Yet another shooting thread

[bilby]

And what is your obsession about self defense with firearms?

The same as my obsession with other unfounded beliefs that make people's lives unnecessarily miserable and short.

 

[bilby]

Fortunately, she turned him into swiss cheese before she had to find out what his plans were.

She doesn't know what his plans were, and as a consequence, you certainly don't.

I don't even know if she (or he) exists at all, or whether she's entirely fictional.

Either away, your glee at his death seems seriously misplaced.

And your belief that she couldn't possibly have had any other recourse than lethal violence is absurd. But hardly surprising at this point.

Arguing with religious believers usually leads to absurdity pretty quickly.

 

[ZiprHead]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

 

[TomC]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

I'm trying to think of an Australian criminal as bold as Stephen Paddock, who shot up the concert in Vegas.

Nope, can't think of one.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

I'm trying to think of an Australian criminal as bold as Stephen Paddock, who shot up the concert in Vegas.

Nope, can't think of one.
Tom

I’m trying to think of one bolder than the guy calling himself a hero for causing up to a million Americans’ “excess deaths”.

 

[TomC]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

I'm trying to think of an Australian criminal as bold as Stephen Paddock, who shot up the concert in Vegas.

Nope, can't think of one.
Tom

I’m trying to think of one bolder than the guy calling himself a hero for causing up to a million Americans’ “excess deaths”.

He's not bold.
He hides behind executive privileges and phalanxes of lawyers and makeup and deceit.
That's not bold, that's weinie.

Rich and privileged weinie, New York style, but it's not bold.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Or (local case, some years back) what should she have done when she woke up to her ex in her bedroom? Fortunately, she turned him into swiss cheese before she had to find out what his plans were.

This is a false dichotomy.

A gun is not necessary for lethal self defence. And it is OFTEN not the best thing for lethal self defence because of the risk of harming innocents and harm cause outside of invasions (Kids finding gun, impulsive suicides).

So what should she have done can be answered by something other than a gun.

There may be some instances where a gun could possibly be argued to have been the best bet. But the NET LOSS OF LIFE does not make that a good choice for society.

So removing the “self defense” excuse to own a gun is likely to have a net beneficial effect for society, saving FAR more innocents than it loses.

 

[TomC]

And the battered woman who finally left her abuser.

Or (local case, some years back) what should she have done when she woke up to her ex in her bedroom? Fortunately, she turned him into swiss cheese before she had to find out what his plans were.

And instead of arguing anecdotes,
Let's discuss the likelihood that a battered spouse is better off with a firearm.
I doubt that was the best option. For her, much less the overwhelming majority of battered spouses.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

I'm trying to think of an Australian criminal as bold as Stephen Paddock, who shot up the concert in Vegas.

Nope, can't think of one.
Tom

This is our worse mass killer in Australia, Martin Byrant
Though the worse Aust. mass killer was Brenton Tarrant. He did this to our friends across the ditch.
Still think that capital punishment is justified in some cases.

 

[TomC]

This is our worse mass killer in Australia, Martin Byrant

What a piker.
Some Muslim in Orlando killed more people than that in a night club years ago.

Though the worse Aust. mass killer was Brenton Tarrant. He did this to our friends across the ditch.

Yeah, compare that to what McVey and Nichols pulled off in OKC. And they weren't even across any ditch.

Still think that capital punishment is justified in some cases.

So do I, but very rarely. Only when a perp could go on causing death and mayhem after being imprisoned.

There aren't many people like that.

I'm too pro-life to support people choosing death for other other people unless the perps can continue. That's not the case amongst most western perpetrators, particularly mass murderers.
Tom

 

[bilby]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

Don't worry, this isn't a fact; It's just an inevitable conclusion when you start from Loren's false premise that guns are necessary to deter crime.

If guns are necessary to deter crime, then criminals in places where guns are prohibited from use in home defence will be bolder than those where guns are available.

Therefore, without even looking at the facts, Loren has concluded this fundamental truth, and believes it wholeheartedly.

Observing the evidence is for the birds.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And note -- What I describe isn't "banning". Hunters can still hunt; Sporting shooters can still compete; Anyone who meets the entry requirements can still join the police force, the army, or the national guard. The only losers would be gun makers, gun lobbyists, and, well, losers - criminals, and people who are too dumb to grasp that a gun isn't a defensive weapon, and shouldn't be used as an ego boosting fashion accessory.

And the battered woman who finally left her abuser.

Or the abused that are threatened with the presence of it?

 

[laughing dog]

And the battered woman who finally left her abuser.

I thought abused women are much likely to be killed with a gun by their abuser than killing their abuser.

More importantly, I’ve noticed that you seem to defend the choices and policies that enable more killing, not fewer. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it sure seems to me to be true.

 

[marc]

Seems to me that the people fearmongering about "You want to ban all guns!!!!" are the ones who actually make that position more appealing.

If there were good gun regulations in place and enforced, guns for 'home defense' would be left at home, bothering nobody. Guns in public would be rare, and mass shootings rarer, and lower casualties. That would undercut any support for a total ban. However, with the gun extremists blocking even the weakest of restrictions, ignoring the piling body count, or worse calling it the 'price of freedom', well then fuck, if you can't play nice with your toys we just have to take them away. People are tired of living in fear of the next mass shooting, of friends and family getting gunned down. If taking all guns away is the only way to stop it then more and more people are getting on board with the idea.

 

[bilby]

guns for 'home defense' would be left at home, bothering nobody

The foundational assumptions behind guns for 'home defence' are at least one of "My property is worth more than a human life"; or "Most strangers are dangerous people who are only deterred from killing and rape by their fear of violence".

Neither is true; Both falsehoods themselves are hugely corrosive to society, even before anyone gets shot.

The first assumption is the pinnacle of selfishness; The second assumption is pure paranoia. Neither is a good basis for organising a society.

Add "Everything has a price, and all positive interactions are (and should be) transactional", and you have the three-legged stool on which sits all that the rest of the world despises about American culture.

Shit, even many Americans despise these things.

 

[bilby]

There's a well worn and really silly argument for the existence of God, which goes:

If there were no God, what would stop me from raping, killing and stealing as much as I wanted?

Of course, the answer is that there really is no God, and I already do rape, kill, and steal exactly as much as I want: None at all.

The EXACT SAME argument is used to justify guns for "self defence". Just swap "God" for "guns", and it's the identical reasoning.

 

[Elixir]

Just swap "God" for "guns"

Puh-leeze!
We already have too many maroons swapping God for guns.

 

[Rhea]

Seems to me that the people fearmongering about "You want to ban all guns!!!!" are the ones who actually make that position more appealing.

If there were good gun regulations in place and enforced, guns for 'home defense' would be left at home, bothering nobody. Guns in public would be rare, and mass shootings rarer, and lower casualties. That would undercut any support for a total ban. However, with the gun extremists blocking even the weakest of restrictions, ignoring the piling body count, or worse calling it the 'price of freedom', well then fuck, if you can't play nice with your toys we just have to take them away. People are tired of living in fear of the next mass shooting, of friends and family getting gunned down. If taking all guns away is the only way to stop it then more and more people are getting on board with the idea.

Quoted for truth.

The gun nuts do indeed move people from not-banning toward yes-banning by constantly ratcheting up the examples of them saying that they don’t value human life, and if you value human life you must be against the 2nd amendment and people are thinking, “okay, well if that’s the cjhoice, then, yah.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fortunately, she turned him into swiss cheese before she had to find out what his plans were.

She doesn't know what his plans were, and as a consequence, you certainly don't.

True, but it's hard to believe they weren't violent.

I don't even know if she (or he) exists at all, or whether she's entirely fictional.

Sorry, but the local newspaper archive is paywalled.

Either away, your glee at his death seems seriously misplaced.

Glee? No, I just consider it better than the alternative.

And your belief that she couldn't possibly have had any other recourse than lethal violence is absurd. But hardly surprising at this point.

You continue to think there are other recourses. What we see in disarmed countries is that you live in fear and simply accept being a victim if trouble comes your way.

Arguing with religious believers usually leads to absurdity pretty quickly.

Yeah, you have faith there is a peaceful solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

WTAF???

Our hot burglary rate is 1 in 6. England is 1 in 2. (Admittedly, old data.)

Our burglars mostly seek to avoid contact with the occupants. Theirs don't. Fewer dead, but more injured.