Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[SgtSpiderMan]

How heavily? would $10,000 suit you?

Would the amount I wager change the fact that no such law exists?

 

[about_average]

Would the amount I wager change the fact that no such law exists?

No, I'm sure your denial of reality wouldn't change based on the amount you wager, but I could use the $10,000.
So, you going to wager?

 

[UrsulaX]

Actually there is good civilian training available, including performing well in stressful situations.
This should appeal to you, there is technology available that will prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than the owner. However this has some bad points also.

A well trained gun owner is very unlikely to be taken by surprise. As for her gun being taken from her and her being shot, see above. In any case, if they are willing to kill her with her gun, do you think they really aren't clever enough to kill her some other way?

Again, to Loganville, she seems to have handled herself quite well. Her's and her kids would very likely have been sacrificed since there was no reason for him to be going after them other than to do harm.
Where's your data on how many times guns protect people? Certainly not from the news, they rarely report when a life has been saved (or crime prevented) with a gun, even though it happens quite often.
The media is much more interested in reporting when someone uses one in a crime.
I huge reduction in gun related deaths would occur by the elimination of the war on drugs and legalizing drug use. But it's our country's position to actually encourage killing rather than trying to stop it.

What creativity would you suggest when unable to escape your house and hiding with your kids in a crawl space, which was as much distance and difficulty as she could get between them and their attacker who was armed with a wrecking bar?

Further on the media, and sensational killings, the media needs to make those killers nobodies. No reporting of name or publishing of the killer's photos.

Sorry for the delayed reply. Revisiting my earlier entries, I think I may have been too fatalistic. I stand by my points, though the hyperbole was unnecessary and potentially misleading. My statement that guns kill more readily than they protect was an observation based on functionality, not statistics. Guns fire rapid projectiles aimed to puncture each target. They are offensive tools, as opposed to shields, armor, gear, fortification, or surveillance systems whose primary function is defense. With guns, protection is the indirect consequence of nullifying the threat through counter-aggression. I find the counter-aggression worrisome. You may see no better alternative than a Loganville woman shooting an intruder armed with a crowbar, but I can picture secret escape routes, alarms, panic rooms, booby traps, savage dogs to ward off unwanted visitors, or, on a broader scale, a neighborhood in which break-ins are not inevitable. In the Loganville case, intended theft became a violent confrontation, in which a woman shot someone five times in front of her children. Since all involved miraculously survived, the outcome was fortunate, but not what I would consider the ideal result of an alleged burglary. The risks have been emphasized to portray the woman as a heroine, but her husband and community are too proud and trigger-happy for my taste. If a criminal has prior arrests, does every threatened victim then have license to be his judge, jury, and executioner? What sort of society are we promoting exactly?

I concede that it is difficult to establish causal links between gun control legislation and gun violence, and many other contributing factors obscure the effects guns have on violence and vice versa. Sure, most developed countries may have much lower rates of gun ownership and homicide than the U.S., but they may differ in too many other respects, as well, to provide meaningful sources of comparison. I am also aware that the results of legislation and other factors are complex enough for an increase in the proliferation of firearms to accompany a decrease in gun murders and robbery. If there is one takeaway point from the conclusions of FactCheck.Org and similar sites, it is that data is insufficient and inconclusive, and so I am ill-at-ease advocating gun control as violence reduction without a better understanding of the potential consequences. The boom in gun sales after every mass shooting or perceived threat to gun ownership, for example, is enough to give anyone pause. It is much easier, however, to reject the dystopian worldview necessary to justify gun ownership as self-defense, along with the hubris of gun lovers and anarchists, for whom sheer will trumps Murphy’s Law and unpredictable behavior. I am not disputing the merits of gun training, per se, but rather the confidence and singular mindset of trainees who would rather arm themselves than defer to higher authority or security specialists who protect people for a living. Moreover, I question the efficacy of guns to control or pacify criminals, which seems counterintuitive. More weapons exacerbate a hostage situation, leading perpetrators to panic and kill victims perceived as threatening when passivity may have kept them alive. A rapist or thief confronted with a gun is given both an opportunity and a reason to respond violently, even if murder was not part of the original plan, and to pretend that a gun does not facilitate the dispatch of potential threats is to ignore its fundamental purpose, as well as its appeal to vulnerable civilians.

What gun advocates are missing, and what baffles anyone who does not feel emasculated by reasonable restrictions on dangerous toys, is a legitimate argument for maintaining the status quo. Moreover, legitimate reasons for owning guns are limited. Industry and agriculture obviate the need to hunt for food, and hunting for sport does not require guns (or lethal weapons, for that matter). If the object is to kill or inflict suffering, such sadism has no place in civil society and is better suited for virtual reality, where the only sacrifices are made of pixels. If the point is target practice, surely there are more refined instruments to test one’s skill? Guns may be debatable sources of animal control or protection in rural areas, where the population is too dispersed for police to respond promptly, but urban populations should be able to rely on infrastructure, police, and community support for security. If citizens cannot trust the institutions on which they depend, guns are hardly the problem or the answer.

Enshrining guns as badges of citizenship or government checks is equally unacceptable. How could the federal government be too oppressive and untrustworthy to merit allegiance or participation, yet diminutive enough for a few handguns or legally obtained firearms to pose a threat? Bombs, drones, heavy artillery, weapons of mass destruction, and anything else needed for an effective coup are already inaccessible to civilians, so what citizen militia would have any clout today? Even if you were to consider the second amendment; disregard historical context, changes in weaponry, and the advent of police squads; and uphold the right to bear arms as sacrosanct, with or without militias, you cannot pretend its architects envisioned a Wild West mentality, conveniently dismissing the rights of criminals and the accused, the three branches, the delegation of state and federal responsibilities, and the system of checks and balances outlined in the rest of the constitution in favor of self-absorbed vigilante justice. Nor, if the first amendment is any indication, would the founding fathers have maligned freedom of speech and the press for challenging the validity of the second amendment.

Asserting that guns are an intrinsic part of American culture, which must be accepted lest gun restrictions inhibit law-abiding citizens, is also unfounded. Why must Americans be predisposed to owning guns, and why is questioning that taboo? Concluding that lawfully obtained guns are required to prevent perpetrators from running amok is only appropriate after exhausting all avenues of research and public policy. Instead, more data is needed to attribute reductions in violence to minimal gun legislation or to credit conceal-and-carry laws with discouraging criminals from assaulting innocents who could be armed. New ideas should be encouraged, not rejected on political grounds. Nevertheless, the CDC has lost much of the funding it once received to conduct gun violence studies, while the NRA and other factions benefiting from gun manufacturing have undue influence on Congress and public health measures. Where is the outrage at vested interests dictating the appropriate political response to tragedy and interfering with the availability of public gun violence statistics? Accusations of bias buoy anti-intellectuals who would rather regard all science as suspect than embark on the difficult pursuit of objectivity. And to what end? What benefits do guns bestow? According to gun advocates, firearms are neither the arbiters nor sole instruments of violence, yet they have the power to minimize danger when held by the right people. Accidents and homicides are incidental and exaggerated in light of the gun’s ability to stymie violence by mere suggestion: criminals beware—guns are everywhere. If that is truly the case, however, why must civilians own guns at all? Why must we accept one accident or casualty when discouraging criminals without risking potential victims could suffice? Instead, guns could be the unseen, illusory weapons empowering a metaphorical Panopticon, in which all citizens serve as members of an armed, omnipresent order, ready in their watchfulness to stop criminals with weapons that do not need to exist to instill fear. The implied threat would not require any real violence, just as the implied benefits of guns do not require any real world substantiation. In reality, observable advantages to lax gun laws are more elusive than proponents would suggest, yet guns continue to seduce owners with the promise of formidable strength and freedom from culpability, at least until bigger, scarier opposition comes along.

I am not proposing an immediate ban on all guns, bizarre mind games, or anything so extreme. I simply ask that firearms be regarded with the wariness they deserve and that greater investment in objective research and innovative solutions be promoted.

 

[about_average]

If a criminal has prior arrests, does every threatened victim then have license to be his judge, jury, and executioner?

By adding the words "threatened victim" you made the answer yes.
If you'd left out those two words the answer would have been, absolutely not, only threatened victims.

If someone attacks me, or another person in my presence, they have given me the right to be judge, jury and executioner as far as is needed to stop the threat. And nearly every state has laws on the books that give me that right.
I dearly hope I'll never have to exercise that right.

Since all involved miraculously survived, the outcome was fortunate, but not what I would consider the ideal result of an alleged burglary.

It wasn't a burglary. When he ceased ransacking her house and turned his attention to trying to get her and her kids it ceased being a burglary and became an armed assault. As for ideal or not, it was at the very least ideal, though I know there are those who would argue it wasn't ideal because the person assaulting her and her two kids wasn't killed.

Safe rooms, etc.
The revolver likely cost under $400. Have you ever done any construction? If you're suggesting escape tunnels, safe rooms, etc are a reasonable alternative that anyone can do instead of a revolver, you need to get out more. Maybe visit a building supply company.

You need to learn more about reasons and needs for non-trophy hunting.

Relying on police.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the police are not constitutionally bound to protect citizens. No state or municipality will ever pass any ordinance that they are. It would open them to so many lawsuits that they'd be bankrupt within a year.

I'm only picking a few things you mention, there's just so much there that is very naive, but I wanted to provide a sample.

There are plenty of people who own guns who I think shouldn't, just as there are plenty of people who drive who I think shouldn't (and more are added to that list every time I drive in to Atlanta).

 

[hogjack]

I have not been raped nor aborted.

Am I missing something?

 

[UrsulaX]

Another reply to about_average

In my defense, it’s a little hard to adequately address the gun control debate in four paragraphs, even though I was verbose. I apologize for emphasizing the main points (guns are dangerous; we need more data before assuming the pros of ownership outweigh the cons; the second amendment does not justify gun rights if you cannot explain its continued relevance) and skimping on the details, which seemed to have captured your attention more than anything I considered important.

By adding the words "threatened victim" you made the answer yes.
If you'd left out those two words the answer would have been, absolutely not, only threatened victims.

If someone attacks me, or another person in my presence, they have given me the right to be judge, jury and executioner as far as is needed to stop the threat. And nearly every state has laws on the books that give me that right.
I dearly hope I'll never have to exercise that right.

"Threatened victim" was a poor choice of words. Self-proclaimed victim or threatened individual would have more adequately captured the subjective nature of victimhood. I live in Minnesota, where hurting someone in self-defense is not unequivocally acceptable:

According to http://www.liberty-lawyer.com/faq/selfdefenseinminnesota.html,

Minnesota's self-defense law contains a "duty to retreat" provision. A person facing a threat has a duty to retreat where practical, before responding with "reasonable force." If an attack is sudden retreat might be unrealistic or create a risk of bodily harm. In order to protect you, your loved ones, or your property, in some situations there may be no reasonable alternative to the use of reasonable force in self-defense.

What is "reasonable force?" There must be thousands of court cases discussing this, in various situations. The idea is that the level of force used in self-defense should be commensurate with the perceived threat level at the time.

Police are trained to shoot the center of the body when shooting in self-defense, and to shoot a person armed with a knife within striking distance. That could be reasonable force. No one wants to end up in a case where a jury has to decide "was it reasonable?" given the threat presented at the time. If you are defending yourself or others from a violent attack, however, even deadly force can be reasonable.

It wasn't a burglary. When he ceased ransacking her house and turned his attention to trying to get her and her kids it ceased being a burglary and became an armed assault. As for ideal or not, it was at the very least ideal, though I know there are those who would argue it wasn't ideal because the person assaulting her and her two kids wasn't killed.

I doubt many people, including me, would fault the Loganville woman for her actions, but a few aspects of the scenario bother me. Supposedly, the burglar knocked on the door, presumably to see if anyone was home. She called her husband, who instructed her not to answer. When she saw the stranger go to his car to grab a crowbar, why did she not leave the house with her children via an alternative exit or at least try to contact a neighbor for help? What if she had grabbed her gun, stood at the doorway as he approached, and shouted at the top of her lungs? Would she have had to fire? Obviously, he intended to break in, and he said in the ambulance that his purpose was theft. If he broke in believing no one was home, is it wrong to think he would have fled the scene once she appeared outside with enough bluster to attract attention? Who knows what happened inside? Maybe he heard her on the phone and decided to attack her. Maybe he had no idea she was hiding. Armed assault? He had a crowbar, which is useful for breaking and entering, or so I’ve heard. I’m aware her husband believed it improbable that a burglar would go to the attic room, but maybe he was simply reticent to acknowledge the faults of his plan. (It was pretty convenient they were so prepared thanks to recent target practice. Seriously, how dangerous is living in Georgia, anyway? Remind me not to move there.) Why does everyone responding to the story assume she and her children were basically dead without a gun?

As for ideal or not, it was at the very least ideal, though I know there are those who would argue it wasn't ideal because the person assaulting her and her two kids wasn't killed.

I just find it weird that one’s natural reaction is not “Wow, she had to shoot the guy? In front of her kids? That’s tough.” Instead, imitators are purchasing guns to mimic her feat. Bring on the burglars! I’m happy I don’t know any of these people.

Safe rooms, etc.
The revolver likely cost under $400. Have you ever done any construction? If you're suggesting escape tunnels, safe rooms, etc are a reasonable alternative that anyone can do instead of a revolver, you need to get out more. Maybe visit a building supply company.

When I mentioned a secret escape route, I was thinking of a normal side room with a lockable door and a rope ladder out the back. (I always wanted a rope ladder to hang from my window when I was a kid.) The booby trap could have been made of household wares. I lived in Zimbabwe briefly, where every house in my host family’s neighborhood had high walls with shards of glass along the top and fierce barking dogs. With the devastated economy, burglary was a real concern, so my family booby-trapped the entrances and windows with falling pots and pans to alert them of any unwanted intruders. I was not suggesting that any of the alternatives were viable, but I love how you focused on the most expensive, as if there aren’t wealthy people who prefer safes, panic rooms, and security systems to guns. The point was not to provide a legitimate cost-benefit analysis of her options, but to simply suggest that options exist. To me, the whole killing aspect of guns is a big drawback.

You need to learn more about reasons and needs for non-trophy hunting.

When I mentioned that guns “may be debatable sources of animal control or protection,” I was alluding to hunting intended to control animal populations. In Minnesota, for example, wolves are being hunted again to control their numbers after a brief stint on the endangered species list. The Department of Natural Resources typically specifies the number of wolves that should be hunted each season, but since the practice is controversial (at least among wolf lovers here), I acknowledged its debatable value. I have nothing to say about hunting that serves a purpose. I come from upstate New York, where I had no interaction with hunters. When I spent a few months in Ireland, however, I stayed with a woman whose daughter rode horses (cliché, I know) and had many unfavorable things to say about fox hunting in particular. Perhaps she influenced my impression of hunting for sport, along with the number of people in Minnesota who discuss hunting with a peculiar relish that alarms me. Regardless of my personal opinions, I do not think gun enthusiasts are up in arms about gun regulations out of concern for local ecology. Since I already acknowledged gun use for this purpose without objection, I see no point in dwelling on my ignorance. If there are things you feel I should know, please enlighten me.

Relying on police.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the police are not constitutionally bound to protect citizens. No state or municipality will ever pass any ordinance that they are. It would open them to so many lawsuits that they'd be bankrupt within a year.

A police officer still performs a public service intended to help civilians, regardless of whether he/she is constitutionally bound. For example, in Duluth, Minnesota, an officer’s purpose, according to one job description (http://www.duluthmn.gov/employment/JobDatabase/Job_Descriptions/Police Officer.pdf) , is “To ensure preservation of peace and public safety through the enforcement of local, state, and Federal laws, and by providing support and assistance during emergency or crisis situations.” Supreme Court rulings on negligent officers who fail to respond to domestic disputes are complicated by legal precedents I know nothing about (I have no legal background), but I assume you are referring to Colorado V. Gonzales (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525280/). Though using the case to reinforce distrust in public servants is predictable, I would probably want to study and critique constitutional law before starting a gun collection. I am not deluded about police officers or their limitations. I mentioned the effects of community support and infrastructure on a secure environment, as well. Perhaps I should have also mentioned economic development, education, public policy, and law as other factors influencing general safety and wellbeing. Forgive me, I did not provide an exhaustive list.

I'm only picking a few things you mention, there's just so much there that is very naive, but I wanted to provide a sample.

Of course my ideas are naïve (very naïve is a little harsh, though). If I had fully formed, flawless arguments, I would be sharing them elsewhere. I suppose it was a bit simple of me to think I could persuade you in some way. I did appreciate some of your points, however. This time around, I tried to include a few personal anecdotes to convey how foreign and frightening the world of guns is to me. I guess our experiences are different.

 

[BotanyBoy]

When she saw the stranger go to his car to grab a crowbar, why did she not leave the house with her children via an alternative exit.

She shouldn't have to....that is her fucking home, she should have the legal right to waste the baddie the second he makes force entry. Sorry...if you are using a crowbar to get into someones house you are violating them far beyond the busted door jam/window and as such forfeit your right to life should they decide to challenge your being in their rightful turf.

 

[RiverKnight]

Moroni speaks again

 

[BotanyBoy]

Moroni speaks again

^^ this guy supports criminals, and condemns victims up to an including being violated in their own homes.....let me guess, you live in CA.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Remember, every year a few dozen minorities find out that wearing a hoodie makes you a threat to anybody with a gun and BB and everybody like him thinks that's perfectly okay.

 

[UrsulaX]

And if he had used a pick instead ... ?

She shouldn't have to....that is her fucking home, she should have the legal right to waste the baddie the second he makes force entry. Sorry...if you are using a crowbar to get into someones house you are violating them far beyond the busted door jam/window and as such forfeit your right to life should they decide to challenge your being in their rightful turf.

In Little Falls, Minnesota, two teens were shot to death when they broke into a man's home over Thanksgiving. The circumstances were very different, as were the culprits, a white boy and girl from Little Falls High School, who garnered more sympathy than Byron David Smith, a retiree formerly employed by the U.S. State Department. Smith had been burglarized before and showed no mercy when he unnecessarily shot each teen in the head. He was arrested for second-degree murder, mainly because his responses to questions were chillingly malicious and his actions did not seem to constitute reasonable defense.

I mention the case, not because I think the circumstances in Loganville were comparable, but to demonstrate why details and the mindset of the individual firing the gun are important. The Loganville woman was obviously afraid and shot in self-defense. It seems the robber chased her, though that was not apparent in the articles I read before writing my last response. She did not answer her door and her car was not visible from the street, so his intent to harm anyone was not obvious to me, though I wondered what he planned to do if she had answered the door. I thought she may have overreacted, which was understandable given the circumstances, and that she may have had opportunities to escape with her children before the direct confrontation. Hence one of my problems with guns: owners are encouraged to use deadly force, even when less risky alternatives exist. Her first priority was safety, so abandoning her home and seeking help seems reasonable to me. Things worked out for her in this situation, but apprehending a thief without placing oneself in danger is preferable.

What bothers me most about the responses to this and similar stories is that firing a gun in self-defense, which should be regarded as a last resort, is lauded as the best way to handle intruders. Why must it come to that? Apart from being callously overzealous, enthusiasts are essentially accepting a number of other societal problems without question. And though it may be softhearted of me to say, blowing someone away does not resolve the fundamental issue, because the criminal is not some isolated problem--s/he's a product of biology, society, circumstance, and many other factors over which we exert some control. Ideally, the situation in Loganville would not have happened. If that's laughable, perhaps we should be addressing the root causes of crime instead.

 

[UrsulaX]

And if he had used a pick instead ... ?

She shouldn't have to....that is her fucking home, she should have the legal right to waste the baddie the second he makes force entry. Sorry...if you are using a crowbar to get into someones house you are violating them far beyond the busted door jam/window and as such forfeit your right to life should they decide to challenge your being in their rightful turf.

In Little Falls, Minnesota, two teens were shot to death when they broke into a man's home over Thanksgiving. The circumstances were very different, as were the culprits, a white boy and girl from Little Falls High School, who garnered more sympathy than Byron David Smith, a retiree formerly employed by the U.S. State Department. Smith had been burglarized before and showed no mercy when he unnecessarily shot each teen in the head. He was arrested for second-degree murder, mainly because his responses to questions were chillingly malicious and his actions did not seem to constitute reasonable defense.

I mention the case, not because I think the circumstances in Loganville were comparable, but to demonstrate why details and the mindset of the individual firing the gun are important. The Loganville woman was obviously afraid and shot in self-defense. It seems the robber chased her, though that was not apparent in the articles I read before writing my last response. She did not answer her door and her car was not visible from the street, so his intent to harm anyone was not obvious to me, though I wondered what he planned to do if she had answered the door. I thought she may have overreacted, which was understandable given the circumstances, and that she may have had opportunities to escape with her children before the direct confrontation. Hence one of my problems with guns: owners are encouraged to use deadly force, even when less risky alternatives exist. Her first priority was safety, so abandoning her home and seeking help seems reasonable to me. Things worked out for her in this situation, but apprehending a thief without placing oneself in danger is preferable.

What bothers me most about the responses to this and similar stories is that firing a gun in self-defense, which should be regarded as a last resort, is lauded as the best way to handle intruders. Why must it come to that? Apart from being callously overzealous, enthusiasts are essentially accepting a number of other societal problems without question. And though it may be softhearted of me to say, blowing someone away does not resolve the fundamental issue, because the criminal is not some isolated problem--s/he's a product of biology, society, circumstance, and many other factors over which we exert some control. Ideally, the situation in Loganville would not have happened. If that's laughable, perhaps we should be addressing the root causes of crime instead.

 

[eyer]

What bothers me most about the responses to this and similar stories is that firing a gun in self-defense, which should be regarded as a last resort, is lauded as the best way to handle intruders. Why must it come to that?

It's too bad you can't ask the 26 murdered @ Sandy Hook...

BTW:

"the root cause of crime" is very simple...

...it sprouts from the devaluing of individual liberty.

As a utopian statist, you enable crime to grow...

...good job!

 

[BotanyBoy]

In Little Falls, Minnesota, two teens were shot to death when they broke into a man's home over Thanksgiving. The circumstances were very different, as were the culprits, a white boy and girl from Little Falls High School, who garnered more sympathy than Byron David Smith, a retiree formerly employed by the U.S. State Department. Smith had been burglarized before and showed no mercy when he unnecessarily shot each teen in the head. He was arrested for second-degree murder, mainly because his responses to questions were chillingly malicious and his actions did not seem to constitute reasonable defense.

Sucks for Mr. Smith...should have lived in a state where the state protects you and not the home invader. Kids should not have been breaking and entering and they paid the naturally occurring consequence.

owners are encouraged to use deadly force, even when less risky alternatives exist. Her first priority was safety, so abandoning her home and seeking help seems reasonable to me. Things worked out for her in this situation, but apprehending a thief without placing oneself in danger is preferable.

Less risky for who the home invader? No shit! The least risky situation for the victim is the one where the threat is neutralized ASAP, fact. If this were not true we would send soldiers into combat with paperwork and social skills not M4's and 203's.

What bothers me most about the responses to this and similar stories is that firing a gun in self-defense, which should be regarded as a last resort, is lauded as the best way to handle intruders. Why must it come to that? Apart from being callously overzealous, enthusiasts are essentially accepting a number of other societal problems without question. And though it may be softhearted of me to say, blowing someone away does not resolve the fundamental issue, because the criminal is not some isolated problem--s/he's a product of biology, society, circumstance, and many other factors over which we exert some control. Ideally, the situation in Loganville would not have happened. If that's laughable, perhaps we should be addressing the root causes of crime instead.

Wrong, the fundamental issue is a home invader entered someones abode forcefully and without consent, probable cause or a warrant they are obviously a fucking threat. Neutralizing said threat resolves the issue of them threatening you in your home.

Fuck their childhood, sob stories, woes etc. You don't FORCE yourself into someone else's home, there is no fucking excuse.

Very little to address, in my state we don't protect violent offenders...if someone makes force entry into your living quarters you simply kill the mother fucker, problem solved!!!

 

[UrsulaX]

It's too bad you can't ask the 26 murdered @ Sandy Hook...

BTW:

"the root cause of crime" is very simple...

...it sprouts from the devaluing of individual liberty.

As a utopian statist, you enable crime to grow...

...good job!

Yes, we should make sure the little kids have guns next time around.

I'm probably a moderate or centrist; my Panopticon comments were facetious. As for enabling crime to grow, let's face it: posting here doesn't accomplish much of anything.

 

[eyer]

Yes, we should make sure the little kids have guns next time around.

As you aptly demonstrate with such an irrelevant and immature line...

...there's a reason the word "little kids" applies to some, but not all.

I'm probably a moderate or centrist; my Panopticon comments were facetious.

Your "probably" only proves your disingenuousness more...

...you are prototypically utopian and, thus, fated a statist.

As for enabling crime to grow, let's face it: posting here doesn't accomplish much of anything.

It's your enabling socialist attitude - your progressivism - that is secondarily responsible for the 26 dead @ Sandy Hook...

...just as it is your progressivism which is secondarily responsible for the intentional murder of 55 million others since 1973.

You are a progressive enemy to the unalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

...deal with it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Honestly if you're not Utopian you should fucking commit suicide. You are scum and have no place in the future and only a negative place in the world.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Honestly if you're not Utopian you should fucking commit suicide. You are scum and have no place in the future and only a negative place in the world.

^^ apparently he thinks Utopia is real and can be had .

Sean...you should be put in a mental institution for being delusional and out of touch with reality, put the fairy tale's down, they aren't real man!! Happily ever after is a crock of shit fantasy.....come back to reality!!

 

[UrsulaX]

Sucks for Mr. Smith...should have lived in a state where the state protects you and not the home invader. Kids should not have been breaking and entering and they paid the naturally occurring consequence.

The Minnesota state law doesn't disregard your humanity the second you do something stupid, particularly if you are an unarmed juvenile. With your stance, you'll wind up like the Rochester, Minnesota, man who shot his granddaughter when he mistook her for an intruder.

Less risky for who the home invader? No shit! The least risky situation for the victim is the one where the threat is neutralized ASAP, fact. If this were not true we would send soldiers into combat with paperwork and social skills not M4's and 203's.

Hostages and mugging victims are usually instructed to avoid confrontation. I meant it was risky for the woman and her kids. I stand by my assertion that removing the kids from the vicinity was the first priority.

I suppose in your world there has to be a war, but usually you try to avoid unnecessary battles. And the folks with paperwork and social skills are the ones who send the soldiers into combat to die.

Wrong, the fundamental issue is a home invader entered someones abode forcefully and without consent, probable cause or a warrant they are obviously a fucking threat. Neutralizing said threat resolves the issue of them threatening you in your home.

Fuck their childhood, sob stories, woes etc. You don't FORCE yourself into someone else's home, there is no fucking excuse.

Very little to address, in my state we don't protect violent offenders...if someone makes force entry into your living quarters you simply kill the mother fucker, problem solved!!!

The fact that they threatened you in your home in the first place is the problem. You simply responded to a catastrophic security failure. I'm talking about crime prevention, not justice. If your gun kept intruders from entering in the first place, you would have a point. Also, if your cavalier attitude ever has legal repercussions, you better hope someone cares about your sob stories and woes. Understanding criminals allows you to identify causal factors contributing to dysfunctional behavior and lower crime rates. It's not about pity parties. It's about thinking constructively.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^ apparently he thinks Utopia is real and can be had .

Sean...you should be put in a mental institution for being delusional and out of touch with reality, put the fairy tale's down, they aren't real man!! Happily ever after is a crock of shit fantasy.....come back to reality!!

You've already confirmed in the past that you have no place in a civil society you maggot. It's not my fault you are so fucked up that you have no dreams, no goals and think the world is perfect. I wish I thought that the world was perfect and that we should simply stop everything and enjoy the world because this is as good as it gets but I don't buy it. You claim not to, apparently you claim not to be against gun control as long as it makes sense, so clearly despite what your saying here you don't actually believe the world is perfect as is. You're just lazy and won't strive for it.

I guess it's a good thing all the great inventors and men of the past thought better of the world than you do. Otherwise we'd still be colonies, after all there is no point in striving for a better tommorow is there? I mean it doesn't exist and nobody has ever had a happy and satisfying life. I'm beginning to understand why you never come out from your haze of drugs though. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

 

[UrsulaX]

^^ apparently he thinks Utopia is real and can be had .

Sean...you should be put in a mental institution for being delusional and out of touch with reality, put the fairy tale's down, they aren't real man!! Happily ever after is a crock of shit fantasy.....come back to reality!!

Pursuing perfection is better than embracing hell.

 

[eyer]

Understanding criminals allows you to identify causal factors contributing to dysfunctional behavior and lower crime rates. It's not about pity parties. It's about thinking constructively.

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

...a utopian presidential committee begot specifically to "think constructively" to "prevent" the next Sandy Hook by addressing "the root causes of gun violence" just adjourned - without recommending one practical proposal that will prevent the next Sandy Hook.

Meanwhile, the most practical solution to stop one murdering individual from violating the unalienable right to life and liberty of any other individual is for that law-abiding individual to exercise his natural right to defend his own life and liberty with/by equal and/or greater force...

...and in the specific case of Sandy Hookesque potential instances, that practical solution is to arm the adults to defend the lives and liberties of their young charges.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^^^ Pretty much the entire world proves this wrong on both sides of the spectrum with a few scattered exceptions to the rule.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Minnesota state law doesn't disregard your humanity the second you do something stupid, particularly if you are an unarmed juvenile. With your stance, you'll wind up like the Rochester, Minnesota, man who shot his granddaughter when he mistook her for an intruder.

Negative, I never touch a trigger until I have positive ID on my target and with a decade of military/law enforcement service I have never ever fucked up.

Hostages and mugging victims are usually instructed to avoid confrontation. I meant it was risky for the woman and her kids. I stand by my assertion that removing the kids from the vicinity was the first priority.

Because most victims don't know wtf they are doing...that's why they are victims.

I suppose in your world there has to be a war, but usually you try to avoid unnecessary battles. And the folks with paperwork and social skills are the ones who send the soldiers into combat to die.

No...and I avoid confrontation at all cost. Funny the "social" pen pushers who talk shit about violence all the time don't have a single fucking problem with sending others to do violence on their behalf just like they love to spend money that isn't theirs. Funny how that works....

The fact that they threatened you in your home in the first place is the problem. You simply responded to a catastrophic security failure.

Security failure is when no one responds to an intruder..... disemboweling them with a .308 round at point blank range is security in action.

I'm talking about crime prevention, not justice. If your gun kept intruders from entering in the first place, you would have a point. Also, if your cavalier attitude ever has legal repercussions, you better hope someone cares about your sob stories and woes. Understanding criminals allows you to identify causal factors contributing to dysfunctional behavior and lower crime rates. It's not about pity parties. It's about thinking constructively.

I'm not against prevention, but it doesn't always work. So when all the prevention in the world goes out the fucking door as someone is breaking it down......what then?

What sob stories? State law is clear here...you break into someones home you may be forfeiting your life, there is no duty to retreat. If I caught someone stealing my hub caps right now I would just turn on the video cam, blow their head off and call the cops to come scrape the piece of shit up..... zero days in jail.

You've already confirmed in the past that you have no place in a civil society you maggot. It's not my fault you are so fucked up that you have no dreams, no goals and think the world is perfect. I wish I thought that the world was perfect and that we should simply stop everything and enjoy the world because this is as good as it gets but I don't buy it. You claim not to, apparently you claim not to be against gun control as long as it makes sense, so clearly despite what your saying here you don't actually believe the world is perfect as is. You're just lazy and won't strive for it.

I guess it's a good thing all the great inventors and men of the past thought better of the world than you do. Otherwise we'd still be colonies, after all there is no point in striving for a better tommorow is there? I mean it doesn't exist and nobody has ever had a happy and satisfying life. I'm beginning to understand why you never come out from your haze of drugs though. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

Who said I don't have goals, dreams or ever though the world was perfect? If it were perfect I wouldn't have any desire to own a gun.

Presumptuous little fuck aren't you?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Who said I don't have goals, dreams or ever though the world was perfect? If it were perfect I wouldn't have any desire to own a gun.

Presumptuous little fuck aren't you?

If you didn't you'd strive for Utopia and still own own your gun because there are lots of fun reasons to have one. Sorry, you lose.