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

#402
#402
luthervol said:
From the article
not a single study to date has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership
Click to expand...

do not confuse "gun in the home" with female gun ownership.

my point in all my critiques of the studies is they are not asking the research question about women owning guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#403
#403
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lol you interfere as much as you like. Plus you have your own play thing going on. And please stop ruining my online image 😥
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 82_VOL_83 and McDad
#405
#405
volinbham said:
do not confuse "gun in the home" with female gun ownership.

my point in all my critiques of the studies is they are not asking the research question about women owning guns.
Click to expand...
All of the studies leveraged were poorly correlated to the invoking articles premise and in the end several conclusions were just inserted that weren’t even asserted by the invoked study. It is journalistic trash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#408
#408
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well there certainly is plenty of gaseous matter, so you may have a point.
I think your second sentence fairly well sums up the 2a debate.
 
#409
#409
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol you interfere as much as you like. Plus you have your own play thing going on. And please stop ruining my online image 😥
Click to expand...
I would guess it is plain as day what my intentions are by participating here. I am not even harshly political anymore like when I first joined. I am certainly not the "conservative" i was then.
And that's a good thing, imo. But I stick around in this PF forum more than any other area on VN.
 
#411
#411
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...
Finding when someone shoots someone else is easy. Figuring out who doesn't get robbed, raped, or murdered because the assailant knows they have a gun is much harder. A woman's useless ex will think twice about heading over to her place and showing her a thing or two if he knows he could get a bullet in the guts for his troubles. I would say that's certainly a better deterrent than restraining and no contact orders, which seem to have little to no effect on irrational people (imagine that). I think it should be obvious that unjustified homicides far outweigh justified homicides, most of us don't go looking for trouble and few people actually want to shoot someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, 82_VOL_83, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#412
#412
luthervol said:
Well there certainly is plenty of gaseous matter, so you may have a point.
I think your second sentence fairly well sums up the 2a debate.
Click to expand...
gaseous matter??? I don't follow how that related to my post. Help a husky out?
 
#414
#414
McDad said:
@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.
Click to expand...
But I loved Evil's point that the right to exist is more fundamental than the right of self defense.
I got something out of the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#415
#415
McDad said:
I would guess it is plain as day what my intentions are by participating here. I am not even harshly political anymore like when I first joined. I am certainly not the "conservative" i was then.
And that's a good thing, imo. But I stick around in this PF forum more than any other area on VN.
Click to expand...
This place had actually been awesome at forcing self examination of my own beliefs and resulted in refining and actually changing a few of them. This place has been the biggest driver in pushing me more towards a libertarian point of view.

And what we used to call a “conservative” no longer exists best as I can tell.

Now I’m off to rid the make believe world of the Locust swarm! (Gears5)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and McDad
#418
#418
luthervol said:
But I loved Evil's point that the right to exist is more fundamental than the right of self defense.
I got something out of the argument.
Click to expand...
Could be the intention you pursue is misdirected then. Maybe it isn't your direct audience you're attempting to sway with effective arguments. Maybe it is the tangential audience. If you got something out of their exchanges, then surely others get something out of yours.
 
#422
#422
NorthDallas40 said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is not hard.

The right to self-defense is not a fundamental right because it's justification/explanation rests on the right to bodily integrity/the right to go on living. You have the right to act in self defense because you are preserving your right to go on living/preserve your bodily integrity.

Guns are a means to enhance/make more effective your right to self-defense.

However, guns actually take more lives than they defend (loads of data showing this).

Accordingly, having guns, which in theory should make the derivative right of self-defense more effective, are actually more likely to be used to infringe the more fundamental right to bodily integrity/to go on living.

Because the more fundamental right is the right to go on living/maintain bodily integrity, and guns are more likely to infringe this right than preserve it, it makes rational sense to regulate guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#423
#423
I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps this has been asked, but should it matter what type of gun she shot him with? What if it was an evil AR-15?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 82_VOL_83
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top