(October 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 2:32 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Private Guns serve what other vastly larger productive ends vastly more often than to allow homocides to be committed with them?

Maybe like making an home intruder turn an run instead of raping your wife or convenience store robber decide it's not worth the risk.

Yes, but a handgun would be just fine for those types of self defense scenarios. The weapon used this past week was a killing machine which I don't see the use for unless you're law enforcement or military...

(October 6, 2017 at 3:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe like making an home intruder turn an run instead of raping your wife or convenience store robber decide it's not worth the risk.

Go out and search for stats that tell us how often people successfully protect their homes with their guns, VS, how often guns in the hands of civilians end up in a death in the family or friends of the gun-owner.
When you have real data, you can make a claim one way or the other.

Pocaracas, why wont you let NEO live his delusion, I am a Redskins fan, I still have faith we will beat the Patriots in the next Superbowl. Such a killjoy.

(October 6, 2017 at 3:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe like making an home intruder turn an run instead of raping your wife or convenience store robber decide it's not worth the risk.

Go out and search for stats that tell us how often people successfully protect their homes with their guns, VS, how often guns in the hands of civilians end up in a death in the family or friends of the gun-owner.
When you have real data, you can make a claim one way or the other.

While one is at it, they can search for the stats on how much gun control effects violent crime rates. 

I don't own a firearm, and don't really see the need for me to have one at this time.   However, if I did fee that I needed that kind of protection I would want it available.
However I do think that focusing on the means used, is ignoring the real issue which is a social problem.

(October 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe like making an home intruder turn an run instead of raping your wife or convenience store robber decide it's not worth the risk.

I understand you might not be the kind of guy, but if an intruder alerts me enough in my home close quarters to give me time to reach to a gun, It also gives me time to reach for my fists.

It's a stupid idea that guns can protect you at home. in close quarters, even if you are not too strong, a baseball bat does the trick.

(October 6, 2017 at 3:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe like making an home intruder turn an run instead of raping your wife or convenience store robber decide it's not worth the risk.

Yes, but a handgun would be just fine for those types of self defense scenarios. The weapon used this past week was a killing machine which I don't see the use for unless you're law enforcement or military...

CL I love you, you are not completely gone, like the far right. But sorry, the data is in, good intent and your desire to protect yourself does not change the REAL data. You are still far more likely to injure yourself or die or injure or kill a family member or yourself or a neighbor, than you are to protect yourself from a complete stranger.

I would not hate the NRA if they told the truth, but they don't, they are a corporate heat shield just like big Tobacco tried to hide the dangers of smoking and tried to protect the marketing of Joe Camel which was aimed at teens. 

I don't object to rights. I do object to lying to put profits over safety.

(October 6, 2017 at 3:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 3:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Go out and search for stats that tell us how often people successfully protect their homes with their guns, VS, how often guns in the hands of civilians end up in a death in the family or friends of the gun-owner.
When you have real data, you can make a claim one way or the other.

While one is at it, they can search for the stats on how much gun control effects violent crime rates. 

I don't own a firearm, and don't really see the need for me to have one at this time.   However, if I did fee that I needed that kind of protection I would want it available.
However I do think that focusing on the means used, is ignoring the real issue which is a social problem.

Yep... start with recent examples, like Australia and work down to more ancient ones, like the UK.

Availability, ok, but not uncontrolled availability. You shouldn't be able to buy a gun like you buy a candy bar. And this is the real issue.
Somehow, people in the US feel the need to have guns, for whatever reason.
Somehow, that need is not present in Canada, in my eyes, the country more similar to the US.
What's the difference?

(October 6, 2017 at 3:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, but a handgun would be just fine for those types of self defense scenarios. The weapon used this past week was a killing machine which I don't see the use for unless you're law enforcement or military...

In that scenario a handgun is just as valid as a normal kitchen knife. if you have time to notice an intruder in your home and reach a gun you can easier reach a bat or a knife. Guns are used to shoot in a distance.

I reckon there might be mansions with rooms the size of football fields.

Also a baseball bat is more humane to defend yourself. Or a broomstick. My point is the tight space of your home, if the intruder surprises you, no gun can save you then.

If I'm a woman and if i'm confronted by a big dude in my home who has a knife of his own, I don't think I'd be able to protect myself against him with a knife... id be safer with a gun.

I believe in gun control, and in banning those that are particularly deadly, but not an outright ban on all guns. That seems very unreasonable and very "big governmenty" to me.

(October 6, 2017 at 3:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe like making an home intruder turn an run instead of raping your wife or convenience store robber decide it's not worth the risk.

Yes, but a handgun would be just fine for those types of self defense scenarios. The weapon used this past week was a killing machine which I don't see the use for unless you're law enforcement or military...

Other than the bump-stock modification those were not functionally different from any other semi-automatic rifle. They just look more scary. In a rural area they're good for picking off nuisance critters from a distance.

(October 6, 2017 at 3:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 3:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, but a handgun would be just fine for those types of self defense scenarios. The weapon used this past week was a killing machine which I don't see the use for unless you're law enforcement or military...

Not exactly, they are are not functionally different from any other semi-automatic rifle. They just look more scary. In a rural area they're good for picking off nuisance critters from a distance. Personally, I like bolt action guns because the full force of the discharge is transferred to the bullet.

Don't you think certain types of guns are more effectice in killing more people more quickly than others?