Family fights back when 3 gunmen storm their home

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Kable

Not really, because welfare is voluntary. Everyone is free to work. And if you don’t want to work, you probably should not be raising a family for which you require others to feed. Does that really seem wrong to you?

And would you mind answering my prior questions? I don’t want to make assumptions about your position.

You haven’t asked me any questions so I don’t know what you mean by “prior questions”?

Anyway, please define “welfare”.

[Kable]

@Ibn_Warraq

You haven’t asked me any questions so I don’t know what you mean by “prior questions”?

No I did:

What did you mean when you said “An assault weapons ban should only be the start.” ?

Confiscation is not an answer, but putting the cost of maintaining a public contract promising that your AR15 (or any other weapon I described) is not going to end up shooting up a bunch of children in a suburban elementary school or urban elementary school should be on you.

What does that mean?

Anyway, please define “welfare”.

Regular welfare, food stamps, that kind of thing.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Kable

Then what did you mean when you said “An assault weapons ban should only be the start.”

I am not aware of an assault weapons ban proposal that includes confiscation, nor did I use the word.

Going to address what the Milwaukee Police Chief said about home invasions in light of the topic of this thread?

@Kable

What does that mean?

It means making your ownership of an AR15 (and the like) require that you pass all the hurdles necessary to assure the public at large that you are truly a person who should own such a weapon. Kind of like what has been accomplished with automatic weapons.

Going to address what the Milwaukee Police Chief said about home invasions in light of the topic of this thread?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Kable

No I did:

No, you didn’t.

What did you mean when you said “An assault weapons ban should only be the start.” ?

What are you talking about?

I never said anything like that.

Confiscation is not an answer, but putting the cost of maintaining a public contract promising that your AR15 (or any other weapon I described) is not going to end up shooting up a bunch of children in a suburban elementary school or urban elementary school should be on you.

What does that mean?

I have no idea, because I never said that.

Why are you asking me instead of the person who actually said that?

Do you think I’m a telepath or do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with your ideas are all somehow connected so you don’t even bother keeping straight who says what?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Kable

Regular welfare, food stamps, that kind of thing.

What do you mean?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

Social security?

Student loans?

Unemployment benefits?

[Kable]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

I am not aware of an assault weapons ban proposal that includes confiscation, nor did I use the word.

But you said the assault weapon ban was just a start and would leave literally millions of them in circulation. Are you OK with that?

Going to address what the Milwaukee Police Chief said about home invasions in light of the topic of this thread?

What did he say?

It means making your ownership of an AR15 (and the like) require that you pass all the hurdles necessary to assure the public at large that you are truly a person who should own such a weapon. Kind of like what has been accomplished with automatic weapons.

So you are going to tax them, and make them expensive to keep them out of the hands of minorities?

[Kable]

@Ibn_Warraq

Why are you asking me instead of the person who actually said that?

Sorry, your name looked like Inbred Mm domesticus.

[Kable]

@Ibn_Warraq

What do you mean?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

Social security?

Student loans?

Unemployment benefits?

I’d have to think about each one but off the top of my head; no, maybe, no, maybe, maybe. It’s not like birth control is a bad thing. Most educated people actually desire so much they pay for it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Kable

I didn’t say anything about large amounts of money and large families. I do think that people who can’t afford to raise their children will be very good parents and their kids more likely to become criminals. Also I talked of birth control, not sterilization, so anyone who was on welfare for a time would only be on birth control for that time. And no they wouldn’t be forced to go on birth control, they would volunteer for it at the same time they volunteered to get on welfare.

Problem’s this. The parent gets to choose. The kids don’t. So you’ve set up a system that many parents will find enormously punitive, to the degree that they may decline to obtain welfare.

I teach kids whose families are on welfare. Even with welfare, there are tremendous problems associated with the poverty they’re living in: too many guns in their community, not enough nutritious food, not enough support for education in the community, and so on and so on. A training I was at last week talked about EEGs taken of kids in poverty when compared to kids in wealth, and how the former group showed literal brain lesions similar to those of people who’ve suffered strokes.

Your proposal would result in more parents declining even the pitiful level of resources we offer currently to the impoverished. That’s going to make life even worse for their children. And there’s nothing voluntary about that for the kids.

[Kable]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Problem’s this. The parent gets to choose. The kids don’t. So you’ve set up a system that many parents will find enormously punitive, to the degree that they may decline to obtain welfare.

My guess is they would either go with the money or work harder.

I teach kids whose families are on welfare. Even with welfare, there are tremendous problems associated with the poverty they’re living in: too many guns in their community, not enough nutritious food, not enough support for education in the community, and so on and so on. A training I was at last week talked about EEGs taken of kids in poverty when compared to kids in wealth, and how the former group showed literal brain lesions similar to those of people who’ve suffered strokes.

I have a sister who just had her 3rd meth baby, the first two of which my near elderly parents have had to adopt, one of which (at least) appears to have some delayed development. I’m hoping those children born in these conditions and those you describe are given every opportunity possible, and that less children be born into these circumstances in the first place.

Your proposal would result in more parents declining even the pitiful level of resources we offer currently to the impoverished. That’s going to make life even worse for their children. And there’s nothing voluntary about that for the kids.

My guess is almost all of these parents would choose the money over being knocked up all the time.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Kable

My guess is almost all of these parents would choose the money over being knocked up all the time.

Well, as long as it’s your guess, that’s all good, then!

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Kable

But you said the assault weapon…

Thanks for making it clear to me that you do not really read the posts. Next time, just say it straight away so I don’t waste any time.

For anyone that can read more than a sentence before being distracted, the Milwaukee Police Chief said:

The vast majority of home invasion victims are drug dealers.

That nearly all perpetrators and victims in gun homicides are criminals.

In other words, the attempt by the NRA to exaggerate how many lives our guns have saved is really about how many drug dealers have successfully protected their stash.

[Kable]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

For anyone that can read more than a sentence before being distracted, the Milwaukee Police Chief said:

The vast majority of home invasion victims are drug dealers.

That nearly all perpetrators and victims in gun homicides are criminals.

He said all that? What was his citation?

In other words, the attempt by the NRA to exaggerate how many lives our guns have saved is really about how many drug dealers have successfully protected their stash.

So it has nothing to do with people like this…

...or are you suggesting the victim was really a drug dealer?

[DragonAsh]

@Ibn_Warraq

Yes, because the UK, France, and Germany have no issues with poverty, high rates of unemployment among young ghetto dwellers, or criminal gangs, or an illegal drug trade.

True - just like the US, countries such as the UK, France and Germany do face problems such as poverty, unemployment, gangs and drugs.

Know what those countries *don’t *have that the US does? Tens of thousands of dead bodies with bullet holes in 'em.

[Kable]

20/20 on gun prohibition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=682JLrsUmEM

[handsomeharry]

@filmore

This demonstrates the false sense of security from guns. A person must operate the gun for it to be effective. If the son had not been there or had been incapacitated, the gun would not have helped at all.

If instead they had a dog and alarm system, likely the intruders would have not even tried or quickly fled. And even if they didn’t flee, the alarm will bring help quickly from the police or neighbors. Another advantage to an alarm is that you can have panic buttons in clear view in every room for easy access. You can’t do the same with guns.

Guns can be used for home security, but it should be the last line of defense. The intruders should have had to go through other active defense systems. In many of these “saved by gun” stories, it doesn’t appear there were any such systems in place.

Everything about this post is wrong

1. Forget the dog. Dogs don’t think. They bark mindlessly at any bizarre rat, cat, or whatever.
2. If the son had not been there, or incapacitated??? Doesn’t even deserve response.
3. Alarms-police come when they can. Neighbors don’t hear home alarms.
4. Panic buttons all over the house in clear view??? Stop this! I am running out of ???s.
5. You CAN have guns in clear view in every room for easy access.
6. I can’t go on. My wrists are tired. Stop this line of thinking, pronto.

[handsomeharry]

@Euphonious_Polemic

No. Studies are bad. We don’t want any studies. Might reveal answers we don’t want to hear. Better to simply rely on anecdotes and stories.

Why are you linking a quote of mine about whether or not a study had been done concerning attitudes about gun owners by anti-gun owners, to some irrelevant thread, and then ranting about said irrelevant link?
Next time, make your own post, and then link something irrelevant to that.

[Zebra]

@Kable

He said all that? What was his citation?
So it has nothing to do with people like this…

...or are you suggesting the victim was really a drug dealer?

I’m going to take the word of a police chief of a major metropolitan area about this or a youtube link. At least for his city.

[Steve_MB]

@levdrakon

Stabbing at shooting range.

“Sorry, Cletus, but we need some o’ that thar hard ev-ee-dence to prove that guns don’t kill people, people kill people…”

[esmeralda2]

@levdrakon

In other Houston news,

4-year-old boy dies after shooting himself.

Stabbing at shooting range.

9-year-old shot in the leg near shooting ranges.

I like my gun news balanced.

Yes. For every story like this, there are many more where a home with guns results in accidental shootings, suicide, or family members shooting each other.