2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban - Page 28

Nessie · 29th January 2013, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Yes, I did notice that. I also noticed that he thinks a barrel shroud and pistol grip = more innocent people killed.

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Don't you know that every time you attach an accessory, baby jesus cries?

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Lol! He'll be crying for DECADES now!!

http://www.zvirus.net/wp-content/upl...zombie-gun.jpg

Or maybe he wants to provoke reactions like to further justify his position that gun owners and a bit nuts.

Polaris · 29th January 2013, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

No, people without access to guns aren't. It's just the people with arsenals we need to worry about.

Well, scratch that. Crazy people can just take the guns from other people's arsenals, like Adam Lanza did, and then go on a killing spree. You might be on to something here. Perhaps the problem is that people are amassing arsenals.

Thanks for the insight!

What you call an "arsenal" I call a collection.

I'm much more concerned with the person who only needs one.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Or maybe he wants to provoke reactions like to further justify his position that gun owners and a bit nuts.

Too bad there isn't a word for that.

Nessie · 29th January 2013, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

.....

I'm much more concerned with the person who only needs one.

......

Why?

Polaris · 29th January 2013, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Why?

Because a mass-shooter only needs one. More concerned relative to those with a collection.

Not to say everybody who wants just one is going to be a shooter - far from it. If I were to purchase the ACR I'd like, it would be my only one but only for financial reasons (and that was even before they doubled in price, thanks Diane!

).

Xulld · 29th January 2013, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

For the USA, since so many criminals etc are armed, I'll add self defence. The rest of us are OK without need for DGUs.

I once asked you at what rate of homicide that would change, I dont remember you answering . . . . Clearly it must be somewhere between 2 and 5 per 100K . . .

Please forgive me if you provided the exact threshold and I missed it.

Fast Eddie B · 29th January 2013, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Lol! He'll be crying for DECADES now!!

http://www.zvirus.net/wp-content/upl...zombie-gun.jpg

WOW!

I bet that would do a number on an unborn gay baby whale!

But, seriously, things like that give new dimension to the phrase "gilding the lily".

Polaris · 29th January 2013, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

WOW!

I bet that would do a number on an unborn gay baby whale!

But, seriously, things like that give new dimension to the phrase "gilding the lily".

Can you translate that into hillbilly for me?

thaiboxerken · 29th January 2013, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Because it would cost money, create crime where no crime existed before, and alienate a segment of society for no effect.

Are you really unable to understand?

So if they banned placing hello kitty stickers on the gun, would you be just as fired up?

thaiboxerken · 29th January 2013, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

No, people without access to guns aren't. It's just the people with arsenals we need to worry about.

Well, scratch that. Crazy people can just take the guns from other people's arsenals, like Adam Lanza did, and then go on a killing spree. You might be on to something here. Perhaps the problem is that people are amassing arsenals.

Thanks for the insight!

What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1.

Giz · 29th January 2013, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1.

Surely you mean more than zero?

Fast Eddie B · 29th January 2013, 02:27 PM

re:thaiboxerken...

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

And you've convinced me to put you back on ignore.

Wise decision. She joins a very select few that I've honored with a spot on my list.

triforcharity · 29th January 2013, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So if they banned placing hello kitty stickers on the gun, would you be just as fired up?

I would. My daughter's pink .223 would have to have the stickers taken off.

Autolite · 30th January 2013, 01:19 AM

"Blame Canada"

Apparently Chicago's violent crime problem is Canada's fault.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...195623390.html

However, it didn't mention that Smith and Wesson also manufactures the pistols for the RCMP.

This situation does seem to be somewhat of a pickle...

Autolite · 30th January 2013, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1.

My dictionary defines 'arsenal' as "a public building for storing, making, or repairing military equipment of all kinds".

But hey, if fabricating your own definition to suit an agenda works for you then I say go for it!

The recognized correct meaning for terms such as "assault rifle" and "high powered" are being completely ignored in the popular media so it's all good...

Nessie · 30th January 2013, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

I once asked you at what rate of homicide that would change, I dont remember you answering . . . . Clearly it must be somewhere between 2 and 5 per 100K . . .

Please forgive me if you provided the exact threshold and I missed it.

I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change.

If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.

Kestrel · 30th January 2013, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change.

If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

Polaris · 30th January 2013, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

A paranoid homeowner. Singular. To answer your (loaded) question: we don't know. Probably yes.

Home invasions do occur. It's rare. Fear over it is on par with fear about there being a pedophile behind every bush and corner. The NRA isn't alone in selling fear for profit.

Sabretooth · 30th January 2013, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

You found a single, anecdotal case of a paranoid homeowner.

How about a cross-reference of the many actual home invasions?

Xulld · 30th January 2013, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

I see so we must always find all possible influences for any persons actions and then blame those influences and not the person themselves . . . . I see.

Perhaps we should find what is influencing your inability to comprehend the concept of personal responsibility and restrict their ability to influence you?

Yes, no? Why?

Xulld · 30th January 2013, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change.

If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.

Your avoiding my question instead of answering it.

You said that you would not carry a defensive deadly weapon because were you live the rate of deadly encounters is not at the point in which you feel it would be needed. I am paraphrasing so please correct me if this meaning is not correct.

So the corollary is very clear.

At what rate would you carry? You are not the only person to make such statements, so anyone else that agrees with this assessment, please do feel free to answer and let me know what the rate of homicide would need to be for you to feel the need was relevant.

You cannot on one hand say this and have no rate at which you would carry. Definition of irrational.

Quote:

If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.

You simply cannot know what you claim to know about not only what the response would be, but if it would be effective.

Kestrel · 30th January 2013, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

You found a single, anecdotal case of a paranoid homeowner.

How about a cross-reference of the many actual home invasions?

The guy blowing away the kid who drove into the wrong driveway is an extreme example, but it's far from the only one. People end up shooting their own kid who is sneaking home after staying out late. Or the drunk that walks into the wrong unit in a row of identical townhouses.

Yes, there are home invasions. Some of them are actually fights between rival gangs. Some are attempts to rob the guy growing pot in his basement. Some are unarmed burglaries gone wrong. The burglars were just looking for stuff to steal and it didn't look like anyone was home. Few are homes targeted at random by criminal gangs intent on mayhem and murder.

That loaded firearm kept ready fight off home invaders is far more likely be used on an innocent person.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

Just like the number of massacres does not spur the USA to do much about guns, neither does the number of supposed DGUs that are clearly murder.

If the British had a run of deaths in the name of self defence, but which were murder, I am sure we would act. It beggars belief that the USA will do precious little about this problem.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Your avoiding my question instead of answering it.

You said that you would not carry a defensive deadly weapon because were you live the rate of deadly encounters is not at the point in which you feel it would be needed. I am paraphrasing so please correct me if this meaning is not correct.

So the corollary is very clear.

At what rate would you carry? You are not the only person to make such statements, so anyone else that agrees with this assessment, please do feel free to answer and let me know what the rate of homicide would need to be for you to feel the need was relevant.

You cannot on one hand say this and have no rate at which you would carry. Definition of irrational.

I would not carry in normal day to day life. Just like the majority of Americans do right now. It is the minority who feel the need/want to have a gun for self defence. We know from the New York map of gun owners published in the newspaper that streets have some with and some without guns. I would be one of those without. Even in the highest crime areas there are people who do not have guns.

Do you think there should be a number of deaths beyond which it should be law that you have to carry a gun?

As for rate of homicide, I would need there to be a war on and the UK is being invaded before I would carry.

Quote:

You simply cannot know what you claim to know about not only what the response would be, but if it would be effective.

Neither do you.

Sabretooth · 31st January 2013, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

That loaded firearm kept ready fight off home invaders is far more likely be used on an innocent person.

OK, when you make sweeping opinions like that, you are going to have to back it up.

How many of the 11,000+ firearm homicides last year can be classified as the killing of an innocent person incorrectly thought to be invading a home (or other property)?

Xulld · 31st January 2013, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I would not carry in normal day to day life. Just like the majority of Americans do right now. It is the minority who feel the need/want to have a gun for self defence. We know from the New York map of gun owners published in the newspaper that streets have some with and some without guns. I would be one of those without. Even in the highest crime areas there are people who do not have guns.

Do you think there should be a number of deaths beyond which it should be law that you have to carry a gun?

As for rate of homicide, I would need there to be a war on and the UK is being invaded before I would carry.

Neither do you.

Ok so clearly more caveats exist for you than just the probability of needing a deadly weapon.

I am honest with my bias. I stated clearly that I neglected to carry before I experienced the death of my friend. Stats did not matter before, and do not matter after.

That such a situation can occur is all that matters to me. That it happened means it can happen again.

It really is that simple for me. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I am not psychic, so instead I am prepared.

thaiboxerken · 1st February 2013, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Autolite

My dictionary defines 'arsenal' as "a public building for storing, making, or repairing military equipment of all kinds".

But hey, if fabricating your own definition to suit an agenda works for you then I say go for it!

The recognized correct meaning for terms such as "assault rifle" and "high powered" are being completely ignored in the popular media so it's all good...

wow, why do you get to pick the correct definition of a word I'm using that just doesn't fit the context? That's just dishonesty at work.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arsenal

thaiboxerken · 1st February 2013, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

Yes. It's just the price we pay for freedom to own guns along with the other senseless gun crimes.

thaiboxerken · 1st February 2013, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Ok so clearly more caveats exist for you than just the probability of needing a deadly weapon.

I am honest with my bias. I stated clearly that I neglected to carry before I experienced the death of my friend. Stats did not matter before, and do not matter after.

That such a situation can occur is all that matters to me. That it happened means it can happen again.

It really is that simple for me. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I am not psychic, so instead I am prepared.

Do you wear armor as well? Why or why not?

29th January 2013, 12:38 PM	#1081
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Yes, I did notice that. I also noticed that he thinks a barrel shroud and pistol grip = more innocent people killed. Originally Posted by seycyrus Don't you know that every time you attach an accessory, baby jesus cries? Originally Posted by triforcharity Lol! He'll be crying for DECADES now!! http://www.zvirus.net/wp-content/upl...zombie-gun.jpg Or maybe he wants to provoke reactions like to further justify his position that gun owners and a bit nuts.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

29th January 2013, 12:41 PM	#1082
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by Unabogie No, people without access to guns aren't. It's just the people with arsenals we need to worry about. Well, scratch that. Crazy people can just take the guns from other people's arsenals, like Adam Lanza did, and then go on a killing spree. You might be on to something here. Perhaps the problem is that people are amassing arsenals. Thanks for the insight! What you call an "arsenal" I call a collection. I'm much more concerned with the person who only needs one. Originally Posted by Nessie Or maybe he wants to provoke reactions like to further justify his position that gun owners and a bit nuts. Too bad there isn't a word for that.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro Last edited by Polaris; 29th January 2013 at 12:43 PM.

29th January 2013, 12:46 PM	#1083
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by Polaris ..... I'm much more concerned with the person who only needs one. ...... Why?
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

29th January 2013, 12:51 PM	#1084
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by Nessie Why? Because a mass-shooter only needs one. More concerned relative to those with a collection. Not to say everybody who wants just one is going to be a shooter - far from it. If I were to purchase the ACR I'd like, it would be my only one but only for financial reasons (and that was even before they doubled in price, thanks Diane! ).
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

29th January 2013, 01:16 PM	#1085
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,102	Originally Posted by Nessie For the USA, since so many criminals etc are armed, I'll add self defence. The rest of us are OK without need for DGUs. I once asked you at what rate of homicide that would change, I dont remember you answering . . . . Clearly it must be somewhere between 2 and 5 per 100K . . . Please forgive me if you provided the exact threshold and I missed it.
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus Last edited by Xulld; 29th January 2013 at 01:18 PM.

29th January 2013, 01:25 PM	#1086
Fast Eddie B Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 1,109	Originally Posted by triforcharity Lol! He'll be crying for DECADES now!! http://www.zvirus.net/wp-content/upl...zombie-gun.jpg WOW! I bet that would do a number on an unborn gay baby whale! But, seriously, things like that give new dimension to the phrase "gilding the lily".

29th January 2013, 01:27 PM	#1087
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B WOW! I bet that would do a number on an unborn gay baby whale! But, seriously, things like that give new dimension to the phrase "gilding the lily". Can you translate that into hillbilly for me?
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

29th January 2013, 01:47 PM	#1088
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by Xulld Because it would cost money, create crime where no crime existed before, and alienate a segment of society for no effect. Are you really unable to understand? So if they banned placing hello kitty stickers on the gun, would you be just as fired up?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

29th January 2013, 01:49 PM	#1089
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by Unabogie No, people without access to guns aren't. It's just the people with arsenals we need to worry about. Well, scratch that. Crazy people can just take the guns from other people's arsenals, like Adam Lanza did, and then go on a killing spree. You might be on to something here. Perhaps the problem is that people are amassing arsenals. Thanks for the insight! What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

29th January 2013, 02:02 PM	#1090
Giz Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK/US Posts: 3,424	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1. Surely you mean more than zero?

29th January 2013, 02:27 PM	#1091
Fast Eddie B Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 1,109	re:thaiboxerken... Originally Posted by Sabretooth And you've convinced me to put you back on ignore. Wise decision. She joins a very select few that I've honored with a spot on my list.

29th January 2013, 02:41 PM	#1092
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken So if they banned placing hello kitty stickers on the gun, would you be just as fired up? I would. My daughter's pink .223 would have to have the stickers taken off.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 01:19 AM	#1093
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,489	"Blame Canada" Apparently Chicago's violent crime problem is Canada's fault. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...195623390.html However, it didn't mention that Smith and Wesson also manufactures the pistols for the RCMP. This situation does seem to be somewhat of a pickle...
	__________________ "When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark

30th January 2013, 01:31 AM	#1094
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,489	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1. My dictionary defines 'arsenal' as "a public building for storing, making, or repairing military equipment of all kinds". But hey, if fabricating your own definition to suit an agenda works for you then I say go for it! The recognized correct meaning for terms such as "assault rifle" and "high powered" are being completely ignored in the popular media so it's all good...
	__________________ "When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark

30th January 2013, 03:45 AM	#1095
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by Xulld I once asked you at what rate of homicide that would change, I dont remember you answering . . . . Clearly it must be somewhere between 2 and 5 per 100K . . . Please forgive me if you provided the exact threshold and I missed it. I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change. If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th January 2013, 06:55 AM	#1096
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,202	Originally Posted by Nessie I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change. If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs. Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

30th January 2013, 07:13 AM	#1097
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by Kestrel Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders? A paranoid homeowner. Singular. To answer your (loaded) question: we don't know. Probably yes. Home invasions do occur. It's rare. Fear over it is on par with fear about there being a pedophile behind every bush and corner. The NRA isn't alone in selling fear for profit.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

30th January 2013, 08:46 AM	#1098
Sabretooth No Ordinary Rabbit Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Wyoming, NY Posts: 6,149	Originally Posted by Kestrel Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders? You found a single, anecdotal case of a paranoid homeowner. How about a cross-reference of the many actual home invasions?
	__________________ -------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

30th January 2013, 12:23 PM	#1099
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,102	Originally Posted by Kestrel Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders? I see so we must always find all possible influences for any persons actions and then blame those influences and not the person themselves . . . . I see. Perhaps we should find what is influencing your inability to comprehend the concept of personal responsibility and restrict their ability to influence you? Yes, no? Why?
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus

30th January 2013, 12:25 PM	#1100
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,102	Originally Posted by Nessie I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change. If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs. Your avoiding my question instead of answering it. You said that you would not carry a defensive deadly weapon because were you live the rate of deadly encounters is not at the point in which you feel it would be needed. I am paraphrasing so please correct me if this meaning is not correct. So the corollary is very clear. At what rate would you carry? You are not the only person to make such statements, so anyone else that agrees with this assessment, please do feel free to answer and let me know what the rate of homicide would need to be for you to feel the need was relevant. You cannot on one hand say this and have no rate at which you would carry. Definition of irrational. Quote: If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs. You simply cannot know what you claim to know about not only what the response would be, but if it would be effective.
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus Last edited by Xulld; 30th January 2013 at 12:29 PM.

30th January 2013, 02:36 PM	#1101
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,202	Originally Posted by Sabretooth You found a single, anecdotal case of a paranoid homeowner. How about a cross-reference of the many actual home invasions? The guy blowing away the kid who drove into the wrong driveway is an extreme example, but it's far from the only one. People end up shooting their own kid who is sneaking home after staying out late. Or the drunk that walks into the wrong unit in a row of identical townhouses. Yes, there are home invasions. Some of them are actually fights between rival gangs. Some are attempts to rob the guy growing pot in his basement. Some are unarmed burglaries gone wrong. The burglars were just looking for stuff to steal and it didn't look like anyone was home. Few are homes targeted at random by criminal gangs intent on mayhem and murder. That loaded firearm kept ready fight off home invaders is far more likely be used on an innocent person.

31st January 2013, 03:27 AM	#1102
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by Kestrel Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders? Just like the number of massacres does not spur the USA to do much about guns, neither does the number of supposed DGUs that are clearly murder. If the British had a run of deaths in the name of self defence, but which were murder, I am sure we would act. It beggars belief that the USA will do precious little about this problem.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 03:35 AM	#1103
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by Xulld Your avoiding my question instead of answering it. You said that you would not carry a defensive deadly weapon because were you live the rate of deadly encounters is not at the point in which you feel it would be needed. I am paraphrasing so please correct me if this meaning is not correct. So the corollary is very clear. At what rate would you carry? You are not the only person to make such statements, so anyone else that agrees with this assessment, please do feel free to answer and let me know what the rate of homicide would need to be for you to feel the need was relevant. You cannot on one hand say this and have no rate at which you would carry. Definition of irrational. I would not carry in normal day to day life. Just like the majority of Americans do right now. It is the minority who feel the need/want to have a gun for self defence. We know from the New York map of gun owners published in the newspaper that streets have some with and some without guns. I would be one of those without. Even in the highest crime areas there are people who do not have guns. Do you think there should be a number of deaths beyond which it should be law that you have to carry a gun? As for rate of homicide, I would need there to be a war on and the UK is being invaded before I would carry. Quote: You simply cannot know what you claim to know about not only what the response would be, but if it would be effective. Neither do you.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 09:49 AM	#1104
Sabretooth No Ordinary Rabbit Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Wyoming, NY Posts: 6,149	Originally Posted by Kestrel That loaded firearm kept ready fight off home invaders is far more likely be used on an innocent person. OK, when you make sweeping opinions like that, you are going to have to back it up. How many of the 11,000+ firearm homicides last year can be classified as the killing of an innocent person incorrectly thought to be invading a home (or other property)?
	__________________ -------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

31st January 2013, 09:56 AM	#1105
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,102	Originally Posted by Nessie I would not carry in normal day to day life. Just like the majority of Americans do right now. It is the minority who feel the need/want to have a gun for self defence. We know from the New York map of gun owners published in the newspaper that streets have some with and some without guns. I would be one of those without. Even in the highest crime areas there are people who do not have guns. Do you think there should be a number of deaths beyond which it should be law that you have to carry a gun? As for rate of homicide, I would need there to be a war on and the UK is being invaded before I would carry. Neither do you. Ok so clearly more caveats exist for you than just the probability of needing a deadly weapon. I am honest with my bias. I stated clearly that I neglected to carry before I experienced the death of my friend. Stats did not matter before, and do not matter after. That such a situation can occur is all that matters to me. That it happened means it can happen again. It really is that simple for me. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I am not psychic, so instead I am prepared.
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus Last edited by Xulld; 31st January 2013 at 10:00 AM.

1st February 2013, 06:22 AM	#1106
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by Autolite My dictionary defines 'arsenal' as "a public building for storing, making, or repairing military equipment of all kinds". But hey, if fabricating your own definition to suit an agenda works for you then I say go for it! The recognized correct meaning for terms such as "assault rifle" and "high powered" are being completely ignored in the popular media so it's all good... wow, why do you get to pick the correct definition of a word I'm using that just doesn't fit the context? That's just dishonesty at work. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arsenal
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

1st February 2013, 06:24 AM	#1107
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by Kestrel Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders? Yes. It's just the price we pay for freedom to own guns along with the other senseless gun crimes.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

1st February 2013, 06:27 AM	#1108
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by Xulld Ok so clearly more caveats exist for you than just the probability of needing a deadly weapon. I am honest with my bias. I stated clearly that I neglected to carry before I experienced the death of my friend. Stats did not matter before, and do not matter after. That such a situation can occur is all that matters to me. That it happened means it can happen again. It really is that simple for me. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I am not psychic, so instead I am prepared. Do you wear armor as well? Why or why not?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine