Self-defense (gun-control hypothetical) scenario

[Bone]

@spamforbrains

If you look at the actual stats, if you have a gun in your home, the odds of your using it successfully in self-defense are around about zero. The more likely scenario is that the enraged boyfriend will pick it up and shoot the woman. This happens a lot-no woman in her right mind would allow a gun into her house if she had bothered to glance at the actual statistics. The other likely scenario is a child in the home gets hold of the gun and shoots someone. Or the bad guy gets hold of the gun and shoots the homeowner. I think there were fewer than 300 documented incidents of anyone successfully using a gun in self-defense last year versus the horrendous number of homicides, suicides, and accidental gun deaths.

Cite?

All of this is unsupportable. This type of spurious information should be an embarrassment to intellectual integrity.

[Oakminster]

@spamforbrains

No, gun control is about recognizing that the fact that ordinary, untrained citizens are unable to defend themselves with guns. The idea that a gun will save you is a complete fantasy, not supported by the facts.

So in your world this didn’t happen?

[Oakminster]

@spamforbrains

No, gun control is about recognizing that the fact that ordinary, untrained citizens are unable to defend themselves with guns. The idea that a gun will save you is a complete fantasy, not supported by the facts.

How about this?

or this?

Wrong again

And that is only 3 of the 415,000 hits for the google search: Homeowner shoots intruder

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[keturah]

And this one… 911 tape 'Shoot him again!' husband tells wife hiding from home intruder U S News - YouTube

[GusNSpot]

I seem to remember all this being covered for spamforbrains before in an earlier thread and yet in this one the posts spamforbrains is making are almost verbatim to previous ones.

I do not think any proof will change anything as all previous information given apparently is forgotten or not believed. :smack:

[Voyager]

@Lumpy

I presume that by “reasonable background checks” you mean universal background checks (illegal to transfer a firearm without a background check). I file this one under “useless”. It will do little or nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally the way they already do- buy stolen black market guns, or “borrow” a gun from a friend or family member; you know, illegally. It will give the government a nice handy list of where the (legal) guns are, which would be fine if the government could be unconditionally trusted with such a list.

The new California proposals were to make all gun thefts felonies, and also to not allow people to “lend” guns to circumvent the rules, and also to make it a requirement to report all gun thefts. It might help if those who leave their guns out where they can disappear or give them to their buddy who thinks ISIS is great to know they will go to the slammer.
And please, no paranoid crap about how the gummint is going to steal all our guns.

Ten-round limit? Borderline between “useless” and “worse than useless”. If ten round magazines are so great, why will cops be given an exception? Maybe we should make them carry low-capacity magazines, it might make them less trigger-happy. In any event, someone who is planning an illegal shooting (as opposed to reacting to an unexpected attack) could easily carry spare magazines, or just buy or make illegally high-capacity ones- a removable magazine is more or less a sheet metal box with a few fittings and a spring on the inside.

First, cops are allowed lots of things civilians don’t have. I kind of like them to be able to outgun the bad guys, maybe you don’t. The new California law forbids the buttons that allow the rapid swapping of magazines.

As for hoping that restrictions will lower gun crime, remember that by definition criminals break the law. In any debate about gun control, law-abiding gun owners are always going to be the low-hanging fruit: gun control starts by disarming the people who least ought to be disarmed. That alone earns a “worse than useless” rating. That gun control could actually make guns simply unavailable for criminals, I rate “impossible”.

The Louisiana theater shooter got stopped from buying a gun the first time he tried - but then he went to a gun show. And lots of murders are committed by people who are not criminals when they picked up their arsenal.
It is certainly true that it will take a while to make it hard for bad guys to get a gun, since you and yours have helped us have so many guns that any burglar breaking into an unoccupied house could probably pick up a couple. But we have to start somewhere.

[Voyager]

@Bone

Cite?

All of this is unsupportable. This type of spurious information should be an embarrassment to intellectual integrity.

In 2015 756 children under 18 were killed by guns. 75% of them were under 12. If 300 defensive uses of guns are a lot, 570 kids under 12 killed are a way lot.
Lets have some numbers before you make accusations. I know, the NRA hates numbers.

[Bone]

@Voyager

In 2015 756 children under 18 were killed by guns. 75% of them were under 12. If 300 defensive uses of guns are a lot, 570 kids under 12 killed are a way lot.
Lets have some numbers before you make accusations. I know, the NRA hates numbers.

You seem to be confused - no one representing the NRA is posting here. You also seem to misunderstand the nature of spamforbrains’ claims. The 300ish figure is disengenuous. Then there is the denigrating of women and the unsupported claims of homeowners losing their weapons.

Did you think the 300ish figure was legit in any way? It’s the Cliff Claven “3 men who have never been in my kitchen” response. Comical but terribly wrong.

[jtur88]

@Oakminster

]

And that is only 3 of the 415,000 hits for the google search: Homeowner shoots intruder
.

Google hits for /homeowner shoots family/ = About 377,000 results. I’d cal it a wash, to the extent that you have introduced a reliable metric…

For /homeowner shoots child/, it’s 218,000, so I’ll concede that homeowners shoot more intruders than children.

[septimus]

@Voyager

In 2015 756 children under 18 were killed by guns. 75% of them were under 12. If 300 defensive uses of guns are a lot, 570 kids under 12 killed are a way lot.
Lets have some numbers before you make accusations. I know, the NRA hates numbers.

Numbers? You want numbers? Try this number: 500 Americans are struck by lightning every year. Personal lightning rods are available; any man prudent enough to pack his 9mm when strolling down the avenue will want protection from lightning as well.

I’m sure, once the market demand is there, that the manufacturers will be happy to give these personal protectors a more phallic shape, so they appeal to NRA members.

[enipla]

@septimus

I’m sure, once the market demand is there, that the manufacturers will be happy to give these personal protectors a more phallic shape, so they appeal to NRA members.

Statements like these are one of the reasons that gun control advocates are routinely ignored.

[septimus]

@Oakminster

And that is only 3 of the 415,000 hits for the google search: Homeowner shoots intruder

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Can we agree to call that 414,998 hits? I’m not sure these hits do your case credit:

The “intruder” was daughter’s ex-boyfriend and was shot as he was leaving.

The “intruder” was a neighbor visiting a house that encouraged uninvited visits.

[septimus]

@enipla

Statements like these are one of the reasons that gun control advocates are routinely ignored.

Well that’s fine, but I’m not a gun control advocate! I think rational thinkers would waste much political capital for small steps that would save only scores of lives, not thousands — and that some of the deaths, if not prevented, would serve a Darwinian purpose anyway.

I visit these threads because I find the “logic” of 2nd Amendment enthusiasts to be quite amusing.

[Lumpy]

@Voyager

It is certainly true that it will take a while to make it hard for bad guys to get a gun,

You mean like how it’s “taking a while*” to eliminate heroin and cocaine from America?

*102 years and counting…

[CookingWithGas]

@Lumpy

And that is only 3 of the 415,000 hits for the google search: Homeowner shoots intruder

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I’ll see your 415,000 and raise you 15 million.

man shoots his own son entering home

[Bone]

Number of google hits are only useful in measuring the number of google hits.

[control-z]

@glee

You missed out:

0. Live in a country with gun control

Didn’t a British MP just get shot by a homemade gun? Murderers gonna murder, if they don’t have access to guns they will figure something out.

[CookingWithGas]

@Bone

Number of google hits are only useful in measuring the number of google hits.

That was my point.

[Yllaria]

@Velocity

. . . So, without a gun, should the victim just…die?

Yes, potentially. Also with a gun, in some cases. Mortality’s a bitch.

@drewder

Disarming victims is the same thing as saying they can’t defend themselves. A 6’ man is going to find very few women who can defend themselves against his attack, especially considering that he gets to choose his victim.

Works for men, too, even 6’ armed men, if the attacker picks the right time and place.

I know myself well enough to know that my safety isn’t going to improve if I buy a gun. Maybe a throwing axe.