Intruder shot, killed after kicking in door, charging occupant with a knife

[evillawyer]

This must have you so conflicted. A fellow female like yourself uses a firearm to defend herself. An evil firearm you think only LEOs should have access to

I believe the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right. You have the right to self-defense BECAUSE you have the right to go on living. The wide availability of guns in society leads to widespread violation of the right to go on living. My argument has always rested on what's the better societal good. Overall, fewer guns in society makes us safer overall than widespread availability. Do you really debate something like that? For every justified homicide, like this case, there's probably 10 that are not "justified."

 

[InVOLuntary]

lol.......of course she was in her house. Look at the title of the thread. The whole thing was about a guy kicking in her door and her defending herself.

I was glad that she had a gun and was able to do so.
(IN HER HOUSE - which is where her door that was kicked in happened to be)

LOL! Why use the term "In her house to begin with? Your implication was that as long as she was "in her house" you were good with her having a firearm to defend herself. I was curious as to whether you thought self defense extended beyond "her house".


You answered that as long as she had a permit, she was ok to use a firearm to protect herself. I followed up ad asked the question about whether if she was in a state that allowed permitless carry would she be ok in your eyes to use a firearm to defend herself. You replied yes but you were against permitless carry. I responded by asking if you thought having to show a government issued photo ID should be required to carry a concealed firearm and you never responded.

 

[McDad]

Getting a message across to the 2a crowd? That's like searching for the Holy Grail.
But I think my messaging has been as impactful as anyone else's. Maybe more so.
x rounds per y seconds seems to have had some staying power.
Rational and reasonable.........continuums..........horrendously despicable
I think I've penetrated the sub-conscious.

You've penetrated. Have you had the impact you ultimately want?

 

[Wireless1]

seems like 1 would get the job done.

We dont own 20 hammers. Just 1 when we need to do some pounding.

Or 20 broom & dust pans. We dont own 20 of them either, just 2, 1 for sweeping the kitchen and the other I use for flying around at night

I went and counted, I don't have 20 but I do have 18 plus my wife has 3. If you did body work on a car, and other metal work you'd have more than one too.....same for guns, there is truly not a single solution for all situations..... think you want to hunt squirrels and moose with the same gun?

 

[McDad]

I believe the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right. You have the right to self-defense BECAUSE you have the right to go on living. The wide availability of guns in society leads to widespread violation of the right to go on living. My argument has always rested on what's the better societal good. Overall, fewer guns in society makes us safer overall than widespread availability. Do you really debate something like that? For every justified homicide, like this case, there's probably 10 that are not "justified."

Oof. That's a big load.

 

[evillawyer]

Oof. That's a big load.

Do you believe the right to self-defense is more fundamental than the right to go on living? You have the right to defend a life because the continuation of that life has value. That's what explains the right to self-defense. If that's the case, it makes no sense to favor a derivative right (the right to self-defense) if providing optimal tools for the defense of that right (guns) leads to a much larger and more widespread violation of the more fundamental right to go on living.

 

[LouderVol]

I believe the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right. You have the right to self-defense BECAUSE you have the right to go on living. The wide availability of guns in society leads to widespread violation of the right to go on living. My argument has always rested on what's the better societal good. Overall, fewer guns in society makes us safer overall than widespread availability. Do you really debate something like that? For every justified homicide, like this case, there's probably 10 that are not "justified."

Regarding your ratio argument:

you are limiting potential defensive gun use to those that end in death or at least a shooting. I would think most people would qualify a succesful defensive gun use regardless of a shot being fired or killing the aggressor if the potential victim avoids harm or additional harm.

Considering there around 13k gun homicides I am sure we can find 1,300 examples of defensive gun uses. I dont know if I have seen an actual study on defensive gun use.

 

[hog88]

I believe the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right. You have the right to self-defense BECAUSE you have the right to go on living. The wide availability of guns in society leads to widespread violation of the right to go on living. My argument has always rested on what's the better societal good. Overall, fewer guns in society makes us safer overall than widespread availability. Do you really debate something like that? For every justified homicide, like this case, there's probably 10 that are not "justified."

You are wrong. The data proves it.

Now go and pull some stats from Europe or Australia trying to prove your point. But we are NOT Europe or Australia. In this country the reality is guns used to be more readily available, easily accessible and a higher percentage of households owned guns than they do today. Yet we have more indiscriminate violence.

 

[evillawyer]

You are wrong. The data proves it.

Now go and pull some stats from Europe or Australia trying to prove your point. But we are NOT Europe or Australia. In this country the reality is guns used to be more readily available, easily accessible and a higher percentage of households owned guns than they do today. Yet we have more indiscriminate violence.

Criminal homicide vs. Justifiable Homicide is 35-1.

Gun Use in Crimes Outpaces Justifiable Homicides, 35 to 1 | The Crime Report

 

[hog88]

Criminal homicide vs. Justifiable Homicide is 35-1.

Gun Use in Crimes Outpaces Justifiable Homicides, 35 to 1 | The Crime Report

How do you think your link disproves my post?

 

[McDad]

For every justified homicide, like this case, there's probably 10 that are not "justified."

This is the big load I oof'd.

I don't really care about the rest of your post.

 

[evillawyer]

This is the big load I oof'd.

I don't really care about the rest of your post.

So you admit the right to self-defense is not fundamental (in the sense that some more basic right explains it)?

 

[evillawyer]

This is the big load I oof'd.

I don't really care about the rest of your post.

It's actually 35-1

 

[evillawyer]

How do you think your link disproves my post?

Do you think safety in America would get worse or better if l snapped my fingers and every privately-held gun disappeared?

 

[luthervol]

Then open carry without a permit should be wholly legal since it is a deterrent and deterrents are a defense. Look at that. Common ground.

Just because something serves as a defense in no way means it is appropriate.
Everyone having a mini nuke is a defense.
Leprosy serves as a defense against sexual assault.

 

[McDad]

So you admit the right to self-defense is not fundamental (in the sense that some more basic right explains it)?

Hey look at the lawyer trying to use their jedi mind tricks on a discussion board.

We aren't in a deposition. We aren't in the courtroom. And I don't have counsel advising me to not answer. But we both know you don't get to answer for me if I offer no answer at all.

Double oof.

 

[hog88]

Do you think safety in America would get worse or better if l snapped my fingers and every privately-held gun disappeared?

For a short time but not for long. And it would be minuscule at best since the chance of being murdered by a firearm is extremely low.

Now back to my question, how do you think your link disproves my post?

 

[LouderVol]

So you admit the right to self-defense is not fundamental (in the sense that some more basic right explains it)?

Life could be boiled down to liberty.

The only reason we value life is due to the liberties it provides over the alternative.

In my world it doesnt make sense to deny one liberty over another.

Especially when you used an incredibly weighted metric to qualify harm vs good to establish that one of the liberties is less.

In fact hands and fists kill more people than guns. So even in your own argument of life over liberty, life itself is more dangerous to life than the liberty you wish to deny.

 

[luthervol]

So with a permit we're better off making a point of being armed? Actually for the nuke analogy to make sense really, REALLY armed would be better?

You are almost there. Just because something serves as a deterrent (defense), doesn't make it appropriate.

 

[evillawyer]

Hey look at the lawyer trying to use their jedi mind tricks on a discussion board.

We aren't in a deposition. We aren't in the courtroom. And I don't have counsel advising me to not answer. But we both know you don't get to answer for me if I offer no answer at all.

Double oof.

I think once you acknowledge that the right to self-defense is a derivative right and if you have tools that are supposed to enhance that derivative right but instead have the effect of infringing the underlying right that explains the derivative right, you have a pretty straightforward path to gun control.

 

[McDad]

It's actually 35-1

Congratulations???

You're still being oof'd by me.

 

[McDad]

For a short time but not for long. And it would be minuscule at best since the chance of being murdered by a firearm is extremely low.

Now back to my question, how do you think your link disproves my post?

I would like to answer if el doesn't. or, if you want someone else joining.

 

[hog88]

I would like to answer if el doesn't. or, if you want someone else joining.

Please, go ahead.

 

[luthervol]

LOL! Why use the term "In her house to begin with? Your implication was that as long as she was "in her house" you were good with her having a firearm to defend herself. I was curious as to whether you thought self defense extended beyond "her house".


You answered that as long as she had a permit, she was ok to use a firearm to protect herself. I followed up ad asked the question about whether if she was in a state that allowed permitless carry would she be ok in your eyes to use a firearm to defend herself. You replied yes but you were against permitless carry. I responded by asking if you thought having to show a government issued photo ID should be required to carry a concealed firearm and you never responded.

Got it.
People always have the right to defend themselves. That doesn't mean they have the right to carry any weapon, any time under the guise of self-defense.
I think part of the process of purchasing a gun and/or getting a permit to carry should be providing an ID.

 

[McDad]

I think ....

This is where you have messed up. You should ask others who are much wiser than you to do your thinking for you.