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

[luthervol]

So you saw my homer meme right? That’s exactly what he does. It’s all of us not him.

Maybe you can help. What is the argument that has worked with the 2a crowd?

 

[NorthDallas40]

True. But it's a little like erosion. Slow, imperceptible, but ultimately effective in its relentless.
Do you know of an argument or approach that has been effective with the 2a crowd? Just curious.

If your correct in your assertions you should be able to make a convincing argument. Your lack of a compelling argument is an indictment of your lousy gun grabbing claims.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Maybe you can help. What is the argument that has worked with the 2a crowd?

It’s on you to prove you own argument to me. I’m not going to make it for you.

 

[evillawyer]

So... prove your competing rights assertion sister? Because you are at odds with the laws on your assertion.

Stop sniffing the glue. Where was I making a legal argument? I was making an argument that dealt with the nature of rights. The last time I checked, most of those in your camp believe in natural rights, which exist independent of law.

 

[luthervol]

It’s on you to prove you own argument to me. I’m not going to make it for you.

That's what I thought.

 

[CABVOL]

So you saw my homer meme right? That’s exactly what he does. It’s all of us not him.

Narcissist. It’s kinda funny that Trump is exactly the same; you know, the most despicable, loathsome person/president we’ve ever had according to him.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Stop sniffing the glue. Where was I making a legal argument? I was making an argument that dealt with the nature of rights. The last time I checked, most of those in your camp believe in natural rights, which exist independent of law.

You’re making a competing rights claim. It’s on you to sell that claim. This far you have not and I used the fact that the law of the land clearly disagrees with you. I just offered it for supporting my statement. Your supporting information that competing rights is valid is.... ?

You’ve got nothing sister. You’re dismissed again.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's what I thought.

Apparently not since you asked me if I could make it for you.

 

[luthervol]

If your correct in your assertions you should be able to make a convincing argument. Your lack of a compelling argument is an indictment of your lousy gun grabbing claims.

lol........I've made a convincing argument. The 2a crowd has their reputation for a reason.

 

[luthervol]

Apparently not since you asked me if I could make it for you.

I just wanted your public admission that you could not. Thanks.

 

[NorthDallas40]

lol........I've made a convincing argument. The 2a crowd has their reputation for a reason.

Well we’re sure you think you have.

 

[evillawyer]

You’re making a competing rights claim. It’s on you to sell that claim. This far you have not and I used the fact that the law of the land clearly disagrees with you. I just offered it for supporting my statement. Your supporting information that competing rights is valid is.... ?

You’ve got nothing sister. You’re dismissed again.

God I feel like I'm teaching freshman philosophy again

 

[NorthDallas40]

I just wanted your public admission that you could not. Thanks.

I admit you have not made a compelling argument yes I do

 

[NorthDallas40]

God I feel like I'm teaching freshman philosophy again

Did you suck at it just as bad then? Because you’re flailing badly now. You haven’t done anything but offer your own irrational opinion. Again. It’s all you ever do on this topic. Your premise is competing rights. You’ve failed in showing competing rights apply. You’re trying to dodge competing rights by inferring a master one right to rule them all right to life. You have not sold it. Womp womp.

 

[lukeneyland]

So you believe the right to self defense comes from govt. That's completely idiotic and pathetic

It’s like the idiots that say driving is a privilege, as if I should be thankful that the government lets me drive.

 

[McDad]

True. But it's a little like erosion. Slow, imperceptible, but ultimately effective in its relentless.
Do you know of an argument or approach that has been effective with the 2a crowd? Just curious.

Perhaps accretion is superior to erosion.

I wouldn't know an effective argument because I am not looking for, or receptive to effective arguments. When I am having a legitimate discussion with another poster(s), and it is a subject I am interested in, I'd rather gather an understanding of how that person came to their POV instead of hearing an effective argument. I also like to see how their perspective stands up to scrutiny, exceptions, consistency, and such. So much of the discussion is talking past each other, point scoring, and poorly comprehended posts between the participants. Your gun "arguments" are excellent examples of the point I am trying to communicate.

 

[Septic]

BOON!

In the other thread, it's spelled Boone.

 

[McDad]

@luthervol

Here's a prime example of attempting to make effective arguments. The devolution to name calling, and claiming a moral high road doesn't make the other participant want to engage to find points of agreement. And the crux of he issue is one thinks their source is reputable and the other considers it disreputable.

I've stopped trying to reason with nortdallasknuckledragger. He the embodiment of that George Bernard Shaw quip: Never wrestle with a pig. You both just get dirty, except the pig enjoys it.

 

[McDad]

This appears to me to cast suspicion on your claim to make "effective arguments".

lol........I've made a convincing argument. The 2a crowd has their reputation for a reason.

 

[NorthDallas40]

My right to go on living/be free from bodily harm is infringed when I am attacked/threatened with an attack. That infringement is what triggers/explains the right to defend myself. It's written into the word itself ("defense" implies a reaction to something else). The reason you are justified to react in a particular way (to defend yourself) is because there is some right that is being violated or threatened (your bodily integrity, your right to go on living, be free from harm--whatever you want to call it). If that's the fundamental right, we should be asking what's the best way we have to preserve that right for as many people as possible. Widespread availability of guns has demonstrated that that is NOT the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people will have that basic right protected. Much to the contrary, widespread availability of guns--justified by arguing they're the ideal tool of self-defense--has the opposite effect as guns are used much more often to take life than to preserve life.

Here let’s revisit your claim sister. You opened with a bunch of word salad trying to setup that some arbitrary attack that doesn’t even involve you infringes on your right to life. That’s pure hooey. You’ve taken the individual right to life and extended it to a collective which had no such innate individual right and used that to imply that invalid collective right trumps and individual right to self defense. So can you sell it this time sister?

 

[NorthDallas40]

@luthervol

Here's a prime example of attempting to make effective arguments. The devolution to name calling, and claiming a moral high road doesn't make the other participant want to engage to find points of agreement. And the crux of he issue is one thinks their source is reputable and the other considers it disreputable.

Butt out of my fun. She’s not getting off that easy and I’ve already called her out again on her irrational reasoning.

 

[volinbham]

Let me know when you have affirmative, non-spitballing, non-armchair empirical evidence for your empirical claim that gun ownership/access makes women safer.

The Idea That Women Use Guns For Self-Defense Against Men Is A Big Lie | HuffPost

The articles you are posting are rehashing the same studies.

As noted in the Atlantic piece, 7% of women in a home with a fire arm indeed stopped a threat of violence through the utilization of a fire arm.

Also as noted, the frequency of self defense use in preventing a crime is not data that is collected though we see evidence of it happening via the news media.

That said I will revise my original comment to state that a woman who owns a gun (not her husband or lover's gun) and knows how to use it has a means to level the playing field against stronger aggressors.

 

[volinbham]

You are proving that a gun in the home is detrimental? Correct?

not with that study - all it says is that if a woman is killed with a gun by her partner, said partner frequently kills himself too.

 

[volinbham]

The study.
Volinbham continues to post pieces from the article proving a gun does not make a woman safer.
Maybe I'm juggling to many things at once.

they do not prove that - in none of those was what you stated the research question under investigation.

 

[McDad]

Butt out of my fun. She’s not getting off that easy and I’ve already called her out again on her irrational reasoning.

I am not interfering. Promise.

You're intention as far as I can tell, is to have fun, be bombastic, and fight on beliefs you hold... and do it in a way which is not available to you in your professional life. When we texted, you were incredibly helpful and considerate. You even let me know in an early message how you are here is not how you are irl. Carl Pickens is the same. The big personalities are an important part of a healthy message board.