Dick's and Hypocrites

[Revoltingest]

To a rational person, keeping a weapon that's more likely to kill a member of your family than to stop an intruder has nothing to do with self-defense.

You rely upon misunderstood statistics in that assessment.
We've been thru this before, & your argument was lacking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you have an issue with someone that has decided that they are willing to provide for their own self-defense.

So-called "defensive" weapons generally have nothing to do with actual self-defense. They don't decrease risk of harm; they increase it.

Meanwhile, "defensive" use involves safety compromises that put others at risk: storing guns loaded and easily accessible, carrying them in public, etc.

Responsible gun owners only use their weapons when they're fully alert and aware of their surroundings. OTOH, "defensive" gun owners make preparations to use their guns when they're mentally compromised, such as right when they've woken up.

I have very little to fear from a responsible hunter who keeps his rifles in a safe, transports them securely, and uses them on land where everyone knows hunting is happening. OTOH, if my next-door neighbour is set to open fire in his house if he sees the need, he puts me at risk.

Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. Your right to wield your weapon ends when I come into range.

As much as I support the law enforcement community they do not have the manpower to provide everyone's defense. Why do you think that the personal security companies are doing such a great business with the "elites" of the world? Very simple answer, are you willing to give it a go or by doing so negate your own argument.

The same can be said of the fire department or EMS. Do you have a residential sprinkler system? Do you have an AED? These things would provide you with much more safety benefit than a gun without the risk.

When people use your argument, I usyally find a lot of hypocrisy once we scratch the surface.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You rely upon misunderstood statistics in that assessment.
We've been thru this before, & your argument was lacking.

Ah - irony.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah - irony.

Feel free to make your case with a complete cost v benefit analysis of armed self defense.

 

[idav]

I'm diagnosing a problem with (most) liberals....not basing any argument upon that observation.
For your edification.....
Straw man - Wikipedia
I suggest less strained effort to apply a label, & more trying to understand.

Even gun owners can have a phobia about anything more capable than a small gauge shotgun.

And yet, there are those who argue for a near or total ban.
You claim they don't exist, but we see them here on RF &
in the media & in politics.
But this is your straw man. I don't base anything I advocate
based upon the rantings of banners.

Have you ever addressed any of my gun control proposals?

I get that you don’t agree. Your claim that people are only using emotional pleas is the straw. Even when people give reasoned argument you may consider it unreasonable but it isn’t mostly based in emotion.

 

[idav]

Why do you have an issue with someone that has decided that they are willing to provide for their own self-defense. As much as I support the law enforcement community they do not have the manpower to provide everyone's defense. Why do you think that the personal security companies are doing such a great business with the "elites" of the world? Very simple answer, are you willing to give it a go or by doing so negate your own argument.

Self defense is typically not lethal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get that you don’t agree. Your claim that people are only using emotional pleas is the straw.

Except that I don't claim that.
Only that some suffer from emotionalism.

Even when people give reasoned argument you may consider it unreasonable but it isn’t mostly based in emotion.

Reasoned arguments are great.
Whaddaya got?

 

[esmith]

So-called "defensive" weapons generally have nothing to do with actual self-defense. They don't decrease risk of harm; they increase it.

Meanwhile, "defensive" use involves safety compromises that put others at risk: storing guns loaded and easily accessible, carrying them in public, etc.

Responsible gun owners only use their weapons when they're fully alert and aware of their surroundings. OTOH, "defensive" gun owners make preparations to use their guns when they're mentally compromised, such as right when they've woken up.

I have very little to fear from a responsible hunter who keeps his rifles in a safe, transports them securely, and uses them on land where everyone knows hunting is happening. OTOH, if my next-door neighbour is set to open fire in his house if he sees the need, he puts me at risk.

Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. Your right to wield your weapon ends when I come into range.


The same can be said of the fire department or EMS. Do you have a residential sprinkler system? Do you have an AED? These things would provide you with much more safety benefit than a gun without the risk.

When people use your argument, I usyally find a lot of hypocrisy once we scratch the surface.

Let see, how do you see a AED, or a sprinkler system stop someone from who may or may not do you harm in ones home?

 

[Revoltingest]

Self defense is typically not lethal.

And so it is even with guns.

 

[esmith]

Self defense is typically not lethal.

When someone uses a firearm in self-defense the idea is to stop the person, if that results in the perpetrators death so be it.

 

[idav]

When someone uses a firearm in self-defense the idea is to stop the person, if that results in the perpetrators death so be it.

That’s the issue, because salt shells aren’t lethal enough. Regular bullets don’t always stop criminals either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let see, how do you see a AED, or a sprinkler system stop someone from who may or may not do you harm in ones home?

The fact that you would ask this tells me that you missed the point. I'll try again:

- why do you care about an intruder who might harm your family? Because (I hope) you care if your family is harmed.
- what else can harm your family? Lots of things: fires, medical conditions, accidents, domestic violence, etc.
- if the thing that's motivating you to want a gun is concern for your family, then concern for your family will motivate you to protect them in other ways, too.
ﹰ- if you don't care about doing other things, like protecting them from fire and medical emergencies, then I won't believe you when you say you got your gun to "protect" them, because you won't be acting like someone who cares a lot about actually protecting his family.

 

[metis]

The best medicine is usually preventative, so if someone feels they need a gun in their house to protect their family, they have probably forgotten that rule. As one researcher put it, anyone who keeps a loaded gun in their house is an "idiot"-- his words, not mine.

One of my cousins is a retired Detroit police officer, and when he came home from work, his gun went into a lock box and his shells into his safe. Why? Because he saw way too many cases of accidental shootings or family disputes that got out of hand or suicides.

If I had kept a loaded gun in my house, I would not have a son left as he tried twice to commit suicide when in his teens as he suffers from bipolar disorder. When I asked him if I had a gun would he have used it on himself, he said it was that which he really wanted to use. He's now 45 years of age and owns his own company, and this is why I cannot debate this with people-- it hits too close to home.

OTOH, I do acknowledge that there can be unusual circumstances whereas a person may not have much of a choice, and I can understand and respect that.

 

[esmith]

That’s the issue, because salt shells aren’t lethal enough. Regular bullets don’t always stop criminals either.

Who says using FMJ bullets for self-defense was a smart idea. actually it is a Dumb idea.. My choice would be along those discussed in the following article.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Also if I shoot someone with my 45ACP , center mass, they are going to go down unless they are wearing armor and even then it will probably make then reconsider.

 

[esmith]

The fact that you would ask this tells me that you missed the point. I'll try again:

- why do you care about an intruder who might harm your family? Because (I hope) you care if your family is harmed.
- what else can harm your family? Lots of things: fires, medical conditions, accidents, domestic violence, etc.
- if the thing that's motivating you to want a gun is concern for your family, then concern for your family will motivate you to protect them in other ways, too.
ﹰ- if you don't care about doing other things, like protecting them from fire and medical emergencies, then I won't believe you when you say you got your gun to "protect" them, because you won't be acting like someone who cares a lot about actually protecting his family.

It is impossible to discuss anything with a anti-gun nutter.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is impossible to discuss anything with a anti-gun nutter.

What specific thing did he say that you found unreasonable? And before you accuse me of being an "anti-gun nutter", it might interest you to know I currently own 4 firearms, and have been using firearms since I was a child.

 

[idav]

Who says using FMJ bullets for self-defense was a smart idea. actually it is a Dumb idea.. My choice would be along those discussed in the following article.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Also if I shoot someone with my 45ACP , center mass, they are going to go down unless they are wearing armor and even then it will probably make then reconsider.

That’s informative. I didn’t know if it was a good idea but you see what I was getting at.

 

[esmith]

What specific thing did he say that you found unreasonable? And before you accuse me of being an "anti-gun nutter", it might interest you to know I currently own 4 firearms, and have been using firearms since I was a child.

Owning and/or using is not an indication of ones proficiency with firearms.
Go back and read it again, and again, and again, and again. Then tell me he presented anything that had to do with what I had original said.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Owning and/or using is not an indication of ones proficiency with firearms.
Go back and read it again, and again, and again, and again. Then tell me he presented anything that had to do with what I had original said.

Or you could just, you know, answer my question and tell us what he said that you disagreed with. It seems that would be much simpler and allow far less room for misunderstanding.

Yiu can question my proficiency all you like, by the way. I made no claim about my proficiency. My claim is that I'm not "anti-gun". Maybe you need to read some things again and again, huh?

 

[esmith]

The best medicine is usually preventative, so if someone feels they need a gun in their house to protect their family, they have probably forgotten that rule. As one researcher put it, anyone who keeps a loaded gun in their house is an "idiot"-- his words, not mine.
.

And some researchers couldn't poor urine out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.
That is an "opinionated" statement and has no bearing on each individual. You do realize that don't you.