Or maybe nuance is called for, and absolutes are generally for idiots. Life is one big grey area not amenable to if/then. Grow up.
Thought Y’All Might Enjoy Some Science Fiction
- Thread starter Lab4Us
- Start date
Lab4Us
Master Class
While I have never felt that it’s important that anyone has to agree with me, your post is very telling. And you’ll have to point out to me where I either stated or inferred that only a lethal response is always the right one.
I actually went back and reread my OP and it appears to me I stated 1) the article suggests only those exposed to violence use guns for self defense, 2) those using guns for self defense never properly secure them, and 3) it appears the author only seemed to poll those in the gang life (as it seems the article indicates anyone using a gun for self defense was exposed to gun violence in their youth).
I don’t mind disagreements and alternate opinions. I do always prefer others don’t put words in my mouth.
“If a gut busts in to steal a toaster or copper piping to buy drugs and has no intention of conflict with a homeowner, is killing him actually saving a life, or just taking one? Would a homeowner have been every bit as safe locking the bedroom door and with a 12-gauge pointed at it and not killing anyone?”
If anyone breaks into anyone’s house, they have already initiated conflict. And to be honest, killing them (though I don’t recall the article mentioning a toaster thief getting killed) could very well save a life before they kill someone the next time they’re committing one, or multiple, felonies. Most of us are aware, even in stand your ground states, it’s not wise to kill a junkie rummaging through your kitchen. Laws or not, it would bring a lot of grief to your life that would be better to avoid.
However, I am NOT going to cower in my bedroom for 10 minutes or more until police arrive and hope said junkie doesn’t enter and start blasting (or worse, they start blasting through the door) - I am going to get said junkie out of my house. Now should that junkie decide they’re going to engage in deadly force, I would have ZERO qualms defending myself to prevent my death. This is all likely a moot point for me as I have a couple of four legged indoor alarm systems that weight about 60 pounds each and really don’t like strangers I don’t introduce them to…
Your first scenario would be considered an accidental shooting, and likely manslaughter, and has zero to do with using a firearm for self defense. It is a red herring.
The article makes no mention of how many times annually just brandishing a weapon as self defense deescalated a situation and likely saved the life of the victim (the victim is the one using the gun in self defense, whether pulling the trigger or not). Those that burgle other’s dwellings and help themselves to other’s property, car jack, kidnap, assault, rape, mug, etc., are NOT victims.
This is America. We are all entitled to our own positions. It’s just unfortunate that some “institutes of higher learning” find it necessary to manipulate data to score political points. When articles like this include ALL uses of firearms for self defense to develop their percentages of successful self defense, trigger pull or not, then perhaps I’ll take them more seriously.
In closing, this article reaffirms my decision, made long ago, to retire in Texas.
BruceMc
Operator
Who's to say what's on the mind of a criminal who would break into a person's home to steal or to rob. Is a person supposed to inquire as to the determination of a criminal before using force. Is a person supposed to ask if the criminal is going to cause harm if they don't resist. And all to be done in a heartbeat. I think that's a load of (insert expletive of your choice)! If someone breaks into my home or comes into my home uninvited and is not deterred by the force I display, that criminal is going to pay the price. Any other scenarios created by the pollsters are meant to sidetrack the issue at hand.
bc22wm
Professional
"Those with access to firearms rarely use their weapons to defend themselves, and instead are far more likely to be exposed to gun violence in other ways, according to a Rutgers Health study."
COWPIES! There are too many variables to make this conclusion unless your cherry picking the stats and fudging the numbers.
" a new study by the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center found."
Thats where they lost me. Might as well be "impartial" study from Everytown. How much $$$ did the taxpayer hand out for this "study" that's main goal was to keep the researcher from having to get a real job?
I'm exposed to the sound of gun fire every week, sometime multiple days, but always on Sunday, generally after church. Maybe the gubment will give me $$ to do a "study" Sunday Shooting (must be some difference than Sat. night liquored up shooting), where I can pull the conclusions out of my backside and not have to work. Oh wait, I'm retired and don't drink never mind
COWPIES! There are too many variables to make this conclusion unless your cherry picking the stats and fudging the numbers.
" a new study by the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center found."
Thats where they lost me. Might as well be "impartial" study from Everytown. How much $$$ did the taxpayer hand out for this "study" that's main goal was to keep the researcher from having to get a real job?
I'm exposed to the sound of gun fire every week, sometime multiple days, but always on Sunday, generally after church. Maybe the gubment will give me $$ to do a "study" Sunday Shooting (must be some difference than Sat. night liquored up shooting), where I can pull the conclusions out of my backside and not have to work. Oh wait, I'm retired and don't drink never mind
bc22wm
Professional
And I don't give a flying rats tail, if they were abandoned, abused, molested, didn't get enough hugs, (sad though it may be) drink, high, eat too many Twinkies, hearing voices, multiple personalities, wrong sex for their body or any other B.S. excuse.
Arthur Shelby
Operator
What you meant to say is "grow old."
Go quietly soft. The aromatase in my weak body will convert androgens into estrogen.
Maybe I'll vote for gun control measures that only affect honest people.
Cry in public because criminals are being sent back to South America.
That sort of thing.
Lab4Us
Master Class
That last line…”Cry in public because criminals are being sent back to South America”…
I probably shouldn’t be, but I am amazed on how many on the Left want to sacrifice United States citizens to the vicious gangs of foreign countries in the US illegally.
If there is ONE thing I thought the Democrats/Liberals might have had a clue about and would be willing to help the rest of the country with, it would be to get the foreign viscous criminal gang members, in our Country illegally, out of it ASAP.
That has zero to do with politics and EVERYTHING to do with US citizens being able to live their lives without constant fear of extortion and death from illegal immigrant criminal gangs. US citizens already have enough of that to worry about from legal resident gangs that the blue cities will do nothing about…
Arthur Shelby
Operator
If I could tell American voters just one thing, it would be "Politicians don't love you."
They're fond of saying that covid-19/taxes/dementors "disproportionately affects _____ communities" but try to pretend crime doesn't exist or is somehow "ok" and the real fix is to have fewer LEOs.
If you vote, suffer, and die; they will only care that you voted.
1bravo9
Operator
Rutgers should be ashamed to have such BS attached to their university.
Just a few things to point out.
First and foremost there is an old statistical/philosophical principle "correlation does not equal causation"
What it means is just because two facts coexist doesn't mean that one causes the other.
An example:
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.
This is an exaggerated example for effect but a very good example regardless.
Just because these two facts exist together doesn't mean one causes the other.
Second, the "researchers" (and that's using the term very generously) who have an agenda take a statistic and exaggerate its importance.
For example, the author states that 92% of certain gun owners haven't used their weapons in self-defense therefore the need for a gun for home defense is exaggerated.
Would they say the same about automobiles?
In 2022 there were approximately 285M automobiles registered in the US.
And there are approximately 6M accidents a year.
6M / 285M = 0.02 or roughly 2%
Does that mean that the need for seatbelts is grossly exaggerated.
Of course not, only an idiot would suggest such........
Say hello to the author of this article.
Just a few things to point out.
First and foremost there is an old statistical/philosophical principle "correlation does not equal causation"
What it means is just because two facts coexist doesn't mean that one causes the other.
An example:
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.
This is an exaggerated example for effect but a very good example regardless.
Just because these two facts exist together doesn't mean one causes the other.
Second, the "researchers" (and that's using the term very generously) who have an agenda take a statistic and exaggerate its importance.
For example, the author states that 92% of certain gun owners haven't used their weapons in self-defense therefore the need for a gun for home defense is exaggerated.
Would they say the same about automobiles?
In 2022 there were approximately 285M automobiles registered in the US.
And there are approximately 6M accidents a year.
6M / 285M = 0.02 or roughly 2%
Does that mean that the need for seatbelts is grossly exaggerated.
Of course not, only an idiot would suggest such........
Say hello to the author of this article.
Keystone19250
SAINT
My reply to the authors post is who in their right mind believes anything coming out of a Rutgers Health Study
Or anything coming out of Rutgers at all.
Enough said.
Or anything coming out of Rutgers at all.
Enough said.
Arthur Shelby
Operator
The boy scout handbook once advised of the link between eating and drowning but, sadly, this has been debunked...;P
Should You Eat Right Before Swimming? | Red Cross
Find out if eating right before swimming has health risks or increases the risk of drowning from the Red Cross Scientific Advisory Council.
1bravo9
Operator
The boy scout handbook once advised of the link between eating and drowning but, sadly, this has been debunked...;P
Should You Eat Right Before Swimming? | Red Cross
Find out if eating right before swimming has health risks or increases the risk of drowning from the Red Cross Scientific Advisory Council.www.redcross.org
That's not what its saying.
The example, which is just that an example, is not referencing a person who eats ice cream and then immediately swimming.
you are over analyzing.
Its an association of the two.