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

I know I've seen stuff and even cited it here before but not for some time. I found this:

Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S.
CDC estimates from 500k to 3 million.

Even at the low side that shatters EL's position that guns do more harm than good.

Of course he wont ever acknowledge any counter numbers, instead relying on court room inspired dodges and double talk to avoid the topic.
 
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."
If you don’t do something stupid which requires somebody else to exercise their right of self defense you have nothing to worry about. And I literally laughed out loud on reading your first sentence. Just lay back and take it huh sister?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
CDC estimates from 500k to 3 million.

Even at the low side that shatters EL's position that guns do more harm than good.

Of course he wont ever acknowledge any counter numbers, instead relying on court room inspired dodges and double talk to avoid the topic.

Take the low number and cut that in half...then do it again...then do it again and you're still over 100K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
I wonder if seeing another black man being gunned down while "he wasn't doin' nuffin" will result in the BLM movement marching for justice against the cold blooded killer that was barricaded in her house?

Surely if black lives matter, this gentlemen's life matters too.

Right?

</blue>
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
Do you think safety in America would get worse or better if l snapped my fingers and every privately-held gun disappeared?

Dumb.

Do you think safety in America would get worse or better if tomorrow there were no more high fructose corn syrup, or trans fats, or sugar? What about cars? Planes? Trains? How about cigarettes? Alcohol? Prescription narcotics?

There is a lot of things that if they didn’t exist would make us more safe. The simple truth is most of these things, guns included, have practical and needed uses. In the case of guns, it’s a constitutionally guaranteed right, to boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham and AM64
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.
SCOTUS clearly disagrees with your take on the issue. Read Heller some time.
 
CDC estimates from 500k to 3 million.

Even at the low side that shatters EL's position that guns do more harm than good.

Of course he wont ever acknowledge any counter numbers, instead relying on court room inspired dodges and double talk to avoid the topic.
Did they source or cite that data as coming from another entity?

That may be the stuff i erroneously referenced as from the fbi.
 
lmao.

I believe i have a right to kick a cracker in the shins if he asks me a leading question about what rights I believe we have.
Oh. My own oof. Should have known better Mcdaddio

Oh and “she” that broke back logic ain’t got no Y chromosome attached to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
If you don’t do something stupid which requires somebody else to exercise their right of self defense you have nothing to worry about. And I literally laughed out loud on reading your first sentence. Just lay back and take it huh sister?

Saying the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right just means a more basic right explains it. In the same way plates exist even though plates are explained by something more fundamental (molecules, atoms, etc).
 
Saying the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right just means a more basic right explains it. In the same way plates exist even though plates are explained by something more fundamental (molecules, atoms, etc).

Have you been hanging out with Luther?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Oh. My own oof. Should have known better Mcdaddio

Oh and “she” that broke back logic ain’t got no Y chromosome attached to it.

LOL. I'll be happy to answer. But for every question you ask, I get one swift kick to
eL's shins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Saying the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right just means a more basic right explains it. In the same way plates exist even though plates are explained by something more fundamental (molecules, atoms, etc).
But it is a fundamental right. It isn’t covered under the “right” to go on living as you stated. You don’t get to impose on another and violate their rights to where they must defend themselves while claiming your right to go on living trumps that imposition. That’s just stupid.

You’re tripping over the right to self defense being fundamental merely because you take exception to the chosen method of firearm. You can’t reconcile that in your thought process so you stupidly limit the right to self defense.

You don’t think the right to self defense by firearm is fundamental because you are irrationally triggered by firearms.
 
Last edited:
You start astray and get worse from there. I don't know if you can ever find your way back. I'm rooting for ya, though.

Lawyer think is weird. It's all focused around a library of laws and nitpicking things to death with respect to the verbiage. Not much of it actually makes sense outside the courtroom. If it were rational debate about matters, society would need far fewer lawyers.
 
Lawyer think is weird. It's all focused around a library of laws and nitpicking things to death with respect to the verbiage. Not much of it actually makes sense outside the courtroom. If it were rational debate about matters, society would need far fewer lawyers.
It is a highly self-perpetuating occupation. I would call it a profession but snake oil salesmen were "professionals" also.
 

VN Store



Back
Top