistics stems from the fact that they're far more capable of killing then any other breed. I mean if a cocker spaniel goes ape$hit it's not going to kill anyone, sure it might require someone to get stitches and probably some shots, but they're not likely to kill anyone. A pit bull on the other hand . . .

I don't think pit bulls should be banned but these animals, more then any other breed, really need to raised and trained by capable people.

Pit bulls aren't massive. They're a large breed, not a giant one. The breed standard has a max weight around 80lbs. Compare to something like a English Mastiff, with a minimum weight of 150lbs.

All bulldogs are massive, even the wee little British bulldog. They're pure muscle. Height is useful for some creatures, humans gain reach for example, but dogs don't gain anything by height. Bulldogs are better served by their squat size in a fight. I think most pit bulls are under 2 feet in height but with a weight of 80lbs that's a massive dog, not a tall one perhaps, but something that could drag the average human down with relative ease. My old mutt (springer spaniel / pointer mix though she looked more like a lab) was just over 2ft but weighted under 55lbs.

I know a pitbull isn't as big as a Bullmastiff for example, another powerfully built breed, but compare the weight of any other relatively sized dog and you'll see what I mean. They are massive:

1. Consisting of or making up a large mass; bulky, heavy, and solid

Sovereign Court

Quote:


"To decrease the risk of dog bites, several communi- ties have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans. In general, these have focused on pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers. However, breeds responsible for human
DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF; between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF. Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever."

Up until the 80s it was German Shepherds, Huskies and Saint Bernards that were the menace.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

And death by unknown or unreported breed was way more common than death by pitbull. 66 deaths between 79 and 98 vs 238.

One death by cockerspaniel.

The Exchange

Guy Humual wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I knew their bad rep was largely undeserved, but I didn't know that.

It isn't undeserved.

Pit bulls are responsible for the majority of dog-attack fatalities, period - a figure drastically out of step with their population. In 2010, 55% of dog-attack fatalities were from pit bulls. In 2011, 69% were from pit bulls. In 2012, 58% were from pit bulls. These figures do not include fatalities from attacks by pit bull mixes.

While irresponsible owners certainly share some portion of the blame for their dogs' behavior, it is also certain that all breeds of dog have irresponsible owners but most breeds kill 0 people annually, and that pit bulls are a clear anomaly that irresponsible ownership alone does not even come close to explaining.

Pit bulls are massive. It's likely that their higher ranking in the statistics stems from the fact that they're far more capable of killing then any other breed. I mean if a cocker spaniel goes ape$hit it's not going to kill anyone, sure it might require someone to get stitches and probably some shots, but they're not likely to kill anyone. A pit bull on the other hand . . .

I don't think pit bulls should be banned but these animals, more then any other breed, really need to raised and trained by capable people.

Maybe restictions more in line with what you want on guns, especially when they can kill on their own

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind restrictions on some breeds of dog. I wouldn't mind seeing some people banned from owning animals as well.

The Exchange

pres man wrote:

Interesting.

Several studies have determined that pit bull owners and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Pit Bull, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix) are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study comparing owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., Pit Bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions then those of "low risk" dog owners.[45] A 2009[46] and a followup 2012[47] study generally supported these conclusions.

Yep,a potential killing machine with no control on who can get how many


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
:) You would be wrong.

Good to hear.

Quote:
Arguing that banning AR's will in any way help when they are not an actual problem is a smokes screen arguement.

They are not a problem in the sense that they don't account for a large percentage of gun homicides. They are a problem in that they contribute to the ability of shooters to commit mass murder, and mass murder is a problem no matter how rare. It's not a cure-all, but it will do far more good than harm. There simply is no reason not to ban them from civilian ownership, and plenty of reasons they ought to be banned.

Quote:
I think you have significantly misunderstood my point, or I was not clear. I am not against a realistic, way to reduce firearm ownership. I've just never heard of one. I have heard vote-mongering political BS plenty. :) I have heard unrealistic, inpracticle plans, and the vast majority of the time those plans will only remove the legal firearms from people that either use them for self, family, or mercantile defense, (ie the ones that follow the law) and will not actually do much of anything to those that would break it and are already going to use them for criminal activities or violence. At best, such a plan would just make the illegal market for fireamrs steps ahead of any gov trying to control them, but will not in any way reduce the number of firearms in the "wrong hands". More likely it will increase the number of unknown illegal firearms.

This is shallow thinking. The guns criminals use don't just materialize out of nowhere. They have to acquire them. The majority of firearms used in crime were originally acquired through straw purchases - in other words, purchased in a manner that is ostensibly legal, but then immediately transferred to another individual in an illegal manner (this transfer being the original purpose of the sale). Take a look at this article for some explanations and stats on how criminals obtain their firearms. Furthermore, evidence clearly shows that more restrictive firearms regulations ultimately result in fewer crimes involving firearms.

You are just guessing at what might happen, and your guesses are wrong.

Quote:
I might actually rather have pistols be MORE difficut to purchase than ARs. Ammunition is much more costly,

That's not really true. AR-15s chamber 5.56 mm rounds and they run about 35 cents/round. This is comparable to or cheaper than most handgun ammunition.

Quote:
they are much harder to conceal, the whole destrutive power thing is kind of a lie,

No, it isn't. The one part of the gun-enthusiast mentality that actually tends to be accurate is exactly how much killing power they have in their hands when they hold an AR-15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
pres man wrote:

Interesting.

Several studies have determined that pit bull owners and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Pit Bull, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix) are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study comparing owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., Pit Bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions then those of "low risk" dog owners.[45] A 2009[46] and a followup 2012[47] study generally supported these conclusions.

Yep,a potential killing machine with no control on who can get how many

If you're arguing that we ought to restrict ownership of certain breeds or require some form of assurance that the dog is properly trained, I can certainly agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh.

Good shooting lady.

Seems like a reasonable self defence weapon, used in a self defence situation, in the home. All very reasonable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Translation of Zombieneighbours' comments: "I am a smart british man, while this was a stupid american woman. I wouldn't be as stupid as she was. It was all her fault."

Blame the victim. Nice.


It's not really fair, either. An untrained civilian in what was probably her first exposure to this type of situation? I wouldn't expect her to think of the most prudent course of action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We also don't know the layout of the house or where they were in it when she realized there was an intruder. If the kids were upstairs, I'm not sure how you'd get out without a potential confrontation. Most homes I've been in don't have multiple stairways. Even if they did, where on the ground floor is the intruder?
Getting into concealment isn't a bad idea under those circumstances.
Especially if you're assuming the guy is just looking for stuff to steal.

That said, if you can get out safely, it's far better than a confrontation, no matter how well armed you are.

And he does raise a good, if common, point: If you keep your guns securely locked up, which you really need to if there are kids in the house, then they're not much use in an emergency.


And if you know that your husband and police are on the way.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Absolutely not. Tranquilizers take time to take effect, and require a carefully measured dose based on the size and weight of the individual being tranqued (get it wrong, and it'll either not knock the person out or it'll kill them). In a self defense situation, you most likely have the wrong dosage, and it'll take too long to take effect, anyway.

So...tranq darts shouldn't be used because, if used incorrectly, THEY MIGHT KILL SOMEONE?!

*head asplode*

Of course, you're ignoring the other end of the spectrum, where he starts to feel sleepy a bit after KILLING YOU.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll just go ahead and leave this here in the hope that someone reads it. Not really interested in getting dragged into the discussion on the whole. Larry articulates my own arguments far better than I could, speaks from a position of some authority, and saves me a lot of time and headache.

I will say the fact that the assallent in this situation was shot five times and was still able to make it to his car (down stairs, ect) should help explain why I feel the need for my 17 round magazines.

Anyway, have fun gents.

Sovereign Court

Well I don't agree with that. Chasing him off was the best case scenario in my mind. Unless your goal is to kill him, then maybe 17 rounds wouldn't be enough, but me personally I'd be happy with chasing him off.


Thats why I own a M1 Garand...Good enough to defeat Hitlers Germany is good enough for me.


Guy Humual wrote:
Well I don't agree with that. Chasing him off was the best case scenario in my mind. Unless your goal is to kill him, then maybe 17 rounds wouldn't be enough, but me personally I'd be happy with chasing him off.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not speaking of chasing the guy down and attacking him as he flees. Instead, I'm pointing out that despite being shot 5 times in vital areas he was capable of decent motor control for some time e.g. had he been intent on attacking he could have continued to do so.

My preference would be that so long as you are capable of attacking, I am capable of shooting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Randomly shoots up the thread]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
I'll just go ahead and leave this here in the hope that someone reads it. Not really interested in getting dragged into the discussion on the whole. Larry articulates my own arguments far better than I could, speaks from a position of some authority, and saves me a lot of time and headache.

I got like ten paragraphs in (out of dozens; that's closer to a book than a blog post) and found him a) trying to defend the idea that teachers should be able to concealed carry in classrooms, and b) that the average number of people shot in mass shootings where the shooter is stopped by civilians is 2.5 (the thorn, here, being that an event doesn't qualify as a "mass shooting" until four people have been shot and killed, which means that most of the "mass shooting" events he's referencing in this stat - a stat he doesn't bother to cite a source for, either - were not mass shootings, which in turn makes his argument toothless and dishonest).

Mr. Correia is either something very far from the expert he claims to be, or he has not given his arguments anywhere near the thought they deserve, or he is intellectually dishonest. As a rule, I'm inclined to believe the latter to be correct, but as a courtesy I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and act as if it were the former. Either way, he is not the voice of authority on this argument you claim him to be. He is an author who believes that his soap box combined with his experience as a gun dealer qualifies him to counter the positions held by criminologists. That is not the case. People with sound arguments do not need to resort to dishonesty to make their point.

Don't use others as a mouthpiece for your own beliefs unless you can be certain that they won't make your own position appear groundless by proxy. Research your own arguments and articulate them yourself if at all possible, and don't point to someone else's argument with the idea that what they believe is what you will always believe. That's narrow thinking and should be discouraged. When someone indicates clear problems with your position, the intellectually honest thing to do is to recalibrate your position to account for that problem.

Quote:
I will say the fact that the assallent in this situation was shot five times and was still able to make it to his car (down stairs, ect) should help explain why I feel the need for my 17 round magazines.

Five rounds to the face were not required. Probably one round to the face would have done the trick. It's clear that he suffered a mortal wound(s) and would have died without treatment. It's also clear that this woman's six-round capacity revolver was more than sufficient to put an end to the crime.

So I'm afraid I don't understand why you believe this justifies a magazine nearly triple that size. You want it to justify it, so you develop half-arguments that superficially appear to support it.

Shadow Lodge

I agree, teachers shouldn't carry a concealed weapon in schools. They should display it openly.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
There simply is no reason not to ban them from civilian ownership, and plenty of reasons they ought to be banned.

I would hope that most people don't think that not having a reason not to ban something is a reason to ban it. There's no reason not to ban powerful laser pointers, or macrame, or christmas trees.

Would you (generally speaking) be for a national ban on any non-useful thing that caused/contributed to 500-ish deaths a year? Recreational boats for example?

As far as suicide issues, it seems reasonable to me that the rate of suicide attempts is probably somewhat higher among gun owners(it's very convenient, certainly), but I'm having trouble finding data that supports that. You've stated it forcefully twice now, can you point me toward some data that gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide?

The Exchange

mordion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
There simply is no reason not to ban them from civilian ownership, and plenty of reasons they ought to be banned.

I would hope that most people don't think that not having a reason not to ban something is a reason to ban it. There's no reason not to ban powerful laser pointers, or macrame, or christmas trees.

Would you (generally speaking) be for a national ban on any non-useful thing that caused/contributed to 500-ish deaths a year? Recreational boats for example?

As far as suicide issues, it seems reasonable to me that the rate of suicide attempts is probably somewhat higher among gun owners(it's very convenient, certainly), but I'm having trouble finding data that supports that. You've stated it forcefully twice now, can you point me toward some data that gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide?

Attempt, not simply succeed. Of course it could simply be a matter that more gun owners are actually attempting an exit instead of looking for sympathy for "attempting"


mordion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
There simply is no reason not to ban them from civilian ownership, and plenty of reasons they ought to be banned.
I would hope that most people don't think that not having a reason not to ban something is a reason to ban it.

I bolded the part of my original post that addresses this. Did you miss the second half of that sentence?

Quote:
Would you (generally speaking) be for a national ban on any non-useful thing that caused/contributed to 500-ish deaths a year? Recreational boats for example?

Before I address this (and I will, if you really want me to) I want you to seriously consider for yourself whether the two are equivalent for the purposes of this argument. Ask yourself how you think I'm going to respond. If you're still convinced it's a good argument against banning any sort of firearm, let me know, and I'll explain why I think otherwise. But I think it would be helpful to your own thinking if you were to come up with the reasons yourself, first, or at least to try.

Quote:
As far as suicide issues, it seems reasonable to me that the rate of suicide attempts is probably somewhat higher among gun owners(it's very convenient, certainly), but I'm having trouble finding data that supports that. You've stated it forcefully twice now, can you point me toward some data that gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide?

Really? A quick Google search pulls up plenty of excellent articles on the subject.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
I bolded the part of my original post that addresses this. Did you miss the second half of that sentence?

Nope, I understand and respect the reasons you'd like to ban them, but the first half of the sentence is a bad argument.

Quote:
Before I address this (and I will, if you really want me to) I want you to seriously consider for yourself whether the two are equivalent for the purposes of this argument.

I think you're going to say that purpose of a gun is to kill, and the purpose of a jet ski is fun. Then I'm going to say why does it matter what it was designed for if I use it to enjoy target shooting and don't like reloading very often? Then you're going to say that my pleasure/convenience is too high a price for 500 deaths a year. Then I'm going to ask why my recreation with a gun is different than someone else's with a boat. And I'm not sure what you'll say then.

Also, I didn't put it forward as an argument to banning any sort of a firearm, but as an argument against specifically banning semi-automatic rifles with large magazines.

Quote:
Really? A quick Google search pulls up plenty of excellent articles on the subject.

I thought I was pretty specific, and Andrew R has been specific multiple times, suicide ATTEMPTS, not suicides. Everyone agrees that people with guns kill themselves more often. I think there's still an open question on whether they attempt to kill themselves more often.


mordion wrote:
Nope, I understand and respect the reasons you'd like to ban them, but the first half of the sentence is a bad argument.

I'm not using it as a reason to ban anything. I'm saying that there are reasons for banning such weapons that do exist. Normally, the reasons in favor of banning the weapons would have to be weighed against the reasons not to ban them. However, since there are no real reasons not to ban them, no weighing needs to take place. There are legitimate reasons for banning them, and no legitimate reasons not to that might provide a counterargument to banning them.

Do you understand now?

Quote:
I think you're going to say that purpose of a gun is to kill, and the purpose of a jet ski is fun. Then I'm going to say why does it matter what it was designed for if I use it to enjoy target shooting and don't like reloading very often? Then you're going to say that my pleasure/convenience is too high a price for 500 deaths a year. Then I'm going to ask why my recreation with a gun is different than someone else's with a boat. And I'm not sure what you'll say then.

This is actually very close. Mind you, the convenience argument is one that needs to be trotted out, certainly. Banning a specific size of magazine does not make you unable to enjoy your sport of choice, or even make it dramatically inconvenient for you. Banning ownership of all motorized watercraft would make it very difficult for people to enjoy quite a significant range of recreational activities (fishing, diving, racing, boat parties, etc.) not to mention acting as a restriction on civilians' ability to travel (seen by some courts as a protected right). Furthermore, we already regulate watercraft ownership to a non-trivial degree. There are restrictions on who may operate one, and registration for who owns what. There is also a law enforcement agency tasked with patrolling coastal waters and enforcing those laws and regulations.

Quote:
Also, I didn't put it forward as an argument to banning any sort of a firearm, but as an argument against specifically banning semi-automatic rifles with large magazines.

Yep. I think that your interest in wanting to avoid reloading after every ten shots is outweighed by the public interest in working to prevent or mitigate mass shooting incidents.

Quote:
I thought I was pretty specific, and Andrew R has been specific multiple times, suicide ATTEMPTS, not suicides. Everyone agrees that people with guns kill themselves more often. I think there's still an open question on whether they attempt to kill themselves more often.

There isn't. This article, for one, outlines the role that impulsive choice plays in determining action on suicidal ideation. Those with access to immediate methods of suicide (lethal drug quantities, firearms, high buildings/bridges, etc.) are more likely to attempt suicide than those whose access to methods of suicide are restricted to methods which require preparation (hanging, car exhaust, death by law enforcement, etc.).

EDIT: Found another one for you. I'll quote the relevant passage below:

Miller & Hemenway wrote:
The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide.

In other words, if access to guns merely increased suicide fatality (but didn't increase likelihood of attempt) we would expect an associated decrease in risk of nonfirearm suicide - this would show that access to firearms merely changes the method, but that suicide attempts remain static. Instead, we actually see that risk of suicide by firearm is additive to the risk levels we see in households without access to firearms; when they have access to firearms, people continue to commit suicide by other means at the expected rate, but also commit suicide by firearm significantly more often!


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
since there are no real reasons not to ban them, no weighing needs to take place.

You've dismissed "I'd like one, I think they're cool" and "my dad had one and we've enjoyed it together" as 'not real' reasons, and I'm just pointing out that that is the reason people have and use a lot of things (laser pointers, christmas trees). I think a personal preference is a real reason.

Quote:
This is actually very close.

I'm glad. (Edit: That might seem snarky, I meant it sincerely.)

I don't think that it's up to me, or you, or anyone to decide how much having a smaller magazine decreases someone's enjoyment of a firearm. If they say it matters a lot, then it matters a lot. Even if it only matters because they think it's totally awesome.

I was hesitant to mention the watercraft issue specifically, because I didn't want to get bogged down in specifics. I suppose I was trying to parse whether you thought 500 deaths (even if accidental) was a reason to ban something or whether you weigh the deaths in a mass murder differently than those accidental deaths. (If you want some kind of hypothetical say accidents with swords or toy magnet swallowing shoot up to 500 deaths this year)

Quote:
There isn't. This article, for one, outlines the role that impulsive choice plays in determining action on suicidal ideation.

Thanks, that article was on point, and the kind of thing I was having trouble finding. I still wish I could find some hard numbers comparing suicide attempt rates between households with and without guns, but I don't wish it hard enough to look for more than 10 minutes. :) I did mention in my first post that I suspected gun owners were more likely to attempt suicide, I just didn't see the kind of hard numbers that there are for completed suicides.

51 to 100 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards