Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

true story I just saw TV. Guns content

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • true story I just saw TV. Guns content

    so there was a domestic shooting in a home where the people living in the home apparently had a reputation of being not so nice. well a guy shoots a couple people and then kills himself. one is dead and the other, a female, is in critical condition. sheriff Fred was on and gave a run down on the incident and they interviewed a couple lookie Lou's. one lady said she wasnt surprise about who was involved and that his guns should have been taken away a long time ago.

    so is the right to bear arms only a right if you're a nice person? not nice people don't have the right? even a pervious offender who has served his time is a law abiding citizen until he gets arrested again and charged with a crime. at what point should people lose the right to have guns? and when you take away their rights, what is to stop them from getting a gun anyway?
    point is, it seems people have varied opinions about who should have the right to have guns and who shouldn't.

    and another example of: if there is a gun in the house you're much more likely to get killed by it and someone you know than by some stranger.
    Last edited by moogerfooger; 03-08-2018, 04:28 PM.

  • #2

    Comment


    • wallywanker
      wallywanker commented
      Editing a comment
      save your breath, or, fingertips, as it were...
      Last edited by wallywanker; 03-08-2018, 06:19 PM.

    • Phil O'Keefe
      Phil O'Keefe commented
      Editing a comment
      Please include your own text too please, and not just images.

      Even if they're of me.

  • #3
    Blood on your hands! Shame shame! Shove your prayers! Grr Christianity!



    While she's talking, I'll use my mind to think of other things. She can't stop my mind!

    Comment


  • #4
    Originally posted by moogerfooger View Post
    ... if there is a gun in the house you're much more likely to get killed by it and someone you know than by some stranger.
    The odds for death-by-stranger are nonetheless greater in the absence of a means of prevention.

    Comment


    • Phil O'Keefe
      Phil O'Keefe commented
      Editing a comment
      I'd change the last word to "protection." YMMV

    • guido61
      guido61 commented
      Editing a comment
      not sure either word makes the claim any more valid. But, yes, I suppose if he changes enough words he'll eventually hit upon a claim that makes sense.

      Are we to presume your "like" for this post indicates you have no intention of asking him to back up his claim?

  • #5
    Originally posted by Grumpy_Polecat View Post

    The odds for death-by-stranger are nonetheless greater in the absence of a means of prevention.
    [citation needed]
    RobRoy: "There is an "honest grit" to his lying."

    Comment


    • Phil O'Keefe
      Phil O'Keefe commented
      Editing a comment
      Not to over-ride your request for substantiation, but I think it's pretty self-evident that if you have no means of protecting yourself from, or preventing an attack, you're at the absolute mercy of the attacker, wouldn't you?

    • Hoot Owl
      Hoot Owl commented
      Editing a comment
      Hee-hee. I've been at the mercy of my potential attacker for 58 years and have never been attacked. So, all those years I'd have carried around a weapon and looked like a kook for nothin'.

  • #6
    Originally posted by Opposite Day View Post
    Blood on your hands! Shame shame! Shove your prayers! Grr Christianity!
    Interesting position.

    do you have any opinion on when we should deny people their rights?
    Last edited by moogerfooger; 03-09-2018, 09:48 AM.

    Comment


    • #7
      Originally posted by Grumpy_Polecat View Post

      The odds for death-by-stranger are nonetheless greater in the absence of a means of prevention.
      Got anything to backup that claim. I’ve been alive for almost 66 years and I’ve never carried a gun or have never needed any means of prevention whatever that means. It seems the obsession with gun is based on fear. I don’t live in fear.
      Last edited by moogerfooger; 03-09-2018, 06:46 AM.

      Comment


      • guido61
        guido61 commented
        Editing a comment
        Yeah I think we might be waiting for support for his claim for quite awhile.

      • NOS68
        NOS68 commented
        Editing a comment
        Couldn't help but notice your lack of links in the OP.

    • #8
      Originally posted by moogerfooger View Post

      Got anything to backup that claim. I’ve been alive for almost 66 years and I’ve never carried a gun or have never needed any means of prevention whatever that means. It seems the obsession with gun is based on fear. I don’t live in fear.
      I live near Detroit. I've never felt the need to carry, even in the city. Americans seem to have some sort of collective paranoia. Being paranoid is a horrible way to go through life.

      Comment


      • #9
        I went to a convention in Detroit in the early nineties. Had a great time. Stayed at the Renaissance, which I understand is now GM headquarters or something. We rode the light rail to spend an evening in Trapper's Alley. Wonderful food those Greeks cook up. Opa!

        I know that there is a lot of misery in Detroit, too, not unlike many U.S. metro areas, and there were a few beggars on the street there, but no aggression showed up.
        ..................................................
        Amerussia Uber Alles!

        Comment


        • #10
          I’ve spent a lot of time in bad parts of town in all sorts of big cities over the years. While I felt safer at some times than others, I’ve never felt the need to “carry”. And for any situation I can imagine where having a gun might have made things better, I can imagine another where it might have made things worse.

          But I don’t know of any data that definitively shows that people who own or carry guns are any safer or less likely to be a victim of a crime that are those who do not. And there is much to indicate otherwise.

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

          Best thing one can do to remain safe, based on my life experiences anyway, is be careful where you hang out and who you hang out with.
          RobRoy: "There is an "honest grit" to his lying."

          Comment


          • #11
            but its not the guns
            Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death

            Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

            The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.

            "When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard," Harvard gun expert David Hemenway writes. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents."

            https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violen...use-death-risk

            Comment


            • #12
              Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post
              Not to over-ride your request for substantiation, but I think it's pretty self-evident that if you have no means of protecting yourself from, or preventing an attack, you're at the absolute mercy of the attacker, wouldn't you?

              Since the topic of the thread was guns, as was the post he was quoting, and knowing GP's penchant for making sure others stay on topic in other threads, I presumed he was referring to guns.

              But, if I was wrong, and he was instead speaking of any and all forms of prevention/protection including being aware of your surroundings, being careful to not put yourself in bad situations with bad people, alarm systems, running, screaming, using a knife or a stick, running them over with your car, calling the police, kicking, punching, scratching etc. will result in better odds to prevent/protect against death-by-stranger than simply lying still with your hands at your side and doing nothing? Then yes, that WOULD be self-evident, I suppose.

              Although I would question what would be the purpose of such a post. Although, considering the source, maybe that IS what he meant? He's certainly played such games before. Usually to his personal detriment.

              But until he comes in and clarifies exactly what he meant by "means of protection" then I will think we are all still talking about the thread topic and the post he quoted, which is guns.

              And as such, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence to show that having a gun makes you any less likely to suffer "death by stranger" than relying simply upon any, or any combination thereof, of the things I listed above.
              Last edited by guido61; 03-09-2018, 11:28 AM.
              RobRoy: "There is an "honest grit" to his lying."

              Comment


              • #13
                Originally posted by Grumpy_Polecat View Post

                The odds for death-by-stranger are nonetheless greater in the absence of a means of prevention.
                And with the means of protection the odds of death or injury by my own gun are greater than the odds of using that gun in self-defense.

                Myth six:
                https://www.motherjones.com/politics...hs-fact-check/

                George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
                Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

                Comment


                • #14
                  • Phil O'Keefe commented
                    03-09-2018, 114 AM
                    Not to over-ride your request for substantiation, but I think it's pretty self-evident that if you have no means of protecting yourself from, or preventing an attack, you're at the absolute mercy of the attacker, wouldn't you? + More Options

                  Absolutely not. one does not need a weapon to defend themselves. I am at no ones mercy
                  Last edited by moogerfooger; 03-09-2018, 11:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #15
                    Originally posted by moogerfooger View Post
                    true story I just saw TV. Guns content

                    so there was a domestic shooting in a home where the people living in the home apparently had a reputation of being not so nice. well a guy shoots a couple people and then kills himself. one is dead and the other, a female, is in critical condition. sheriff Fred was on and gave a run down on the incident and they interviewed a couple lookie Lou's. one lady said she wasnt surprise about who was involved and that his guns should have been taken away a long time ago.

                    so is the right to bear arms only a right if you're a nice person? not nice people don't have the right? even a pervious offender who has served his time is a law abiding citizen until he gets arrested again and charged with a crime. at what point should people lose the right to have guns? and when you take away their rights, what is to stop them from getting a gun anyway?
                    point is, it seems people have varied opinions about who should have the right to have guns and who shouldn't.

                    and another example of: if there is a gun in the house you're much more likely to get killed by it and someone you know than by some stranger.
                    There are some people whom are certain to be responsible gun owners. There are others who should not be allowed guns because of the probability that they may get angry and start shooting, even though they've never broken the law before. Then there are those in between who may or may not go off the deep end and commit gun related crimes, or murder. Sadly, finding the dividing line between those who deserve guns and those who don't is like trying to find the exact edge of a fog bank; you know where fog is, you know where fog isn't, but you can't walk or sail up to a fog bank and say, ''this is the exact dividing line.'' There's just too much vague uncertainty.
                    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
                    How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

                    Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

                    Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

                    And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X