Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5001  
Old 07-01-2015, 01:42 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It takes repeated shocks of that kind to break through the walls of denial propped up by the likes of yourself. The frequency is not reducing, either, for reasons you know well even if you can't face up to them squarely.
There has been a recent spike in mass shootings but there has been a very clear reduction in shooting deaths. If your argument for stricter gun control is that this small sliver of gun deaths have increased while gun deaths overall has decreased, then I don't really see how you can convince anyone that doesn't already believe what you believe and you WILL have to convince a LOT of people to get any sort of forward momentum for your cause.

Quote:
You've repeatedly stated that there is an "acceptable number" of gun killings as the price of, well, something or other that sounds like "freedom" to you. Are you willing to tell us what the number is that you find acceptable? And how you can claim that people who want fewer killings are the real sickos?
I don't recall ever saying that there is an acceptable number of gun deaths for freedom or anything like that, I leave the "defense of tyranny" arguments to others. I have said that we have to compare the costs of gun ownership to the benefits. You choose to only see the costs of guns to society and ignore and value of guns in society, I recognize both the costs and benefits.

You treat gun ownership like its slavery (or some other inherently immoral policy) where you cannot morally engage in a cost benefit analysis.

BTW, I don't think you're a sicko. I just think you're crazy, stupid a tool or all of the above. The fact that your ideology puts you on the right side of most arguments may have led you to believe that you are intelligent but you are in fact just a tool and a parrot.
  #5002  
Old 07-01-2015, 02:57 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Mass shooting accounts for less than 1% of shooting deaths.
That's a meaningless factoid. If the occurrence of church and elementary school shootings continues to go up, the math won't matter. People will demand that something be done about it, and the most visible common element is guns.
Quote:
I think enough people realize this that that we won't have draconian results. I don't see us repealing the second amendment based on a mass shooting.
But extending California regs nationwide is definitely within the realm of possibility.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 07-01-2015 at 02:57 PM.
  #5003  
Old 07-01-2015, 03:56 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's a meaningless factoid. If the occurrence of church and elementary school shootings continues to go up, the math won't matter. People will demand that something be done about it, and the most visible common element is guns.But extending California regs nationwide is definitely within the realm of possibility.
California's gun control laws are based on the premise that owning and carrying firearms is a privilege, a license granted by the state. Most of the rest of the country has accepted that when our country was founded possessing weapons was considered a fundamental right. If we really don't believe that anymore, amend the Constitution.
  #5004  
Old 07-01-2015, 04:00 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
California's gun control laws are based on the premise that owning and carrying firearms is a privilege, a license granted by the state. Most of the rest of the country has accepted that when our country was founded possessing weapons was considered a fundamental right. If we really don't believe that anymore, amend the Constitution.
Have California's laws been ruled unconstitutional? If not, I see no need to amend the Constitution before rolling them out for the rest of the country.
  #5005  
Old 07-01-2015, 04:02 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That wasn't the question. You can't even read honestly.
What a sharply self-aware post on your part. Bravo.

Last edited by Scumpup; 07-01-2015 at 04:03 PM.
  #5006  
Old 07-01-2015, 05:00 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's a meaningless factoid. If the occurrence of church and elementary school shootings continues to go up, the math won't matter. People will demand that something be done about it, and the most visible common element is guns.But extending California regs nationwide is definitely within the realm of possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Have California's laws been ruled unconstitutional? If not, I see no need to amend the Constitution before rolling them out for the rest of the country.
Extending CA regs nationwide is in the realm of possibility, much like modern day alcohol prohibition is in the realm of possibility. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not CA laws have been ruled unconsitutional though. The CA constitution does not contain any provision for the right to keep and bear arms. Prior to the Heller and McDonald ruling, there was no right to arms at all in CA. The legislature was unhindered in passing whatever gun control they desired, and they did so often. The history of gun control in CA is rooted in anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese racism, and in more modern times, anti-Black racism.

Many other states however, do have provisions for the right to keep and bear arms. Some of those offer greater protections of the right than the US Constitution. It's not that the CA laws would have to be ruled unconstitutional to lend support to your opposition, it's that the constitutions of those other states would need to be amended.

Even more so, many of the regulations in CA are probably not unconstitutional in any state - that means that it's not a matter of the federal or state constitutions, but each individual state legislature. And in that regard, over the past 30 years or so, the state legislatures have generally been making gun laws more permissive, not less. Over the same time period, violent crime has dropped significantly (I make no claim these are connected).

So when you use examples like school or church shootings in an effort to bolster your cause, it gives the appearance that the gun control supporters actually hope for tragic events so they can push their agenda. Not saying that you do this, but when politicians of all stripes seize on tragedy as an avenue to push their agenda, it seems like more than just opportunism - it actually seems like folks want tragedy to occur so they could use it. It's gross.

I do agree with you about the nature of public opinion and how it could change. If there actually was a sharp rise in school shootings it could turn public opinion such that more restrictive laws could be passed. It's bad public policy to be dictated by isolated tragedy. I hope that doesn't happen, both the tragedy and the aftermath. What do you hope? Do you think there is an avenue for your agenda to be successful without tragedy as a catalyst?

Last edited by Bone; 07-01-2015 at 05:01 PM.
  #5007  
Old 07-05-2015, 02:50 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,659
Open-carrying Texan shoots up Austin hotel. One dead.
  #5008  
Old 07-05-2015, 05:28 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
I think that some form of "brandishing" law is needed. Having a gun on you is one thing, holding it at the ready is something else. In fact since long guns are hardly the first choice for a day-to-day carry firearm, I'd be ok with a law saying they had to be carried cased.
  #5009  
Old 07-06-2015, 05:24 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I think that some form of "brandishing" law is needed. Having a gun on you is one thing, holding it at the ready is something else. In fact since long guns are hardly the first choice for a day-to-day carry firearm, I'd be ok with a law saying they had to be carried cased.
I'm sure doorhinge will be along in a moment to explain how we're all pussies and how he and his daughter would have been happy to stand next to that guy. Because hunting or something.
  #5010  
Old 07-06-2015, 01:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's a meaningless factoid. If the occurrence of church and elementary school shootings continues to go up, the math won't matter. People will demand that something be done about it, and the most visible common element is guns.But extending California regs nationwide is definitely within the realm of possibility.
So why didn't the recent South Carolina shooting result in renewed call to ban guns or something?

Considering that intermediate scrutiny is the most likely level of scrutiny that will be applied to second amendment rights, it is not clear to me that the entirety of California's gun control regime would survive judicial scrutiny.
  #5011  
Old 07-06-2015, 01:02 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Have California's laws been ruled unconstitutional? If not, I see no need to amend the Constitution before rolling them out for the rest of the country.
How the hell would you do that? It will NEVER pass at a federal level and most of the states wouldn't even get their state Democratic parties to support it.

And there is a good chance that at least some parts of it would get struck down by the courts. Which parts of the California gun control regime do you think should be rolled out across the country?
  #5012  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:05 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
How the hell would you do that? It will NEVER pass at a federal level and most of the states wouldn't even get their state Democratic parties to support it.
But it could, when there is sufficient public pressure to do something about gun violence. You seem to think public opinion is static, and what can't be passed today will never pass; must I remind you of the reversal of public opinion regarding gay marriage. It will happen that fast for more responsible gun laws.
  #5013  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:08 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So why didn't the recent South Carolina shooting result in renewed call to ban guns or something?
It will. It has only been two weeks.
Quote:
Considering that intermediate scrutiny is the most likely level of scrutiny that will be applied to second amendment rights, it is not clear to me that the entirety of California's gun control regime would survive judicial scrutiny.
So why hasn't it been successfully challenged in California? Does the Constitution apply differently there? Seems to me the arguments that failed to change the law on constitutional grounds in California will fail for the same reason in the rest of the country.
  #5014  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:48 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
I picture you narrowing your eyes and shaking your fist when you make these "just you wait!" posts.
  #5015  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:53 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
BTW, gay marriage wasn't a quick reversal of public opinion. It was one of the results of a decades long campaign for gay rights. You gun control lot have been at it for at least as long, but your position has continually worsened rather than improved. Your high water mark for achieving your agenda was the Bill Clinton administration and even he admits the assault weapons ban was a political blunder.
  #5016  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:57 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So why hasn't it been successfully challenged in California? Does the Constitution apply differently there? Seems to me the arguments that failed to change the law on constitutional grounds in California will fail for the same reason in the rest of the country.
To date, there have been no CA gun laws that have been adjudicated at the SCOTUS level. The "may issue" CCW scheme was stricken down in Peruta at the appelate level before it went en banc. The 10 day wait as applied was stricken down as unconstitutional at the district level. This is being appealed by the attorney general.

Other current cases - it's illegal for a gun store to have images of handguns visible to the public, but images of rifles are just fine. This is being challenged on first amendment grounds, so not sure if you'd consider that part of the CA laws you'd like exported across the nation. I personally am a fan of free speech, but YMMV.
  #5017  
Old 07-06-2015, 04:08 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
But it could, when there is sufficient public pressure to do something about gun violence. You seem to think public opinion is static, and what can't be passed today will never pass; must I remind you of the reversal of public opinion regarding gay marriage. It will happen that fast for more responsible gun laws.
Sure, I agree public opinion isn't static but I can't remember the last time this sort of shift occurred to reduce rights.

Gun control is nothing like gay marriage.
  #5018  
Old 07-06-2015, 04:10 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It will. It has only been two weeks.
Its already too late.

Quote:
So why hasn't it been successfully challenged in California? Does the Constitution apply differently there? Seems to me the arguments that failed to change the law on constitutional grounds in California will fail for the same reason in the rest of the country.
The standard of scrutiny has not be determined yet. But once it is, you will see many of the sillier gun laws disappear.
  #5019  
Old 07-06-2015, 05:09 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Three-year-old Texas boy dies after accidentally shooting himself:
Quote:
The boy’s grandparents were babysitting him and had put him down for a nap. They later heard a gunshot and found the boy had shot himself, police said.

“When they went in to check on him, he had apparently located a .380 semiautomatic pistol that was in the bedroom and had apparently accidentally shot himself in the head,” Sergeant Ben Beall of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office was quoted as saying by broadcaster KHOU.
The gun owner should go to prison. That's responsible gun ownership.
  #5020  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:12 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I think that some form of "brandishing" law is needed. Having a gun on you is one thing, holding it at the ready is something else. In fact since long guns are hardly the first choice for a day-to-day carry firearm, I'd be ok with a law saying they had to be carried cased.
A long gun may not be the first choice for an affluent citizen who can afford several guns, but what about a lower-income household which can afford only one or two guns per family member? Are they to be denied the ability to defend themselves because they can't afford hand guns?

Or is the 2nd Amendment just for the affluent?
  #5021  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Three-year-old Texas boy dies after accidentally shooting himself:The gun owner should go to prison. That's responsible gun ownership.
No.
Texans are the best sort of responsible Americans; with the Yankees moving in against them in the "Jade Helm" operation they need their guns now more than ever, even the three-year olds.

I think it's pretty clear that Barack Obama or some other freedom-hating libtard snuck into that kid's room and shot him in cold blood hoping to stir up anti-gun sentiment.
  #5022  
Old 07-07-2015, 07:45 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A long gun may not be the first choice for an affluent citizen who can afford several guns, but what about a lower-income household which can afford only one or two guns per family member? Are they to be denied the ability to defend themselves because they can't afford hand guns?

Or is the 2nd Amendment just for the affluent?
A handgun should be carried in a holster; for long guns maybe a gun-scabbard?
  #5023  
Old 07-07-2015, 09:42 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
A handgun should be carried in a holster; for long guns maybe a gun-scabbard?
I have a gun scabbard and I never use it. It doesn't work well with any gun that has a magazine or optics or a front grip or pretty much any long gun other than a simple shotgun with no accessories.

Is there another type of gun scabbard that I am not aware of that would work well with these sort of set ups?
  #5024  
Old 07-07-2015, 09:51 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A long gun may not be the first choice for an affluent citizen who can afford several guns, but what about a lower-income household which can afford only one or two guns per family member? Are they to be denied the ability to defend themselves because they can't afford hand guns?

Or is the 2nd Amendment just for the affluent?
You can get a reliable handgun for under $200 these days.

Hi Point (in various calibers)
All sorts of guns in .380
A lot of the Brazilian stuff
All sorts of used handguns
  #5025  
Old 07-07-2015, 11:06 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A long gun may not be the first choice for an affluent citizen who can afford several guns, but what about a lower-income household which can afford only one or two guns per family member? Are they to be denied the ability to defend themselves because they can't afford hand guns?

Or is the 2nd Amendment just for the affluent?
The 2nd Amendment is applied per person as they can afford it. Buy an inexpensive, used handgun. If you can't afford that, then defend yourself with a baseball bat and knife.

Each person buys the car s/he can afford, or else they ride the bus. Or they buy a bicycle, or a good pair of walking shoes.

This is how life works.

Last edited by Bullitt; 07-07-2015 at 11:08 AM.
  #5026  
Old 07-07-2015, 09:01 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
The 2nd Amendment is applied per person as they can afford it. Buy an inexpensive, used handgun. If you can't afford that, then defend yourself with a baseball bat and knife.

Each person buys the car s/he can afford, or else they ride the bus. Or they buy a bicycle, or a good pair of walking shoes.

This is how life works.
"If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed by the court." I know we need food stamp restrictions (no albacore tuna, milk only in gallon containers, et cetera et cetera) but perhaps handguns should be added to the list of acceptable food stamp purchases.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(And just for the record: I am NOT one of you crazed single-issue gun-nut cowards. Most of my posts in this thread are intended as sarcastic. I say this because you gun nuts are so divorced from rational thought, you probably think my worst sarcasm is sincere agreement.)
  #5027  
Old 07-07-2015, 09:11 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I have a gun scabbard and I never use it. It doesn't work well with any gun that has a magazine or optics or a front grip or pretty much any long gun other than a simple shotgun with no accessories.

Is there another type of gun scabbard that I am not aware of that would work well with these sort of set ups?
An image search for tactical rifle scabbards shows various designs for carrying AR-type weapons.
  #5028  
Old 07-08-2015, 12:18 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
An image search for tactical rifle scabbards shows various designs for carrying AR-type weapons.
Hunh, I alwys thought those were some sort of rifle case.

I still think you are better off with a cheap handgun rather than a scabbard for your rifle.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 07-08-2015 at 12:18 PM.
  #5029  
Old 07-08-2015, 01:48 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Hunh, I alwys thought those were some sort of rifle case.

I still think you are better off with a cheap handgun rather than a scabbard for your rifle.
No argument there, although if someone insists on carrying a long gun, that ought to be the way.
  #5030  
Old 07-08-2015, 02:16 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
If that's what it takes to help you feel courageous.
  #5031  
Old 07-08-2015, 02:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
BTW:
Quote:
"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

More guns, more gun crime

Numerous studies have found that gun ownership correlates with gun homicide, and homicide by gun is the most common type of homicide in the United States. In 2013, for example, there were 16,121 total homicides in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 11,208 of those were carried out with a firearm. (Gun suicides outpace gun homicides by far; in 2013, the CDC recorded 21,175 suicides by firearm, about half of all suicides that year. Contrary to popular belief, suicide is typically an impulsive act, psychiatrists say. Ninety percent of people who attempt suicide once will not go on to complete a suicide later, but a suicide attempt using a gun is far more lethal than other methods.)
And
Quote:
The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun. The results will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
But you knew all that already, didn't you?
  #5032  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:58 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If that's what it takes to help you feel courageous.
You can always be counted on to bring the angry-stupid, can't you? I agree with the idea that guns and their place in society needs discussed and tweaked. I also believe that truculent morons like you, actually especially you, from the anti side and open carry of long guns morons from the pro side ( they are our version of you) can safely be ignored if we want a discussion that goes anywhere.

Hope you got through today without any murderous fits of rage.

Last edited by Scumpup; 07-08-2015 at 04:58 PM.
  #5033  
Old 07-08-2015, 06:10 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
BTW: And

But you knew all that already, didn't you?
Gun debates inevitably come down to a war of opposing statistics and studies. I'd say that it's still controversial, unless you're claiming that all the studies showing guns increase murder are true and all the studies that show no effect or a negative effect are lies; in which case I'd like to hear it from someone more reputable than you.
  #5034  
Old 07-09-2015, 08:54 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
all the studies that show no effect or a negative effect are lies
How about a couple of your favorite links, then?

Quote:
in which case I'd like to hear it from someone more reputable than you.
If saying that makes you feel better, go ahead. The facts remain, irrespective of who shows them to you.
  #5035  
Old 07-09-2015, 09:45 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
How about a couple of your favorite links, then?

If saying that makes you feel better, go ahead. The facts remain, irrespective of who shows them to you.
No, I'm not going to (again) dig up cites; you're not worth it.

And the only "facts" you've presented is that someone somewhere claims to have shown that gun ownership increases murder rates.
  #5036  
Old 07-09-2015, 10:52 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,911
Let's try a hypothetical test. No facts here, just common sense. Everyone may not agree to the answer but I know what mine would be.

Two separate homeowners are in identical yet separate situations. Sleeping in his upstairs bedroom late at night, the homeowner hears glass break, muffled voices, and movement. Peering downstairs, the homeowner sees two criminals who are armed with knives and baseball bats. They see the homeowner and aggressively rush towards him. In the few seconds that have transpired so far, the homeowner realizes they are nobody he knows.

Homeowner X has a flashlight and a phone in his hand and can dial 9-1-1 in less than 1 second.

Homeowner Y has a flashlight in his hand, and a handgun tucked in his belt behind him (the bands of his underwear and shorts he sleeps in). He is trained and comfortable in his use of firearms and tactical situations.

Which homeowner has the better chance at defending his life, and the lives of the rest of his family including an attractive 16-yo daughter asleep upstairs? Not to mention his gorgeous wife?

Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Last edited by Bullitt; 07-09-2015 at 10:56 AM.
  #5037  
Old 07-09-2015, 11:03 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Look out! He's got a bumper sticker!
  #5038  
Old 07-09-2015, 11:23 AM
Hbns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
And the only "facts" you've presented is that someone somewhere claims to have shown that gun ownership increases murder rates.
Careful, the study did not say murder. Homicide can be unintentional, such as negligent discharge that results in another parties death.
  #5039  
Old 07-09-2015, 11:59 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
No, I'm not going to (again) dig up cites; you're not worth it.
Ooohh, burn!

IOW you don't have any. We already know.

Quote:
And the only "facts" you've presented is that someone somewhere claims to have shown that gun ownership increases murder rates.
That's what doing something called "analysis" to things called "facts" organized as "data" leads to. It's called "fighting ignorance", as you may have heard.

What you have is silly taunts most eight year olds would be ashamed of. Perhaps the company you choose to keep, delusional psychotics and pedophiles with anger issues as well as your fellow fetishists, helps to keep you at that level.
  #5040  
Old 07-09-2015, 12:06 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,911
Elvis, what would your answer be in that hypothetical scenario?

To be fair, I'll answer a hypothetical you pose, if you reply.
  #5041  
Old 07-09-2015, 02:18 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
He won't answer. He never does. He is a chancre sore that makes noise, nothing more. Don't let the noise's occassional resemblance to human speech deceive you into believing otherwise.
  #5042  
Old 07-09-2015, 02:28 PM
August West is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The Cheese Belt
Posts: 4,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Let's try a hypothetical test. No facts here, just common sense. Everyone may not agree to the answer but I know what mine would be.

Two separate homeowners are in identical yet separate situations. Sleeping in his upstairs bedroom late at night, the homeowner hears glass break, muffled voices, and movement. Peering downstairs, the homeowner sees two criminals who are armed with knives and baseball bats. They see the homeowner and aggressively rush towards him. In the few seconds that have transpired so far, the homeowner realizes they are nobody he knows.

Homeowner X has a flashlight and a phone in his hand and can dial 9-1-1 in less than 1 second.

Homeowner Y has a flashlight in his hand, and a handgun tucked in his belt behind him (the bands of his underwear and shorts he sleeps in). He is trained and comfortable in his use of firearms and tactical situations.

Which homeowner has the better chance at defending his life, and the lives of the rest of his family including an attractive 16-yo daughter asleep upstairs? Not to mention his gorgeous wife?

Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Is Homeowner X a trained ninja? My answer requires this information.
  #5043  
Old 07-09-2015, 03:32 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Ooohh, burn!

IOW you don't have any. We already know.

That's what doing something called "analysis" to things called "facts" organized as "data" leads to. It's called "fighting ignorance", as you may have heard.

What you have is silly taunts most eight year olds would be ashamed of. Perhaps the company you choose to keep, delusional psychotics and pedophiles with anger issues as well as your fellow fetishists, helps to keep you at that level.
Elvis, does anyone- anyone else besides you think you've pwned this thread?
  #5044  
Old 07-09-2015, 03:33 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by August West View Post
Is Homeowner X a trained ninja? My answer requires this information.
It's a lot faster to buy a gun than to become a ninja. Probably cheaper too.
  #5045  
Old 07-09-2015, 04:45 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Elvis, does anyone- anyone else besides you think you've pwned this thread?
Careful, you might make him angry and you wouldn't like him when he's angry.
  #5046  
Old 07-09-2015, 04:54 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Let's try a hypothetical test. No facts here, just common sense. Everyone may not agree to the answer but I know what mine would be.

Two separate homeowners are in identical yet separate situations. Sleeping in his upstairs bedroom late at night, the homeowner hears glass break, muffled voices, and movement. Peering downstairs, the homeowner sees two criminals who are armed with knives and baseball bats. They see the homeowner and aggressively rush towards him. In the few seconds that have transpired so far, the homeowner realizes they are nobody he knows.

Homeowner X has a flashlight and a phone in his hand and can dial 9-1-1 in less than 1 second.

Homeowner Y has a flashlight in his hand, and a handgun tucked in his belt behind him (the bands of his underwear and shorts he sleeps in). He is trained and comfortable in his use of firearms and tactical situations.

Which homeowner has the better chance at defending his life, and the lives of the rest of his family including an attractive 16-yo daughter asleep upstairs? Not to mention his gorgeous wife?

Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Geez what kind of life do you lead where the people who break into your house are armed with knives and baseball bats and breaking in with the specific intent to doing you harm. If I happen to be on the mobs hit list than yes I agree I want to be armed. But if I'm just an average person than chances are they want to steal some stuff and get out ASAP particularly if they know the cops are on the way.

And just for the record I was actually the victim of a home invasion in which the one of the perpetrators was actually in the room with me. I was on vacation asleep at a rental house when the door to my room opened and a man started looking through my belongings. I thought he was my dad and so asked if there was anything I could help him. Immediately he ran off and escaped the house. If I had had a gun I probably would be in the NRA statistics as someone who life was saved by having a loaded gun on hand, even though it wouldn't have changed a thing.
  #5047  
Old 07-09-2015, 05:04 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Elvis, does anyone- anyone else besides you think you've pwned this thread?
It's about saving lives. Not "pwning".

Now grow the fuck up, just a little, willya?
  #5048  
Old 07-09-2015, 05:06 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Geez what kind of life do you lead where the people who break into your house are armed with knives and baseball bats and breaking in with the specific intent to doing you harm.
The kind of life a gun fetishist has to imagine in order to rationalize it. The other kind involves jackbooted gummint thugs.
  #5049  
Old 07-09-2015, 09:00 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It's about saving lives. Not "pwning".

Now grow the fuck up, just a little, willya?
Yeah. He should grow up and stop doing things like blanket insults of a large group of people who have nothing in common but ownership of a consumer good. He should answer questions rather than evading them and trying, but failing, to make it seem like he is above answering. He should stop being so invested in winning the internet that he effectively renounces honesty and any expectation of being taken seriously. He should stop making sociological pronouncements that are drawn from old comic books.

No, wait. My bad. He doesn't do any of those things. That's all you.

Keep smiling, though. You're only one bad day from murder, after all. You told us so.

Last edited by Scumpup; 07-09-2015 at 09:01 PM.
  #5050  
Old 07-10-2015, 05:52 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Careful, you might make him angry and you wouldn't like him when he's angry.
Would you like him when he's not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Keep smiling, though. You're only one bad day from murder, after all. You told us so.
Jesus - drop this already. It's stopped being a "gotcha" a half dozen iterations ago.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017