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

#430
#430
evillawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well that’s your assertion but I don’t accept your rationale. If you are aggressing another you don’t get to claim the right to life as trumping your act of aggression. And if you are defending your life who is it to arbitrarily limit your opportunity to do so on an even footing.

And yes the right of self defense is nothing more than an extension of self preservation. It is fundamental and a part of the basic right to life which you are desperately trying to separate it from so you can minimize it. Modern libertarianism makes the view I put forth which resonates more with me than your irrational gun fear. Denied. Your whole argument lacks any validation of your assertion.
 
Last edited:
#431
#431
luthervol said:
ND, McDad, and I all liked the same post. Time to shut it down.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong about this but i generally feel you can get a read on what someone wants from there time here by watching if they do, or do not, participate in the OT thread.
 
#433
#433
McDad said:
gaseous matter??? I don't follow how that related to my post. Help a husky out?
Click to expand...
accretion is the accumulation of particles into a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter, in an accretion disk. Most astronomical objects, such as galaxies, stars, and planets, are formed by accretion processes
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#435
#435
luthervol said:
accretion is the accumulation of particles into a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter, in an accretion disk. Most astronomical objects, such as galaxies, stars, and planets, are formed by accretion processes
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, I was using it as an antonym to erosion.

“Accretion” is the term which applies to the gradual increase or acquisition of land by the action of natural forces washing up sand, soil or silt from the water course or seashore. The opposite of accretion, “erosion” is the gradual washing away of land along the shoreline.
 
#436
#436
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm good either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#437
#437
McDad said:
Not surprisingly, I was using it as an antonym to erosion.

“Accretion” is the term which applies to the gradual increase or acquisition of land by the action of natural forces washing up sand, soil or silt from the water course or seashore. The opposite of accretion, “erosion” is the gradual washing away of land along the shoreline.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.
Accretion or erosion. I guess you can't have one without the other.......just moving matter.
 
#438
#438
I'm just going to say I'm very happy these women were able to avail themselves of firearms against otherwise superior physical threats.

Woman shoots man in the head to defend herself according to Colorado Springs Police

Ocala woman holds would-be burglar at gunpoint until deputies arrive

Woman holding baby who shot attacker acted in self-defense, South Carolina deputies say

3 suspects held off in home invasion when mother unlocks gun in Walled Lake

Suspect armed with hammer shot by homeowner in Lucerne Valley

Woman shoots man breaking into her Lexington apartment

LPD: Ex-boyfriend fatally shot, “kicked the front door open” to woman’s central Lubbock apartment

Woman armed with a gun, barricades door; says a man tried to break in using a two-by-two

Do note how these are all quite recent and there's not a chance in hell this is a remotely comprehensive list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, Wireless1, InVOLuntary and 3 others
#439
#439
hndog609 said:
I'm just going to say I'm very happy these women were able to avail themselves of firearms against otherwise superior physical threats.

Woman shoots man in the head to defend herself according to Colorado Springs Police

Ocala woman holds would-be burglar at gunpoint until deputies arrive

Woman holding baby who shot attacker acted in self-defense, South Carolina deputies say

3 suspects held off in home invasion when mother unlocks gun in Walled Lake

Suspect armed with hammer shot by homeowner in Lucerne Valley

Woman shoots man breaking into her Lexington apartment

LPD: Ex-boyfriend fatally shot, “kicked the front door open” to woman’s central Lubbock apartment

Woman armed with a gun, barricades door; says a man tried to break in using a two-by-two

Do note how these are all quite recent and there's not a chance in hell this is a remotely comprehensive list.
Click to expand...
Would hate for @evillawyer to miss this list you put the effort into
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#440
#440
hndog609 said:
I'm just going to say I'm very happy these women were able to avail themselves of firearms against otherwise superior physical threats.

Woman shoots man in the head to defend herself according to Colorado Springs Police

Ocala woman holds would-be burglar at gunpoint until deputies arrive

Woman holding baby who shot attacker acted in self-defense, South Carolina deputies say

3 suspects held off in home invasion when mother unlocks gun in Walled Lake

Suspect armed with hammer shot by homeowner in Lucerne Valley

Woman shoots man breaking into her Lexington apartment

LPD: Ex-boyfriend fatally shot, “kicked the front door open” to woman’s central Lubbock apartment

Woman armed with a gun, barricades door; says a man tried to break in using a two-by-two

Do note how these are all quite recent and there's not a chance in hell this is a remotely comprehensive list.
Click to expand...
From the article discussed earlier:

"Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant."
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#441
#441
McDad said:
From the article discussed earlier:

"Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant."
Click to expand...

Apparently there's no shortage of examples of ladies I'd think would consider their having a firearm quite damned significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, NorthDallas40, volinbham and 1 other person
#444
#444
luthervol said:
lol........I've made a convincing argument. The 2a crowd has their reputation for a reason.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't matter. The 2nd Amendment gives the right; and no matter what you do with numbers, it doesn't negate the right. If you want to try and replace the 2nd Amendment with a new one, go for it with your numbers game - the other side can play it all day, too. The losing part of the argument is that of restrictions applied to a right. If you can restrict one right by some means that the courts agree is acceptable, then nothing means anything anymore, and everything is up for grabs. I can't imagine anybody wants that. Pandora.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and InVOLuntary
#446
#446
Weezer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your sanity is all the better for not having read it all.
 
#447
#447
Weezer said:
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?
Click to expand...

That should just bring up a different topic - like why in the world would anyone use a rifle indoors for self protection rather than the right to do so. Also since she killed the guy, the scary and evil aspects shouldn't apply - dead is dead - his psyche won't be scarred.
 
#448
#448
McDad said:
From the article discussed earlier:

"Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant."
Click to expand...

Let's also not forget Lorena Bobbitt nipped her problem in the bud with a knife. He lived, but women can be quite deadly with implements not spelled "gun".
 
#449
#449
evillawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly quantify how much harm is prevented? Say a porcupine is killed when attacked by dogs 70% of the time. On the face of it that would seem like its quills are a terrible defense. But how do you count how many times a dog saw the quills and thought better of attacking the porcupine? What if 90/100 times the dogs don't attack, and 10/100 they do. Now the quills seem a bit more potent. Likewise you may have an ex that would like nothing better than to cave your face in, but he also knows you carry and would plug him before he could make it to the front door. So he finds other ways to be an *******. Where would that statistic show up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, Wireless1, AM64 and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top