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


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 836 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it. Do I think I'm likely to have someone break into my house? Probably not, my town's crime rate is below the national average. But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.


Kthulhu wrote:
It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it.

And that's my point. As long as you feel the need to have that philosophy, you're not really feeling safe. Not really.

I could worry about intruders trying to murder me, or a plane crashing into my house, but the odds for either happening are so astronomically small that it'd be a pretty silly worry to build my life around.

If you live in a part of the world where the odds aren't that small, that's an entirely different matter. You should, of course, conduct yourself according to the environment you live in. But it doesn't sound safe, if those are the precautions you need.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it. Do I think I'm likely to have someone break into my house? Probably not, my town's crime rate is below the national average. But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.

Also if you were/are military you have some degree of training.

Which I think should be a pre-requisite for purchase of an item that has a primary purpose of wounding a human being, right?

Like I said, I don't really care if they sell bb guns and .22's over the counter with a swipe background check, but when you get up to the next level, maybe some certification would be in order.

On the upside, get and maintain your certs and you can have a whole arsenal for all I care. Same as driving a car.


Kthulhu wrote:

RE: Always having an escape plan - It's just plan not always possible. My apartment, for example, is pretty smallish. There's only one door out, which leads down a narrow stairway to the ground entrance door. There are four windows, two in the room that the entry door opens into, and one each in two bedrooms. While I do also have an attic, it's entry is located close enough to the door to my apartment that it isn't really viable, aside from the fact that I have to grab a chair open the attic entry. If someone broke into my apartment while I was hope, that it's pretty damned inevitable that I WILL be confronting them in some manner. Unless I was already in the attic or was already jumping out the window. Neither of which happens with any degree of frequency.

Maybe they will see me and run off. That's the best case scenario. And it that's how it went down, I damn sure wouldn't chase after him. But you can't base your planning for something like that around a best-case scenario...you have to base it off a WORST-case scenario. To do otherwise is foolish and naive. You have to assume that an intruder into your home, upon finding you, is going to react aggresively; because if you don't assume that, then when it does happen you are completely unprepared, and you will get hurt (or worse).

And if a intruder does come into my home and act agressively towards me, then I'm not going to do a background check on him to see if he suffers from dementia or has some other "excuse" for his behavior. I'm going to protect myself, and any friends and family that happen to be around.

Yes, and in such a living environment, if the intruder comes into your home, he is probably already blocking you off from your gun. By the time you can get to it and load it, he will already have been able to force a viloent confrontation if he wanted to. Thus, unless you are sitting arround your home with your gun on you it is doing you no good.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it. Do I think I'm likely to have someone break into my house? Probably not, my town's crime rate is below the national average. But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.

Also if you were/are military you have some degree of training.

Which I think should be a pre-requisite for purchase of an item that has a primary purpose of wounding a human being, right?

And here's where I'll break with the standard pro-gun argument by agreeing with you. There's a reason that the handgun that I am thinking about is the Beretta 92A1...it's the most up-to-date civilian equivalent of my primary weapon as a military member, the M9.


Kthulhu wrote:
But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.

This.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it. Do I think I'm likely to have someone break into my house? Probably not, my town's crime rate is below the national average. But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.

Also if you were/are military you have some degree of training.

Which I think should be a pre-requisite for purchase of an item that has a primary purpose of wounding a human being, right?

And here's where I'll break with the standard pro-gun argument by agreeing with you. There's a reason that the handgun that I am thinking about is the Beretta 92A1...it's the most up-to-date civilian equivalent of my primary weapon as a military member, the M9.

I am personally a city/suburb boy, but one side of my family came down from the hills of West "By God" Virginia and so I was raised with the understanding that a gun is both a weapon and a tool.

If you live in rural america, a gun is something you are going to want to have for any number of reasons. Wild Animals actually exist and are a nuisance. And if you have trouble on your property, the police aren't a few minutes away. It is very arguably something you "need". And so I can understand the anger over fear of restricting these items.

That being said, I don't think you "need" an assault rifle, or even an automatic pistol with a high capacity magazine. But if you want them, and you are willing to get proper training and certification to use them, that is as fine by me as you driving a car on the highway once you do the same thing.

I wish the discussion would drift closer to a discussion of what would be common purchase and what would require certification, but we all seem bunched at the edges on this debate.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.
This.

And there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe.

Having a gun may make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I plan for a home invasion the same way I plan for a home fire.

Get my family out of the house and call the local response team.


Caineach wrote:
Yes, and in such a living environment, if the intruder comes into your home, he is probably already blocking you off from your gun. By the time you can get to it and load it, he will already have been able to force a viloent confrontation if he wanted to. Thus, unless you are sitting arround your home with your gun on you it is doing you no good.

Which is why you shouldn't follow the "safety" advice of keeping your guns locked up and unloaded. Keep one near you at all times. Or at least within easy reach. Then you'll be safe.

At least from intruders. Your chance of an accident goes way up, but that's the price you pay. Can't be too safe.


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.
This.

And there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe.

Having a gun may make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

Do you have auto insurance? Does it actually make you feel less likely to get into accidents?


Scott Betts wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
You made the statement that there was no legitimate reason to own one. You didn't say that the state didn't say there was no legitimate reason to own one. Those are very different statements. As of right now, since the state has not said that you cannot own an assault rifle, then the only one making claims that there are no legitimate reasons to not own one is you. The state has made no such claim.
Who do you think the state is, exactly? We're not ruled by Louis XIV. The state has previously ruled that assault weapons could not be owned by civilians, so it clearly found a compelling reason at some point. That ruling expired and it looks like it may be renewed or reworked, because that's how a system of laws works.

I can actually own an assault weapon, right now, in any state. The previous ban was more about cosmetic features than the weapon itself. That's why it failed. Honestly, go look at the actual bill. Read up on the people who actually had no problems buying the weapons. The bill was pointless.

Quote:
You were also trained with side arms, including your service pistol. You have other options.

This is where your lack of knowledge on a subject is leaking through. I was an enlisted soldier and I didn't have a side arm and training with them wasn't SOP. I was lucky enough to be able to use them once in a while because I was friends with the commander and he was requires to train with his. Otherwise, I probably would have never handled one.

Quote:
If someone told you they want to own tactical nuclear weapons because they enjoy lobbing them at 100-meter-wide targets on their massive Wyoming estate, would you consider that use "perfectly legitimate"? Would you support their effort to acquire a personal nuclear arsenal?

That's not target shooting and therefore isn't worth a response beyond this.

Quote:
3) Protecting large properties along boarder areas where there is heavy gun and drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate as well. If you don't live in an area where you have to deal with a cartel, you probably would never have to think about something like this.
If you are living in a place where the use of a semi-automatic rifle is necessary because of regular, substantial threat to life and limb, you should probably move.

Why should I have to move? Why should I have to give in to the criminal elements that came in long after my family had been there for generations? Moving your ranch isn't easy or cheap. Why should the law abiding citizen be told that s/he is the one in the wrong?

I provided several legitimate reasons for owning assault weapons. You actually didn't counter them. Now the government may decide that we can't own them. That doesn't mean that there still wouldn't be legitimate reasons to own them. It just means that it would be illegal.


Guns: The Musical Interlude


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I plan for a home invasion the same way I plan for a home fire.

Get my family out of the house and call the local response team.

Don't you know the only way to be safe is to shoot the fire with your full magazine from assault rifle for which you have military training to use? Why are you making the fire into some kind of "hero?"

(Gun-nuts: this is what you sound like)


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I plan for a home invasion the same way I plan for a home fire.

Get my family out of the house and call the local response team.

Don't you know the only way to be safe is to shoot the fire with your full magazine from assault rifle for which you have military training to use? Why are you making the fire into some kind of "hero?"

(Gun-nuts: this is what you sound like)

This is the intellectual equivalent of children saying "Oh yeah?!?! This is what YOU look like!" and making faces at each other.

Sure swayed my point of view.


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.
This.

And there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe.

Having a gun may make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

Do you have auto insurance? Does it actually make you feel less likely to get into accidents?

Yes and no. I don't see the relevance.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I plan for a home invasion the same way I plan for a home fire.

Get my family out of the house and call the local response team.

Don't you know the only way to be safe is to shoot the fire with your full magazine from assault rifle for which you have military training to use? Why are you making the fire into some kind of "hero?"

(Gun-nuts: this is what you sound like)

This is the intellectual equivalent of children saying "Oh yeah?!?! This is what YOU look like!" and making faces at each other.

Sure swayed my point of view.

I'm sorry. I forgot sarcasm wasn't allowed on the Internet. I will let all of you get back to your completely reasonable discussion.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
3) Protecting large properties along boarder areas where there is heavy gun and drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate as well. If you don't live in an area where you have to deal with a cartel, you probably would never have to think about something like this.
If you are living in a place where the use of a semi-automatic rifle is necessary because of regular, substantial threat to life and limb, you should probably move.
Why should I have to move? Why should I have to give in to the criminal elements that came in long after my family had been there for generations? Moving your ranch isn't easy or cheap. Why should the law abiding citizen be told that s/he is the one in the wrong?

Perhaps because if you really do regularly have to fight off armed criminal gangs you're going to lose eventually? Even if you have a semi-automatic rifle.

It's not a matter of being in the wrong, it's just practicality.


You guys scare me.

...I should get a gun!


thejeff wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
3) Protecting large properties along boarder areas where there is heavy gun and drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate as well. If you don't live in an area where you have to deal with a cartel, you probably would never have to think about something like this.
If you are living in a place where the use of a semi-automatic rifle is necessary because of regular, substantial threat to life and limb, you should probably move.
Why should I have to move? Why should I have to give in to the criminal elements that came in long after my family had been there for generations? Moving your ranch isn't easy or cheap. Why should the law abiding citizen be told that s/he is the one in the wrong?

Perhaps because if you really do regularly have to fight off armed criminal gangs you're going to lose eventually? Even if you have a semi-automatic rifle.

It's not a matter of being in the wrong, it's just practicality.

The question wasn't one of practicality. It was one of legitimacy. Is it a legitimate reason to own an assault rifle?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The question wasn't one of practicality. It was one of legitimacy. Is it a legitimate reason to own an assault rifle?

Somehow, I think this theoretical army of armed thugs is going to kill the unaffiliated guy with the assault rifle before anyone else. But that's just me.


Slaunyeh wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
It's not a matter of being in the wrong, it's just practicality.
The question wasn't one of practicality. It was one of legitimacy. Is it a legitimate reason to own an assault rifle?
Somehow, I think this theoretical army of armed thugs is going to kill the unaffiliated guy with the assault rifle before anyone else. But that's just me.

But it's still a legitimate reason to own one. The land owner is probably not running his ranch by himself. It's likely that he has others there as well. Even cartels will take the path of least resistance when coming into America.

Shadow Lodge

Slaunyeh wrote:

You guys scare me.

...I should get a gun!

...I should buy a boat.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


But it's still a legitimate reason to own one. The land owner is probably not running his ranch by himself. It's likely that he has others there as well. Even cartels will take the path of least resistance when coming into America.

Oh yes, escalation is always legitimate. And if all else fails, you can always fall back on the good old defence "but they started it!"


I know there are fewer gun deaths and murders in Sweden than in the US. That is not in question. However, it is also true no matter which Western country you compare to the US, IIRC. And this is with a very high number of firearms (mostly hunting rifles) per capita. Thing is... there is a price to pay. We have no recourse if someone threatens us... the police is currently prioritizing minor crimes rather than coming to stop things like burglaries/home invasions. Even if they come, it takes too long. If they fear the perp might be armed, count on them waiting more time for backup.

There is more to living in a country than its murder rate. One of those issues is whether you are allowed to defend yourself... and that is a no no. If something does happen to you here, you have no recourse, no rights, and if you try anything, the law will be used against you.


Slaunyeh wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it.

And that's my point. As long as you feel the need to have that philosophy, you're not really feeling safe. Not really.

I could worry about intruders trying to murder me, or a plane crashing into my house, but the odds for either happening are so astronomically small that it'd be a pretty silly worry to build my life around.

If you live in a part of the world where the odds aren't that small, that's an entirely different matter. You should, of course, conduct yourself according to the environment you live in. But it doesn't sound safe, if those are the precautions you need.

You know I have to chuckle a little at this. This exactly what ZN was suggesting that the family in the original story did wrong. It was because they didn't live their life in constant fear and have plans for all kinds of situations made and drilled that she had to shoot this guy. It was her and her family's fault for not being adequately prepared for this exact situation that made her have to shoot the guy. If her and her family had instead lived in a constant state of fear of home evasion, they would have had a plan to escape and then this story could have had a happy ending.


Yeah, I've never had a fire escape plan, never mind a home invasion plan. I don't know anyone who does.

Of course, I also don't have children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yeah, I've never had a fire escape plan, never mind a home invasion plan. I don't know anyone who does.

Of course, I also don't have children.

Did a paladin kill them all?


It wasn't a paladin...


Scott Betts wrote:
FuelDrop wrote:
"The alleged burglar".
Yes, alleged burglar.

I think the appropriate term is alleged expert treasure hunter.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yeah, I've never had a fire escape plan, never mind a home invasion plan. I don't know anyone who does.

Of course, I also don't have children.

Did a paladin kill them all?

No. Check out my profile, you racist.


Zombieneighbours wrote:


I have little doubt that he will be found guilty, but until he has the right to not be refered to as guilty of the crime.

Exactly wrong. He has the right not to be defamed. That doesn't mean I have to call him an alleged burglar. He then has the right to sue me for slander or libel if he is found not guilty of burglary.


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.
This.

And there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe.

Having a gun may make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

Do you have auto insurance? Does it actually make you feel less likely to get into accidents?

Yes and no. I don't see the relevance.

I tired to explain this before.

Having the firearm doesn't make anyone feel safer, it gives them peace of mind, in the same way auto insurance gives a person peace of mind that if things go wrong, they have pro-actively taken a step to mitigate the loss to themselves, but it doesn't actually make them feel safer on the road.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:


I have little doubt that he will be found guilty, but until he has the right to not be refered to as guilty of the crime.
Exactly wrong. He has the right not to be defamed. That doesn't mean I have to call him an alleged burglar. He then has the right to sue me for slander or libel if he is found not guilty of burglary.

To back up ZN for a second, we don't know for a fact he was there to rob the place. He might have in fact been there to rape and murder, and thus calling him a burglar would be in accurate and insulting to burglars (poor old Bilbo). Since we don't yet know what his motivations were there, the most we could confidently say was he was a trespasser and destroyer of property (most likely the front door), and beyond that we will have to wait. Don't be satisfied with labeling him burglar when there might be more appropriate labels we can give him. ;D


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I'm sorry. I forgot sarcasm wasn't allowed on the Internet. I will let all of you get back to your completely reasonable discussion.

me wrote:
Sure swayed my point of view.

Oh, sarcasm is in full force.


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
But there's a difference between feeling safe and being complacent.
This.

And there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe.

Having a gun may make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

Do you have auto insurance? Does it actually make you feel less likely to get into accidents?

Yes and no. I don't see the relevance.

I tired to explain this before.

Having the firearm doesn't make anyone feel safer, it gives them peace of mind, in the same way auto insurance gives a person peace of mind that if things go wrong, they have pro-actively taken a step to mitigate the loss to themselves, but it doesn't actually make them feel safer on the road.

I guess I see the connection, though I'd put the "gives them peace of mind" in the "feel safer" category.

But my question remains "Does it actually make you safer?"
What if it actually puts you at more risk? There are certainly risks involved in owning a gun. They may or may not be outweighed by the ability to defend yourself. Buying insurance doesn't add to your risks.


No, it doesn't actually make me feel safer. It gives me peace of mind.
There is a difference.
A gun doesn't make me feel that the chances of someone attempting to do bodily harm to me or the members of my family suddenly decrease to nil.
It does give me peace of mind that I have acted proactively to make sure a tool is at my disposal to attempt to stop that from happeneing should it occur.


Kryzbyn wrote:

No, it doesn't actually make me feel safer. It gives me peace of mind.

There is a difference.
A gun doesn't make me feel that the chances of someone attempting to do bodily harm to me or the members of my family suddenly decrease to nil.
It does give me peace of mind that I have acted proactively to make sure a tool is at my disposal to attempt to stop that from happeneing should it occur.

I didn't say "completely and totally safe", I said "safer".

Regardless of whether you've "acted proactively" or not, I would say that if you think the chances of you or members of your family suffering bodily harm from someone attacking you are lower with a gun than without one, then you feel safer. That could be because you feel the chance of being attacked drops or because you have a better chance of stopping the attack.
If you want to call that peace of mind instead of feeling safer, whatever. As long as we're talking about the same thing.

Of course, as my original point remains: Does this "feeling of safety" or "peace of mind" actually correspond to any real increase in safety?
There you'd have to weigh in against your chance of defending yourself or deterring an attack, the chance of an accidental shooting, or the chance of escalating an encounter which wouldn't have led to physical harm otherwise, or the chance of an unarmed attacker gaining control of the weapon, etc.
It is possible, depending on your circumstances, that having the gun actually puts you at more risk.

Sovereign Court

Ughbash wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.

Well compare a soldier to people in the same age gender group and they have a LOWER Suicide rate then civilians.

Young men tend to have a higher suicided rate then other age/gender groups. Most soldiers are young men. When data is normalized to give an apples to apples comparison, despite the press that soldier suicides get, it is below civilian suicide rate.

Couple of things, first finding suicide rates amongst police and soldiers is very hard, not because there isn't data out there, but because a lot of that data is filtered. The thing is accidental death is easier on the family then suicide and seeing as the police and military often investigate the deaths of their own means that suicides may be vastly unreported. What we do know is that suicide rates are higher then war casualties, but these are veterans not soldiers taking their lives and thus it's often investigated by a disinterested party, and police are in the top dozen or so of professions by suicide rate. Perhaps those numbers might be higher (I mean suicide often means no insurance settlement for grieving family members) but being one of the professions that is more likely to commit suicide is statistically significant.

The straight dope


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

No, it doesn't actually make me feel safer. It gives me peace of mind.

There is a difference.
A gun doesn't make me feel that the chances of someone attempting to do bodily harm to me or the members of my family suddenly decrease to nil.
It does give me peace of mind that I have acted proactively to make sure a tool is at my disposal to attempt to stop that from happeneing should it occur.

I didn't say "completely and totally safe", I said "safer".

Regardless of whether you've "acted proactively" or not, I would say that if you think the chances of you or members of your family suffering bodily harm from someone attacking you are lower with a gun than without one, then you feel safer. That could be because you feel the chance of being attacked drops or because you have a better chance of stopping the attack.
If you want to call that peace of mind instead of feeling safer, whatever. As long as we're talking about the same thing.

Of course, as my original point remains: Does this "feeling of safety" or "peace of mind" actually correspond to any real increase in safety?
There you'd have to weigh in against your chance of defending yourself or deterring an attack, the chance of an accidental shooting, or the chance of escalating an encounter which wouldn't have led to physical harm otherwise, or the chance of an unarmed attacker gaining control of the weapon, etc.
It is possible, depending on your circumstances, that having the gun actually puts you at more risk.

It's not feeling 'safer' or more safe. It's not the same thing in my mind, I'm sorry I'm unable to convey it in terms you understand. But it's not the same thing.

But I think I've already said above, that it doesn't decrease the chances that someone may attempt to cause bodily harm to me or my family. So, no it doesn't translate into an actual increase in safety.
Does that answer your question?
I think we're hung up on this broad idea of safety.
Having the gun doesn't make you anymore safe than not having it. It just adds another option to deal with a potential problem.
My firearm is in a secure location, and will stay there till needed.
I will not hunt an intruder down, or go seeking confrontation in my home. If an intruder comes upstairs, then I will confront him with the firearm.
I'm not going to play the what if game.


Sissyl wrote:

Sweden is, as always, a forerunner in the justice department.

We have a VERY classic story about a case in the 80s, where a burglar stole a VCR from a house, only to slip on the path out to the street and fall, getting hurt in the process. The burglar reported this to the police, and the house's owner had to pay damages, because he hadn't cleared the path enough.

Do you have a verifiable source for this? Because I'm inclined to believe that that's all this is - a story. It's a variation on countless "burglar successfully sues homeowner" stories that have floated around the internet (and gossip/rumor circles before that) in order to highlight imagined flaws in our justice system (feeding a paranoid fear that society is slowly moving towards victim-blaming and criminal-sympathizing). It probably never happened, in Sweden or anywhere else.

EDIT: Snopes, as always, has a thorough rundown on similar internet-bull stories. Note that, while there are a handful of actual cases of outlandish sue-the-victim or fantastically frivolous claims, every one of them was eventually dismissed.


Itchy wrote:
Sorry, but correlation does not imply causation.

We've been over this. The authors of the study account for the issue of reverse causation, but make it clear that they took steps to avoid this phenomenon having a large impact on the effect. One of the study's (and other similar studies') conclusions is that one of the primary reasons suicide incidence is so high in households with firearms is that the availability of an immediately-lethal method of committing suicide enables suicidal individuals to kill themselves within the short window of "crisis time" where suicidal ideation is at its peak but before the victim has the ability to process the consequences.

Quote:
The fact that firearms are preferred by male suidcide victims, does not mean that firearms owners are more likely to attempt suicide.

You're right! The fact that firearms owners are more likely to attempt suicide means that firearms owners are more likely to attempt suicide. Did you think I brought up the bit about male victims to support that? I didn't. It stands on its own, because the research demonstrates conclusively that firearms owners are dramatically more likely to commit suicide.

Quote:
Here's an equivalent (and just as ridiculous) statement for you: People who devlop diabetes overwhelmingly report having eaten cookies. Therefore, eating cookies makes you much more likely to get diabetes.

Issues of methodology aside, you really could have chosen a better example. It probably does follow that there is a causal link between gorging on cookies and developing diabetes.

Quote:
Edit: A better restatement of the arguement: All shark attacks occur in the ocean, therefore, all people swimming in the ocean will be attacked by sharks.

Nope, that's not the formal argument structure you're looking for.

Quote:
OR Nearly all drownings occur in two or more inches of water, therefore, all people in water deeper than two inches will drown.

Neither is this.

Quote:
If I remember correctly from my college psychology class, male suicides overwhelmingly tend to be more "successful" than female suicides regardless of method.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. Though the methods male victims choose play a non-trivial role in determining the success of a suicide attempt.

Quote:
The thought (at the time) was that males tend to not want to "cry for help" with a suicide and rather just want to really end it. Thus, they plan and choose methods that are more effective. The converse (that most female suicides were thought to be a cry for help) is irrelevant to the current discussion.

And none of this has an impact on the fact that you are way more likely to commit suicide if you have access to a firearm.

You can go read the study. It was linked to at one point. It has a body of literature behind it now (multiple studies indicating anywhere from a 200% to 1000% increase in suicide incidence based on the demographic).


Very well... I will take a look. Not that the article will likely tell you much.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
We're not ignoring its findings: we're ignoring the ad hoc meaning you've tacked onto it in support of your goal. The study says gun ownership is (somehow) linked to getting shot. You've decided that means that the gun ownership is causing people to engage in behavior that gets them shot, rather than the rather obvious link that if you live in a dangerous area you're more likely to be armed.

Again, the study's developers used demographically-matched controls in order to avoid exactly this confound.


Kryzbyn wrote:


It's not feeling 'safer' or more safe. It's not the same thing in my mind, I'm sorry I'm unable to convey it in terms you understand. But it's not the same thing.
But I think I've already said above, that it doesn't decrease the chances that someone may attempt to cause bodily harm to me or my family. So, no it doesn't translate into an actual increase in safety.
Does that answer your question?
I think we're hung up on this broad idea of safety.
Having the gun doesn't make you anymore safe than not having it. It just adds another option to deal with a potential problem.
My firearm is in a secure location, and will stay there till needed.
I will not hunt an intruder down, or go seeking confrontation in my home. If an intruder comes upstairs, then I will confront him with the firearm.
I'm not going to play the what if game.

You seem to be defining safety as not being attacked: "doesn't decrease the chances that someone may attempt to cause bodily harm to me or my family."

While I'm including the chances of repelling the attack in my definition.
Is that part of the misunderstanding?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I can actually own an assault weapon, right now, in any state.

That depends on how you define "assault weapon".

Quote:
The previous ban was more about cosmetic features than the weapon itself. That's why it failed. Honestly, go look at the actual bill. Read up on the people who actually had no problems buying the weapons. The bill was pointless.

It failed because it expired. It went into effect for a full 10 years. Since then, support for gun control legislation has waned considerably. The support did not exist for it to be renewed.

But you're correct, there were a lot of examples of poor legislating evident in the bill.

Quote:
This is where your lack of knowledge on a subject is leaking through. I was an enlisted soldier and I didn't have a side arm and training with them wasn't SOP. I was lucky enough to be able to use them once in a while because I was friends with the commander and he was requires to train with his. Otherwise, I probably would have never handled one.

That's my mistake, then. I come from a military family of primarily Navy veterans, and I have been told that my Navy relatives were required to qualify with pistols. I had assumed that this held true across all branches, but I guess that's not the case.

Quote:
That's not target shooting and therefore isn't worth a response beyond this.

It's not target shooting to you. But what if the guy really enjoys it? What if he considers it sport, with skill involved and all that? Your whole point is that enjoying the activity makes it legitimate. Are you telling me that society isn't fit to judge that a leisure activity isn't legitimate, but that you are?

Quote:
Why should I have to move? Why should I have to give in to the criminal elements that came in long after my family had been there for generations? Moving your ranch isn't easy or cheap. Why should the law abiding citizen be told that s/he is the one in the wrong?

As others have pointed out, this is a matter of practicality. It's like someone saying, "Hey guys, the volcano 200 feet from my house looks like it's going to erupt. Would it be legitimate for me to own a fire extinguisher?" If fire extinguishers could be used to kill dozens of children in a few seconds, mind you.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Again, the study's developers used demographically-matched controls in order to avoid exactly this confound.

Curious question, not argue-y question: any control for (or other information about) whether people who go through periodic suicidal feelings might buy weapons for possible future attempts?


Ughbash wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.

Well compare a soldier to people in the same age gender group and they have a LOWER Suicide rate then civilians.

Young men tend to have a higher suicided rate then other age/gender groups. Most soldiers are young men. When data is normalized to give an apples to apples comparison, despite the press that soldier suicides get, it is below civilian suicide rate.

Source?


mordion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Again, the study's developers used demographically-matched controls in order to avoid exactly this confound.
Curious question, not argue-y question: any control for (or other information about) whether people who go through periodic suicidal feelings might buy weapons for possible future attempts?

I'm not going to go back through the study, but I'd wager not. Regardless, the effect size for that confound would have to be huge to negate the conclusions. From what I understand, it would be pretty uncommon to purchase a firearm for future periods of suicidal ideation; by the time the thought process reaches the point where the victim purchases a firearm for the purpose of committing suicide, the ideation has transitioned to action and it becomes much, much more likely that they will carry out that attempt.

In other words, no one really says, "You know what, I should buy a gun just in case I want to kill myself at some point down the road."

301 to 350 of 836 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards