SC Sheriff: Man kicked in door, shot by homeowner

reply to post by Cuervo


Irrelevant to the discussion of self-defense IMO. Please move on to a more on-topic discussion.

reply to post by Cuervo


Many children are killed by being in a car that is driven by a drunk driver. Look at this link to the CDC. It is well over 500.... this is NOT counting those killed where the other driver is the one that is drunk.

What redeeming value does alcohol have? Can you use alcohol to protect your home and loved ones?

Maybe someone could do a big push for prohibition of alcohol if they want to save children. Gun bans aren't about children though.

reply to post by kimish


I'm with the home owner on this. The intruder had no right to be there.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Hid in his room with a gun while his wife was being attacked? Gun not necessary. Baseball bat or kitchen knife would do the job

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


IT wasn't his wife. But I agree in this circumstance, a gun was unnecessary. Although, I am all for one protecting their home and loved ones with a gun but I feel there is more to the story then we are told.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so how many kids killed themselves yesterday with guns kept in a house with no gun safe ?

these intruder cases are a weak argument for guns

simply because it is much more rare than people believe

if every teen suicide with a gun were posted here daily, it would be too depressing to come here

just checked, there are 45 suicides a day in the US from firearms

yay guns !!!

edit on 10-3-2013 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

There are a great many more saved by the use of guns or the threat of use of force. Usually just the latter but unfortunately, as in this case, sometimes it comes to actually shooting the scumbags too.

When the world doesn't have predatory criminals willing to rape, murder and pillage for their own personal reasons ...then perhaps a debate can even start on how defense shooting isn't a valid basis for gun rights. That's likely never coming as things stand now though, so the idea of taking the last line of defense which law abiding people have to survive is just outrageous.

Guns Save Lives

It's a far far deeper divide being forced here than ever should be ....and as the OP is all about, what hangs in the balance are literally the lives of American citizens in their own homes, able or not able to save their own lives when threatened, IMO.

Interesting. 45 suicides a day with guns vs how many lives saved a day by them?

reply to post by kimish


Not anti gun myself but I see many useless examples like this to have one. We are supposed to be free so if you are paranoid about being attacked then sure. buy a gun. You'll still be paranoid..

And so it Goes...................................
2nd

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

Interesting. 45 suicides a day with guns vs how many lives saved a day by them?

I am a libertarian. I believe that people should have the right to use whatever means they like to kill themselves. I would that they didn't burn their neighborhood down as means, but hey, what are you going to do to punish them, pee on their ashes?

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by kimish

 

Not anti gun myself but I see many useless examples like this to have one. We are supposed to be free so if you are paranoid about being attacked then sure. buy a gun. You'll still be paranoid..

So, I guess the American founding fathers were, to use your term, "paranoid", then? I see....respecting and standing up for rights that were earned and stated in the founding document to the United States is by you considered being paranoid?

There are people out there that are bad....fact, not paranoia.
How many home invasions take place in the United States on a daily basis, fact, not paranoia.

As for the item used in defense, that should be decided by the person in the situation, not you or I here on an obscure Internet discussion forum. We were not there, we do not know the physical state of the person defending themselves. All of this still does not answer the main point of exercising your right as a American as due by the Constitution of the United States. If you are not a citizen of this country, nor spent any time here at all, then IMO, you should have the right to speak you mind, but also expect to be called out on any straw man arguments or attempts or deflection off-topic.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Well, first I'd want to repeat a point made earlier. Suicide isn't about guns, it's about mental health. I've seen nothing to support the idea that people get so fixated on guns, specifically, that they then commit suicide by that, where they wouldn't otherwise have.

Having said that, it's an interesting question as I just discovered in looking around a bit. Here is a piece from a book on Firearm violence in 2004 and it sums it up as well as anything else I'm seeing. Perhaps a good bit better, actually.

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.

A primary cause of this uncertainty is the disagreement over the definition of defensive gun use—in particular, whether it should be defined as a response to victimization or as a means to prevent victimization from occurring in the first place.

Source

This next source is a very extensive PDF with in-depth data and examples.

Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes—murders, rapes, assaults, robberies—are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.

This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

(Source: Cato Institute Report )

I'm not finding much to say the numbers are wrong on the lower end of those results and quite a bit to say it's just a question of HOW high. At one of the lower estimates of 100,000 a year though, it comes to 273 a day. Interesting stats, eh?

reply to post by Krakatoa


And then another lame argument:

So, I guess the American founding fathers were, to use your term, "paranoid", then? I see....respecting and standing up for rights that were earned and stated in the founding document to the United States is by you considered being paranoid?

With wild animals, indians and wars in the back yard, it was somewhat a different situation. Back then you could shoot in the back yard with a very small chance that someone could get hurt. Now you have to drive to a safe area to shoot. They are dangerous.... Again, not arguing one way or the other, just tired of lame out of context examples of why we should be allowed to own them. I guess I should really speak more specifically about assault weapons as that is what the current propositions talk about limiting...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Pretty sure if there were no guns at all, less people would kill others and fewer would kill themselves. Again, we are supposed to be free so any control is a slap in the face.

Why dont people just admit the real reasons they want to own assualt weapons instead of using the constitutional crutch? It's mostly out of fear, although there are some who relish in the idea that they can kill someone legally if the situation is right. Me, I just like the loud noise and watching what the bullets do to in-animate objects. I dont like to hunt/kill. Thats the truth and I'm stickin to my story.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Your belief in the total urbanization of America might be viewed as lame by some. Just because some live in cities, that doesn't mean all do. I have safely shot firearms in many, many backyards.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

 

Interesting. 45 suicides a day with guns vs how many lives saved a day by them?

I am a libertarian. I believe that people should have the right to use whatever means they like to kill themselves. I would that they didn't burn their neighborhood down as means, but hey, what are you going to do to punish them, pee on their ashes?

And I think that assisted suicide should be a service you could pay for and use as a tax deduction. Whats your point?

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

And then another lame argument:

So, I guess the American founding fathers were, to use your term, "paranoid", then? I see....respecting and standing up for rights that were earned and stated in the founding document to the United States is by you considered being paranoid?

With wild animals, indians and wars in the back yard, it was somewhat a different situation. Back then you could shoot in the back yard with a very small chance that someone could get hurt. Now you have to drive to a safe area to shoot. They are dangerous.... Again, not arguing one way or the other, just tired of lame out of context examples of why we should be allowed to own them. I guess I should really speak more specifically about assault weapons as that is what the current propositions talk about limiting...

"With wild animals (in rural areas mostly), gang-bangers and race-wars in the inner cities, it is a similar situation."

There I fixed that for you to bring it into the 21st century. The characters are different, but the threat till remains.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

 

Interesting. 45 suicides a day with guns vs how many lives saved a day by them?

I am a libertarian. I believe that people should have the right to use whatever means they like to kill themselves. I would that they didn't burn their neighborhood down as means, but hey, what are you going to do to punish them, pee on their ashes?

My point is.... who are you to tell a person that is offing themselves how to do it?

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand.

Your comeback?

You support someone being allowed to kill someone.

And I think that assisted suicide should be a service you could pay for and use as a tax deduction. Whats your point?

Your belief in the total urbanization of America might be viewed as lame by some.

reply to post by butcherguy


Sorry. Lost me there. Did I say I believed in the total urbanization of america? What does that mean anyway?

My point was, guns are dangerous. In general, a bullet fired is more likely to hit someone than 200 years ago. W

reply to post by Krakatoa


I've lived in the wild in areas where it was wise to carry a gun. (and I did) Now I live near areas in the city that I could say the same thing about. Point is those areas are few and you either live in them or not. If I did, I would probably want to carry a gun. I chose not to live in those areas and therefore am not living in fear. Thus I dont feel the need to arm myself.

If you are afraid, then by all means get a gun, and tell folks you are for gun control because you live in fear. Shielding yourself with "language of the constitution" is dishonest IMO.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Seems like you are playing games now.

It means that not everyone lives in the city. My father and I used to sit on our back porch and shoot deer as they ran through the fields behind the house. We were not alone in our community in that respect.

Again, it wasn't too hard to grasp if you read the whole post.