Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:53 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:

Yet another non-answer. You lose by default.

Lets see if sumwun else can make sens uv it.

Let the record show you prefer to play juvenile games rather than just state your case.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:12 am

Anybody? Beuhler? Beuhler?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:30 am

"The winners laughed and the losers cried 'DEAL!'."
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:17 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:

Yet another non-answer. You lose by default.

Wait just a moment there. I seem to recall someone saying that it isn`t about winning or losing....

Is THAT the part that got your panties in a twist? Never mind that JO is trying to poke holes in my position using faulty arguments, and all you can be bothered to quibble about is a nit-picking detail like that? Seriously?


Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:46 pm

TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

That is factually incorrect. Seems to me, you merely disagree with my position. You certainly have not refuted it.

Example: One of my claims is that guns can be -- and have been -- successfully used to stop the threat of harm to the victim. This thread is full of actual evidence that supports my claim. No one has yet refuted that evidence nor my claim.

Another (major) part of my position is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is a limitation on the government from infringing the individual right to keep and bear arms. Various state constitutions also say the same thing. My position is supported by historical documents and by two recent Supreme Court rulings. Contrary to your claim, my position on this has no holes and has not been refuted.

Another (small) part of my position is that correlation does not mean causation. Mere knowledge of a correlation cannot say anything about any causal relation. I have demonstrated this clearly on this forum. This is a well established scientific principle that is not in dispute in the scientific community.

I could go on.


TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

That's a bold claim, and given the kind of forum this is, I challenge you to back it up. Please choose one of your favorite examples and explain where the hole is. I predict we will find that either I do not actually hold that position, or that the holes you think you see are not really there. If you can actually show a legitimate hole in my position, and not merely a personal disagreement, then I welcome the opportunity to revise my position accordingly.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:44 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
... One thing this incident underscores is that legally-armed citizens, including those who open carry, are not the trigger-happy loons as they are often portrayed in editorial cartoons or by the gun prohibition lobby. ...

Red added by me.

Quite a claim. Hard to find such uniformity in the non-gun carrying humanz.

Your lack of reading comprehension has again failed you. Please read that again. It is not a claim about what all "non-gun carrying humanz" think, it is a claim only about certain cartoonists and certain political lobby groups.

Your lack uv reading comprehension haz agen failed you. Pleez reread the red hilited sentens agen and my sarcastic comment on it. Then, to proov you actually get it, explain how it relates to the IQ score bell curve.

There is too much ambiguity in your comment to assume what you meant. There are too many possible interpretations. Please be more explicit.


You failed. Also, everybody who read that and didnt jump at the chans to ansr the question. An F for the whole class!

The claim in red iz mainly that there are no trigger happy loonz amongst legally-armed sitizenz. My comment sarcasticly hints that the claim requirez that theze so called legally-armed citizens must be sum sort uv elite class uv humanz selected for unusually hi intellijens, mental stability and great wizdom who hav been thuroly trained and tested to know wut to do and perform identically in such situationz. No sir! you will find no trigger happy loonz amongst them! Zero! Nada! Zippo!

Us non-gun carrying humanz on the other hand are a wildly diverse bunch uv danjerously unpredictable beingz. You will find more uniformity amongst racoonz! Clearly, we reprezent the entire bell curve wich from an objectiv view showz that anything that coud be considered smart beginz well to the rite uv the peak. Even the best uv us can hav a bad day and go on a rampaje, so good thing we dont hav gunz!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:49 pm

Dave Workman wrote:... One thing this incident underscores is that legally-armed citizens, including those who open carry, are not the trigger-happy loons as they are often portrayed in editorial cartoons or by the gun prohibition lobby. ...

JO 753 wrote:The claim in red iz mainly that there are no trigger happy loonz amongst legally-armed sitizenz.

Wrong. That is not what Dave Workman said, nor is it what he intended to mean. Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension.

Dave Workman is saying that this example -- Brandon Walker -- and other such examples disprove the often published stereotype of open carriers as trigger-happy loons. Dave Workman is not making an absolute or categorical claim about all legally-armed citizens.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:14 pm

Granted, I'm interpretting hiz statement strictly, but it iz the lojikl meaning uv wut he rote. It wuz foolish uv you to hold it up az evidens in support uv your pozition.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:37 pm

JO 753 wrote:Granted, I'm interpretting hiz statement strictly, but it iz the lojikl meaning uv wut he rote.

Not so. If I say, "cats are fun pets", will you mistakenly assume I am making an absolute claim about ALL cats? I certainly hope not. Likewise, Dave Workman did not use the word "all" in his claim. You mistakenly assumed the word "all" in your misinterpretation of his claim.

Furthermore, it seems you are now claiming that such an assumption is "logical", thus again demonstrating a failure to properly use logic. If I say, "cats are fun pets", logic does not require that I meant ALL cats.

JO 753 wrote: It wuz foolish uv you to hold it up az evidens in support uv your pozition.

My position is that most legally-armed citizens are not trigger-happy loons. The example I posted is one part of the evidence for my position.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:40 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

That is factually incorrect. Seems to me, you merely disagree with my position. You certainly have not refuted it.

Example: One of my claims is that guns can be -- and have been -- successfully used to stop the threat of harm to the victim. This thread is full of actual evidence that supports my claim. No one has yet refuted that evidence nor my claim.

Another (major) part of my position is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is a limitation on the government from infringing the individual right to keep and bear arms. Various state constitutions also say the same thing. My position is supported by historical documents and by two recent Supreme Court rulings. Contrary to your claim, my position on this has no holes and has not been refuted.

Another (small) part of my position is that correlation does not mean causation. Mere knowledge of a correlation cannot say anything about any causal relation. I have demonstrated this clearly on this forum. This is a well established scientific principle that is not in dispute in the scientific community.

I could go on.


TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

That's a bold claim, and given the kind of forum this is, I challenge you to back it up. Please choose one of your favorite examples and explain where the hole is. I predict we will find that either I do not actually hold that position, or that the holes you think you see are not really there. If you can actually show a legitimate hole in my position, and not merely a personal disagreement, then I welcome the opportunity to revise my position accordingly.


Ah, but you have other positions too – such as vehicles should be banned if guns are, and the same for swimming pools. Neither of which were designed exclusively for the taking of life. Neither of which are unregulated, or nearly so as is the case with guns.

You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

You also take liberty with name calling when it suits you, and with distorting the expressed opinion of those who do not agree with you. Hater of freedoms indeed.

Enough?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:11 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:I could go on.

Ah, but you have other positions too –

Of course. Isn't that what I just said? Did I not also invite you to bring up my other positions?


TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

Please choose one of your favorite examples and explain where the hole is. I predict we will find that either I do not actually hold that position, or that the holes you think you see are not really there. If you can actually show a legitimate hole in my position, and not merely a personal disagreement, then I welcome the opportunity to revise my position accordingly.

such as vehicles should be banned if guns are, and the same for swimming pools. Neither of which were designed exclusively for the taking of life. Neither of which are unregulated, or nearly so as is the case with guns.

That is not a valid rebuttal to my position. There are three problems with your objection.

#1. Contrary to your implied claim, not all guns are designed exclusively for the taking of human life. Some are designed for hunting and some are designed for sport shooting and some are designed for lawful self defense.

We have had this conversation more than once, but I can do it as many times as you need until you get it.

I do not claim they are analogous in all ways. I only claim they are analogous in one sense only. Here's how the conversation goes:

Harry: People die from guns, so guns should be banned.

Robert: People die from cars and swimming pools, so according to your argument, those should be banned too.

Harry: No, cars and swimming pools have legitimate and lawful uses, and deaths from those things are not a valid reason for banning them.

Robert: Likewise, guns have legitimate and lawful uses, and according to your argument, deaths from guns are not a valid reason for banning them.

Harry the Hypocrite is exposed by Robert the Rationalist.

In that analogy, I am not arguing that guns are like cars (or swimming pools) in all ways. I am only arguing that guns are like cars (and swimming pools) in the sense that sometimes people die from them. That is a simple fact that no one refutes.

Correct me if I am wrong -- it seems you are trying to claim that guns have no legitimate and lawful purpose in the hands of civilians. The problem is obvious -- such a claim is factually incorrect.

#2. Another part of your objection is the implied claim that killing someone with a gun is never justified. That is a moral question, not a question of fact. The FBI for example, specifically defines the category of "justifiable homicide" in part as, "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."

Just because my moral position -- or the FBI's statutory position -- does not agree with your moral position does not mean mine has holes in it, it merely means we do not agree.

#3. Contrary to your claim, guns are highly regulated both at the federal level and the state level. More so in some places than others. Also, buying a car or swimming pool does not require a background check. The regulations and laws are different for cars and guns, but they are both highly regulated. Even if you could make the case that cars are more regulated than guns, that is not a flaw in my argument.

TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.

TJrandom wrote:You also take liberty with name calling when it suits you,

While that is sometimes true, that is not a hole in my position, that is a flaw in my behavior. My personal behavior does not have anything to do with the merits of my position, which should be obvious to anyone who knows what the ad hominem fallacy is. Again your objection to my position is refuted.

TJrandom wrote:and with distorting the expressed opinion of those who do not agree with you. Hater of freedoms indeed.

I try not to misrepresent anyone's position. I have occasionally made such mistakes, but I usually accept it when someone explains my misunderstanding. I am always open to being corrected if I misstate someone's comments. In any case, your objection is dismissed because my position is not refuted by any failure on my part to properly state someone else's position.

As for calling someone a hater of freedom, if you propose to impose more limits on my freedom, then it is not false to characterize your position as being against the freedom you don't want me to have.

TJrandom wrote:Enough?

Nope. Not even close. You have not shown any holes in my position. Keep trying.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:46 am

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Granted, I'm interpretting hiz statement strictly, but it iz the lojikl meaning uv wut he rote.

Not so. If I say, "cats are fun pets", will you mistakenly assume I am making an absolute claim about ALL cats?


A poor example, sins sumwun who knew nothing about cats coud get mangled pretty bad. But thats not your real problem.

I can see that you are battling on a variety uv subjects in addition to me & TJ here, so maybe you are spred too thin. I'm going to giv you a chans here. Look at both statements rite here:

One thing this incident underscores is that legally-armed citizens, including those who open carry, are not the trigger-happy loons as they are often portrayed in editorial cartoons or by the gun prohibition lobby.

cats are fun pets

wuz rong widdat?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:46 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Granted, I'm interpretting hiz statement strictly, but it iz the lojikl meaning uv wut he rote.

Not so. If I say, "cats are fun pets", will you mistakenly assume I am making an absolute claim about ALL cats?

A poor example,

Wrong. Apparently I need to explain this so that even a second grader can get it.

JO 753 wrote:I can see that you are battling on a variety uv subjects in addition to me & TJ here, so maybe you are spred too thin. I'm going to giv you a chans here. Look at both statements rite here:

One thing this incident underscores is that legally-armed citizens, including those who open carry, are not the trigger-happy loons as they are often portrayed in editorial cartoons or by the gun prohibition lobby.

cats are fun pets

wuz rong widdat?

Regarding the two claims of interest here, one about "cats" and one about "legally-armed citizens", the core grammatical structure is the same in both.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-verb-object

To demonstrate, I shall color-match the grammatically equivalent clauses (and remove extraneous clauses):

1. subject verb object

2. legally-armed citizens are not trigger-happy loons

3. cats are fun pets

It should be obvious #3 is not a claim about ALL cats. Likewise #2 is not a claim about ALL legally-armed citizens. To assume otherwise -- as you did -- is to put words in the mouth of the author. You have no authority to impose that assumption on the author, nor does logic compel such an assumption.

The only reason you can possibly have for making that assumption is so you can say his claim is false. Without that assumption, you can no longer use that argument.

Furthermore the context of the claim by Dave Workman is to provide a counter-example -- one of many such examples -- to refute the stereotype often portrayed by anti-gun cartoonists and people like Bill Maher, and in that context, it should be even more obvious Workman is not making a claim about ALL legally-armed citizens.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:15 am

The cat statement makes a claim about cats az pets. It sez they are fun. Simple, wether its true or not.

Mr. Workmanz statement iz not nearly that simple. It iz making 4 claimz.

1. This single example iz proof that all legal gun owning sitizenz are not trigger happy loonz.

2. Open carry gun ownerz are included.

3. That this haz alredy been proven ("underscores" ).

4. That the editorial cartoonists and gun control lobbyists often portray gun ownerz az trigger happy loonz.

Your cat statement iz not contesting any previous claims or opinionz. Its all out there by itself. There iz no indication uv a debate.

Mr. Workmanz statement openz the door for further investigation sins he claimz there iz an opozing opinion that legal gun-owning sitizenz are trigger happy loonz.

If youd prezented this statement:

In spite uv wut you may hav herd frum the dog crowd, cats make fun pets. It woud at least be a valid example on a basic level.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:53 am

JO 753 wrote:The cat statement makes a claim about cats az pets. It sez they are fun. Simple, wether its true or not.

Apparently I need to dumb it down even more, since you still do not get it.

The two claims have the same syntactical format:

2. L are T.

3. C are F.

Claim #3 is not a claim about all C. Since you do not deny that fact, then you must also accept that #2 is not a claim about all L. To do otherwise -- as you seem to be doing -- is to be willfully inconsistent.


JO 753 wrote:Mr. Workmanz statement iz not nearly that simple. It iz making 4 claimz.

Yes, he makes ancillary claims, but those do not change the meaning the claim you are trying to poke holes in. This can be seen by doing a simple experiment. Take out the ancillary claims and see if the remaining central claim stands on its own. I did that for you, and it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that the meaning of the central claim is not changed by doing that.


JO 753 wrote:1. This single example iz proof that all legal gun owning sitizenz are not trigger happy loonz.

Wrong. Stop right there. Workman does not make that claim. You added the word "all" which is not in his original comment. You are putting words in his mouth and you have no authority to do that. Nor does logic require the addition of the word "all".

That error sinks your whole argument. And at that point, the rest of your "argument" becomes irrelevant.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:55 am

Why do you think a qualifyr needz to be added? The lack uv any redusing qualifyr leavz hiz statement at 100% uv legal gun owner sitizenz.

If he'd sed 'most' or 'sum' I woudnt hav made my sarcastic remark. In fact, he went out uv hiz way to remind us that he wuz not excluding a subgroup.

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:1. This single example iz proof that all legal gun owning sitizenz are not trigger happy loonz.

Wrong. Stop right there. Workman does not make that claim.


Then wut do you think "underscorez" meanz? It iz at the very least, additional evidens, given the inconsistently malleable nature uv English.

Really, xouper, you are reading wut you want to believ into wut he sed.

Think uv it this way - woud you hav worded it the same way?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:57 am

JO, now you're just wasting my time. I have explained your errors and yet you persist in being willfully ignorant. I am running out of patience.

JO 753 wrote:Why do you think a qualifyr needz to be added? The lack uv any redusing qualifyr leavz hiz statement at 100% uv legal gun owner sitizenz.

That is factually incorrect. And I already explained why. If I say, "cats are fun pets", it is an error to assume I mean ALL cats, even though I did not explicitly include a reducing qualifier.

JO 753 wrote:If he'd sed 'most' or 'sum' I woudnt hav made my sarcastic remark.

Since it is an error to assume he meant "all", and since you have no authority to insist he meant "all", and since logic does not require that he meant "all", you should not have interpreted his claim to mean "all".

JO 753 wrote: In fact, he went out uv hiz way to remind us that he wuz not excluding a subgroup.

Wrong. You are reading more into it than what is there. You are reading what you want to see, not what he wrote.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:1. This single example iz proof that all legal gun owning sitizenz are not trigger happy loonz.

Wrong. Stop right there. Workman does not make that claim.

Then wut do you think "underscorez" meanz?

I already explained your error, but you edited it out of your reply. So I will say it again. Your error is in adding the word "all". Workman did not say "all". That is your error. And that is the fatal flaw in your argument.

Secondly, go find a dictionary and learn the definition of "underscore". Contrary to your assertion, it does NOT mean "proof" or "evidence" or anything like that. It merely means to "emphasize" or to "bring attention to".

This is the last time I will explain these things to you. If you persist in behaving like a crank, then I reserve the option to start treating you like one.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:25 am

:lol:

Standard xouper OP. Wen cornered, bring out the umbraj.

I didnt add 'all'.

The arithmatic iz clear. No qualifyr to reduse the claim from 100% leavez 100%. I'll show my work, so you can see I'm not fujjing:

100 - 0 = 100.

By your reazoning, hiz statement iz wut? 50%? 75%? 95%? I can only gess, not being equipped with your Ph.D enhansed lojik.

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote: In fact, he went out uv hiz way to remind us that he wuz not excluding a subgroup.

Wrong. You are reading more into it than what is there. You are reading what you want to see, not what he wrote.


David Workman wrote:,including those who open carry,


He made the effort to include the trigger happiest loonz uv the gun nut world for a reazon. He must hav felt that sum apolojists amongst the less ardent pro-gun public mite assume that he wuz only talking about the gun nuts who responsibly leave the hardware safely locked away in the home safe wile out in public. No sir! Attention all you soccer mom conservativz, noodle arm choir boyz, gum flappin wanna-be hard linerz: Open Carry are the REAL gun-ownerz uv America! They are out there every day, redy to protect freedom, liberty and your life az they proudly wear there baj uv honor, even wile picking up a 6 pak at the 7-11! Be bold! Go forth and do likewize, kuz here we hav a real world example uv how it works!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Fri Jun 05, 2015 8:33 pm

JO 753 wrote:I didnt add 'all'.

Yes, you did. The word "all" is in your statement but is not in Dave Workman's statement. You added it. You made an unwarranted assumption that the word "all" is implied. You are wrong. And I explained why. More than once. End of discussion.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby TJrandom » Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:58 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:I could go on.

Ah, but you have other positions too –

Of course. Isn't that what I just said? Did I not also invite you to bring up my other positions?


TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

Please choose one of your favorite examples and explain where the hole is. I predict we will find that either I do not actually hold that position, or that the holes you think you see are not really there. If you can actually show a legitimate hole in my position, and not merely a personal disagreement, then I welcome the opportunity to revise my position accordingly.

such as vehicles should be banned if guns are, and the same for swimming pools. Neither of which were designed exclusively for the taking of life. Neither of which are unregulated, or nearly so as is the case with guns.

That is not a valid rebuttal to my position. There are three problems with your objection.

#1. Contrary to your implied claim, not all guns are designed exclusively for the taking of human life. Some are designed for hunting and some are designed for sport shooting and some are designed for lawful self defense.

We have had this conversation more than once, but I can do it as many times as you need until you get it.

I do not claim they are analogous in all ways. I only claim they are analogous in one sense only. Here's how the conversation goes:

Harry: People die from guns, so guns should be banned.

Robert: People die from cars and swimming pools, so according to your argument, those should be banned too.

Harry: No, cars and swimming pools have legitimate and lawful uses, and deaths from those things are not a valid reason for banning them.

Robert: Likewise, guns have legitimate and lawful uses, and according to your argument, deaths from guns are not a valid reason for banning them.

Harry the Hypocrite is exposed by Robert the Rationalist.

In that analogy, I am not arguing that guns are like cars (or swimming pools) in all ways. I am only arguing that guns are like cars (and swimming pools) in the sense that sometimes people die from them. That is a simple fact that no one refutes.

Correct me if I am wrong -- it seems you are trying to claim that guns have no legitimate and lawful purpose in the hands of civilians. The problem is obvious -- such a claim is factually incorrect.

#2. Another part of your objection is the implied claim that killing someone with a gun is never justified. That is a moral question, not a question of fact. The FBI for example, specifically defines the category of "justifiable homicide" in part as, "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."

Just because my moral position -- or the FBI's statutory position -- does not agree with your moral position does not mean mine has holes in it, it merely means we do not agree.

#3. Contrary to your claim, guns are highly regulated both at the federal level and the state level. More so in some places than others. Also, buying a car or swimming pool does not require a background check. The regulations and laws are different for cars and guns, but they are both highly regulated. Even if you could make the case that cars are more regulated than guns, that is not a flaw in my argument.

TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.

TJrandom wrote:You also take liberty with name calling when it suits you,

While that is sometimes true, that is not a hole in my position, that is a flaw in my behavior. My personal behavior does not have anything to do with the merits of my position, which should be obvious to anyone who knows what the ad hominem fallacy is. Again your objection to my position is refuted.

TJrandom wrote:and with distorting the expressed opinion of those who do not agree with you. Hater of freedoms indeed.

I try not to misrepresent anyone's position. I have occasionally made such mistakes, but I usually accept it when someone explains my misunderstanding. I am always open to being corrected if I misstate someone's comments. In any case, your objection is dismissed because my position is not refuted by any failure on my part to properly state someone else's position.

As for calling someone a hater of freedom, if you propose to impose more limits on my freedom, then it is not false to characterize your position as being against the freedom you don't want me to have.

TJrandom wrote:Enough?

Nope. Not even close. You have not shown any holes in my position. Keep trying.


Once again an over the top response that completely ignores the points made and extrapolates ad absurdum. I appreciate that you apparently have a need to soldier on, but I think you should just chill instead.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:44 pm

TJrandom wrote:Once again an over the top response that completely ignores the points made and extrapolates ad absurdum. I appreciate that you apparently have a need to soldier on, but I think you should just chill instead.

If you wish to claim I have misrepresented your position, then please set the record straight.

Contrary to your allegation, I have not ignored the points you made, I addressed them directly and destroyed them. Apparently you don't like that and now you try to accuse me of ignoring them. Who do you think you're fooling here with your BS?

You made the accusation that my position is full of holes and when I challenged you to back that up, which is a normal request on this forum, you failed to do so, and now you have the nerve to tell me to chill?

When you make false accusations about my position, I am entitled to jump in your {!#%@} and call foul. If you don't like that then don't make accusations you can't support.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby TJrandom » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:36 am

xouper wrote: Contrary to your implied claim, not all guns are designed exclusively for the taking of human life. Some are designed for hunting and some are designed for sport shooting and some are designed for lawful self defense.


I made no such claim, implied or otherwise. That said, guns that are under discussion for possible restriction – were indeed designed for the taking of life. That they can be used otherwise is mere fluff. Even in the cause of self defense, they are designed to kill.

...
xouper wrote: Another part of your objection is the implied claim that killing someone with a gun is never justified.


Again, I made no such claim, implied or otherwise. Quite justifiably, the police and the military use them to kill people.

...

xouper wrote: Contrary to your claim, guns are highly regulated both at the federal level and the state level. More so in some places than others.


Maybe highly regulated if you include the restrictions on allowing or requiring restrictions.
...

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.


Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.


Well, I have missed it then. Please do either provide a link, or express your opinion here. Something along the lines of how future bad guys are identified and prevented from acquiring guns so that a need for good guys to carry guns is eliminated, and how gun suicides and accidents would then fall off since guns would not be available - would work just fine.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:34 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: Contrary to your implied claim, not all guns are designed exclusively for the taking of human life. Some are designed for hunting and some are designed for sport shooting and some are designed for lawful self defense.

I made no such claim, implied or otherwise.

OK, I stand corrected. I misinterpreted your argument. Thank you for clearing that up.

TJrandom wrote: That said, guns that are under discussion for possible restriction – were indeed designed for the taking of life.

For the sake of discussion, I will accept your premise that the guns under question are more or less designed to have lethal effect. That is in fact what makes them so effective for self defense, especially when the bad guy is significantly bigger and stronger than the victim, or when there are more bad guys than victims.

My position on "possible restrictions" -- and I have said this more than once on this forum -- is that the Second Amendment (and many state constitutions) say that my right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Various courts have ruled that no right is absolute, and so we are then debating where to draw the line. My position is to have as few restrictions as possible. Other people may disagree and argue for more restrictions. But that is merely a disagreement with my position, not a refutation of it.

Since you claimed there are holes in that position, please state them and show why you think my position is flawed.

TJrandom wrote: That they can be used otherwise is mere fluff.

I disagree. That looks more like a personal opinion than a fact. Please explain how other lawful uses of a gun are mere fluff. In framing your answer to that, keep in mind my previous argument:

Harry: People die from guns, so guns should be banned.

Robert: People die from cars and swimming pools, so according to your argument, those should be banned too.

Harry: No, cars and swimming pools have legitimate and lawful uses, and deaths from those things are not a valid reason for banning them.

Robert: Likewise, guns have legitimate and lawful uses, and according to your argument, deaths from guns are not a valid reason for banning them.

My argument is the same as Robert's. Where is the flaw in Robert's argument?

Correct me if I'm wrong -- are you saying that guns have no legitimate and lawful use in the hands of civilians?

TJrandom wrote: Even in the cause of self defense, they are designed to kill.

Most are, yes, so let's go with that. My claim is that when used in lawful self defense by a civilian, if the bad guy gets killed, that is legally justified. If you disagree, you are making a moral statement, not a statement of fact. Having a moral disagreement does not demonstrate a flaw in my position, it merely means you disagree.

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: Another part of your objection is the implied claim that killing someone with a gun is never justified.

Again, I made no such claim, implied or otherwise. Quite justifiably, the police and the military use them to kill people.

Again, thank you for clarifying your position. I stand corrected. Further clarification is required. Do you also agree that civilians have lawful justification for using lethal force to defend themselves, even if that results in the bad guy being killed? Or is it your position that civilians are never justified in killing anyone even in self defense.

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.

Well, I have missed it then. Please do either provide a link, or express your opinion here.

It is just as easy to restate my position here, and if you still require links to prove I addressed these in the past, I can still do that.

TJrandom wrote: Something along the lines of [1] how future bad guys are identified and prevented from acquiring guns so that [2] a need for good guys to carry guns is eliminated, and [3] how gun suicides and accidents would then fall off since guns would not be available

There are several parts to your question (red added by me):

1. I do not currently know of a solution for keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys that does not also infringe my right to keep and bear arms. I do not claim such a solution is impossible -- I simply do not (yet) know of one. There may be several good solutions to this problem that I simply do not know about. I would likely be in favor of it, if one can be found. My position is that I am against solutions that infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

2. As long as there are bad guys who might wish to harm me, even if they have no guns (see for example: viewtopic.php?p=456978#p456978 ), my position is that I still have the right to use a gun for self defense. My position is that I am not required to demonstrate "need" in order to exercise my right to use a gun for self defense.

3. I agree that if there are fewer guns, there would likely be fewer accidents and suicides by gun. Same as if there are fewer cars, there would likely be fewer deaths from cars. My position is this: Just because some people have accidents with guns or use them to kill themselves, that is not sufficient reason to infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

Some people disagree with my position, but that does not mean my position has holes in it. It merely means you do not agree. If you want to show holes in my position, then you need to do more than merely disagree.

previously, TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

You have shown some examples where I have misunderstood your position, and I thank you for correcting that for me. But I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate an actual flaw in my position.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:07 am

xouper wrote:1. I do not currently know of a solution for keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys that does not also infringe my right to keep and bear arms.


I think I found sumthing you may be interested in: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24216
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:15 am

xouper wrote:My argument is the same as Robert's. Where is the flaw in Robert's argument?


Its Sesame Street time!

For cars - they are an essential component uv the society we hav bilt. Gunz are not.

For swimming poolz - 1. There main purpose iz not to kill. 2. Hazardous only to thoze who chooze to own andor uze them. Not the case for gunz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:16 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:1. I do not currently know of a solution for keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys that does not also infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

I think I found sumthing you may be interested in: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24216

Your proposed GIT does not solve the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. Furthermore, it is -- as you clearly stated -- intended as a way to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the good guys.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:39 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:My argument is the same as Robert's. Where is the flaw in Robert's argument?

For cars - they are an essential component uv the society we hav bilt. Gunz are not.

Wrong. Cars are not essential. Cars are convenient and they are useful, but no one "needs" a privately owned car. In New York City, for example, more than half the population households do not own (or lease) a car. In Manhattan almost 80 percent of the population households do not own a car.
[Edited to add the two words in red.]

JO 753 wrote:For swimming poolz - 1. There main purpose iz not to kill. 2. Hazardous only to thoze who chooze to own andor uze them. Not the case for gunz.

1. So what. It is justifiable to kill someone in self defense. That's what makes guns so effective for self defense, either the bad guy gets an acute fear of lead poisoning and runs away, or he continues being stupid and gets shot. Either way, that is the intended outcome from the point of view of the victim, and as such it is a legitimate and lawful use of a gun.

2. Wrong. Innocent children die in other people's swimming pools.

Here's just one of many such examples:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/21/child-drown-pool-ramona-swartz-canyon/

Boy, 4, drowns in neighbor's pool
By Pauline Repard10:54 p.m.March 21, 2015

RAMONA — A 4-year-old boy apparently wandered to a Ramona neighbor's backyard pool and drowned Saturday afternoon, a sheriff's official said.

Your claim that a swimming pool is only hazardous to the owner is proven false.

CDC data show that in 2013 (for example), for children (1 to 4 years old) there were 1316 accidental deaths that year, including 442 by car, and 67 by firearm. Drowning is the number one cause of death in that age group.

Sorry, JO, but your objections are soundly refuted and my argument stands without holes in it.
Last edited by xouper on Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:40 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.

Well, I have missed it then. Please do either provide a link,

I went looking for links and guess what I found. You did not miss them. At best -- if I am to be kind here -- you merely forgot about them. I have indeed addressed each of your points earlier in this thread and you responded to my replies, so clearly you have seen them. So please explain how you "missed" them when you replied to them earlier in this thread?

I think you owe me an apology for making a false accusation.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:47 am

xouper wrote:Your proposed GIT does not solve the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys


Yes it duz! The major reazon the so called 'bad guyz' can get gunz iz bekuz uv proliferation.

Az explained in the thred, the GIT woud be implimented along with a jenerous buy back program. If therez 1 common factor that can reliably be attributed to the criminal element its a dezire for money and very often a severe lack uv it. They woud be disproportionately reprezented in the buy back program az they or their associates see an opportunity for quick cash.

Stabil and financially secure gun ownerz woud tend to to keep their gunz.

Furthermore, it is -- as you clearly stated -- intended as a way to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the good guys.


Did I? Its intended to reduce proliferation. Wether it haz a disproportionate effect on 1 group or another iz a side effect.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:58 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Your proposed GIT does not solve the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys

Yes it duz! The major reazon the so called 'bad guyz' can get gunz iz bekuz uv proliferation.

Wrong. The evidence is very clear that bad guys can get guns even when law abiding citizens cannot. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Reducing the number of guns in the hands of good guys, merely for the sake for keeping guns out of the hand of bad guys, is not an acceptable solution. Just because you do not agree with my position does not mean my position is logically flawed.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Furthermore, it is -- as you clearly stated -- intended as a way to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the good guys.

Did I? Its intended to reduce proliferation. Wether it haz a disproportionate effect on 1 group or another iz a side effect.

Thank you for admitting that the GIT is intended to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the good guys, even if it is only, as you say, a "side effect". It is an intended side effect.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:46 am

xouper wrote:Wrong. Cars are not essential. Cars are convenient and they are useful, but no one "needs" a privately owned car. In New York City, for example, more than half the population does not own (or lease) a car. In Manhattan almost 80 percent of the population does not own a car.


Bad example. Helps my case more than yourz. Plus, not exactly wut I sed. I didnt mention privately owned carz.

How many cabz do you think operate there? Plus the goodz and servisez the city relyz on to function at all iz entirely dependent on the streets and vehiclez that roll on them. Still, the streets are kronicly klogged with karz.

Just check out the traffic in the city and imajin wut it woud take to replace all that motion with a different system.

And thats a densly populated urban area that, in spite uv having a massiv public transportation system, peeps still feel the need to drive. Replasing carz with sumthing else iz not impossible, but wut woud you propoze for sprawling suburbia and rural areaz?

Really, the big flaw in your 'sound refutation' iz the prezumption that the injuriez and fatalityz from carz are an intrinzik part uv their function. Az self driving carz begin to supplant manually driven carz, the rates uv injury and deth per mile will drop presipituosly sins the vast majority are cauzed by human error.

JO 753 wrote:For swimming poolz - 1. There main purpose iz not to kill. 2. Hazardous only to thoze who chooze to own andor uze them. Not the case for gunz.

1. So what. It is justifiable to kill someone in self defense. That's what makes guns so effective for self defense, either the bad guy gets an acute fear of lead poisoning and runs away, or he continues being stupid and gets shot. Either way, that is the intended outcome from the point of view of the victim, and as such it is a legitimate and lawful use of a gun.


Thats not a refutation uv any sort.

2. Wrong. Innocent children die in other people's swimming pools....Your claim that a swimming pool is only hazardous to the owner is proven false.


Agen, not exactly wut I sed. Iz this a new debate tactic you are experimenting with? I coud argue that the children are jenerally choozing to uze the pool, but there are casez in wich they just fall in. Yes, aksidents happen. Life iz a hazard. How much risk do you think any particular activity iz worth? How much duz your naybor think your risky activity iz worth?

Time for the microscope uv exajeration to bring it into clear focus.

Your next door naybor sez he won 50,000$ in the lotto and he cant make up hiz mind between an in ground pool or a belt fed 50 cal machine gun to aid in finally getting hiz meth bizness off the ground.

Wut woud be your advise to him?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:59 am

xouper wrote:Wrong. The evidence is very clear that bad guys can get guns even when law abiding citizens cannot.


Why do you think redusing the eazy availabilty uv gunz woudnt make it harder for the bad guyz to get them? Do they own there own gun factoryz?

Thank you for admitting that the GIT is intended to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the good guys,


I didnt. I asked "Did I?" and wuz expecting you to either provide a quote or admit that I didnt.

You seem a little off tonite, xoup. Sumthing rong? Maybe you are due for a defrag.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:49 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Wrong. Cars are not essential. Cars are convenient and they are useful, but no one "needs" a privately owned car. In New York City, for example, more than half the population does not own (or lease) a car. In Manhattan almost 80 percent of the population does not own a car.

Bad example.

Nope. It clearly demonstrates that cars are not essential.

Also, it is not valid to include commercially owned cars (or trucks) as an argument against privately owned guns. That's an apples and oranges fallacy. To argue against privately owned guns, you can only compare privately owned cars.

Let's look again at your claim:

JO 753 wrote:For cars - they are an essential component uv the society we hav bilt.

That includes places like Manhattan. In Manhattan, cars are not essential, as can be seen from the fact that almost 80 percent of households do not have a car.

But no need to take my word for it. Here are some other interesting opinions. Or maybe not, since most of them disagree with you.

http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-are-you-happy-having-your-own-car-in-nyc

Example:

Ramon B wrote:there is no point in having a car, unless you have too much money and decide to buy one. The subways will get you to your destination, probably faster than driving. Everything is near by as well.

I do not miss paying for gas
I do not miss paying insurance
I do not miss BS traffiic tickets
I do not miss paying maintenance fees

Parking sucks too

However, I do miss driving manual. I wish I could redline at first right now and hear the engine roar into second. :( I do not want a car anymore though. I don't mind trains.


JP B wrote:Truth be told I {!#%@} hate cars, which is part of why I live in the city. I can go for weeks without getting into one, and months without having to drive one.

Not one of the people in that topic said having a car is essential or necessary. Of course, those are just a handful of self-reported anecdotes, but still, at some point the plural of anecdote becomes data.

http://thecityfix.com/blog/new-study-car-ownership-not-essential-to-everyday-commute/

... study participants agreed that car ownership was not essential to their lifestyle.


JO 753 wrote:Really, the big flaw in your 'sound refutation' iz the prezumption that the injuriez and fatalityz from carz are an intrinzik part uv their function.

Nope, that is not part of my argument. I have never made that claim.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:For swimming poolz - 1. There main purpose iz not to kill. 2. Hazardous only to thoze who chooze to own andor uze them. Not the case for gunz.

1. So what. It is justifiable to kill someone in self defense. That's what makes guns so effective for self defense, either the bad guy gets an acute fear of lead poisoning and runs away, or he continues being stupid and gets shot. Either way, that is the intended outcome from the point of view of the victim, and as such it is a legitimate and lawful use of a gun.

Thats not a refutation uv any sort.

Yes it is. It thoroughly destroys your objection to my position. A swimming pool is good at its intended purpose. And so is a gun. There's a whole thread of examples of successful uses of a gun for self defense. Self defense is a legitimate and lawful use of a gun. Your objection is refuted.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:2. Wrong. Innocent children die in other people's swimming pools....Your claim that a swimming pool is only hazardous to the owner is proven false.

Agen, not exactly wut I sed.

Sorry, but that is exactly what you said. That four year old kid did not own that pool and you cannot claim he "chose" to use his neighbor's pool. A four year old is not sufficiently responsible to make that choice, which is why at that age, they require constant supervision. That example, and others like it, clearly show that swimming pools are hazardous to innocent children. You objection is refuted.

JO 753 wrote:Yes, aksidents happen. Life iz a hazard. How much risk do you think any particular activity iz worth? How much duz your naybor think your risky activity iz worth?

Now we're getting somewhere. We finally agree on something. We all make a cost versus benefit assessment for every risky thing we own or do. Everyone will make that assessment differently, sometimes carefully, sometimes not. Example: You are willing to accept 40,000 deaths (more or less) per year for the privilege of having a car. You may find that cost to be distasteful -- as do I -- but if the only way to reduce that cost was to give up your car, you won't do it. But you insist that I give up guns for that very reason. That's a nice double standard you have.

JO 753 wrote:Time for the microscope uv exajeration to bring it into clear focus.

Your next door naybor sez he won 50,000$ in the lotto and he cant make up hiz mind between an in ground pool or a belt fed 50 cal machine gun to aid in finally getting hiz meth bizness off the ground.

Wut woud be your advise to him?

I would advise him not to do anything illegal.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:05 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:The major reazon the so called 'bad guyz' can get gunz iz bekuz uv proliferation.

Wrong. The evidence is very clear that bad guys can get guns even when law abiding citizens cannot.

Why do you think redusing the eazy availabilty uv gunz woudnt make it harder for the bad guyz to get them?

I could cite the evidence, but instead I will put the burden back on you to support your claim. Where is your evidence that reducing "proliferation" keeps guns out of the hand of criminals?

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Thank you for admitting that the GIT is intended to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the good guys,

I didnt. I asked "Did I?" and wuz expecting you to either provide a quote or admit that I didnt.

Here are your exact words from the opening post in your GIT thread.

JO 753 wrote:The effects uv the GIT will be to demotivate ownership ...

That is a clear admission that the purpose of the GIT is to reduce gun ownership of the good guys by making it more expensive for them. You claim that is a "side effect", but since you know it will be an effect, you are in effect promoting that effect as a good thing.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby TJrandom » Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:10 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: Contrary to your implied claim, not all guns are designed exclusively for the taking of human life. Some are designed for hunting and some are designed for sport shooting and some are designed for lawful self defense.

I made no such claim, implied or otherwise.

OK, I stand corrected. I misinterpreted your argument. Thank you for clearing that up.

TJrandom wrote: That said, guns that are under discussion for possible restriction – were indeed designed for the taking of life.

For the sake of discussion, I will accept your premise that the guns under question are more or less designed to have lethal effect. That is in fact what makes them so effective for self defense, especially when the bad guy is significantly bigger and stronger than the victim, or when there are more bad guys than victims.

My position on "possible restrictions" -- and I have said this more than once on this forum -- is that the Second Amendment (and many state constitutions) say that my right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Various courts have ruled that no right is absolute, and so we are then debating where to draw the line. My position is to have as few restrictions as possible. Other people may disagree and argue for more restrictions. But that is merely a disagreement with my position, not a refutation of it.

Since you claimed there are holes in that position, please state them and show why you think my position is flawed.

TJrandom wrote: That they can be used otherwise is mere fluff.

I disagree. That looks more like a personal opinion than a fact. Please explain how other lawful uses of a gun are mere fluff. In framing your answer to that, keep in mind my previous argument:

Harry: People die from guns, so guns should be banned.

Robert: People die from cars and swimming pools, so according to your argument, those should be banned too.

Harry: No, cars and swimming pools have legitimate and lawful uses, and deaths from those things are not a valid reason for banning them.

Robert: Likewise, guns have legitimate and lawful uses, and according to your argument, deaths from guns are not a valid reason for banning them.

My argument is the same as Robert's. Where is the flaw in Robert's argument?

Correct me if I'm wrong -- are you saying that guns have no legitimate and lawful use in the hands of civilians?

TJrandom wrote: Even in the cause of self defense, they are designed to kill.

Most are, yes, so let's go with that. My claim is that when used in lawful self defense by a civilian, if the bad guy gets killed, that is legally justified. If you disagree, you are making a moral statement, not a statement of fact. Having a moral disagreement does not demonstrate a flaw in my position, it merely means you disagree.

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: Another part of your objection is the implied claim that killing someone with a gun is never justified.

Again, I made no such claim, implied or otherwise. Quite justifiably, the police and the military use them to kill people.

Again, thank you for clarifying your position. I stand corrected. Further clarification is required. Do you also agree that civilians have lawful justification for using lethal force to defend themselves, even if that results in the bad guy being killed? Or is it your position that civilians are never justified in killing anyone even in self defense.

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.

Well, I have missed it then. Please do either provide a link, or express your opinion here.

It is just as easy to restate my position here, and if you still require links to prove I addressed these in the past, I can still do that.

TJrandom wrote: Something along the lines of [1] how future bad guys are identified and prevented from acquiring guns so that [2] a need for good guys to carry guns is eliminated, and [3] how gun suicides and accidents would then fall off since guns would not be available

There are several parts to your question (red added by me):

1. I do not currently know of a solution for keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys that does not also infringe my right to keep and bear arms. I do not claim such a solution is impossible -- I simply do not (yet) know of one. There may be several good solutions to this problem that I simply do not know about. I would likely be in favor of it, if one can be found. My position is that I am against solutions that infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

2. As long as there are bad guys who might wish to harm me, even if they have no guns (see for example: viewtopic.php?p=456978#p456978 ), my position is that I still have the right to use a gun for self defense. My position is that I am not required to demonstrate "need" in order to exercise my right to use a gun for self defense.

3. I agree that if there are fewer guns, there would likely be fewer accidents and suicides by gun. Same as if there are fewer cars, there would likely be fewer deaths from cars. My position is this: Just because some people have accidents with guns or use them to kill themselves, that is not sufficient reason to infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

Some people disagree with my position, but that does not mean my position has holes in it. It merely means you do not agree. If you want to show holes in my position, then you need to do more than merely disagree.

previously, TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

You have shown some examples where I have misunderstood your position, and I thank you for correcting that for me. But I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate an actual flaw in my position.


Thank you for recognizing the limits of what I had stated and at the same time clarifying your position.

I withdraw my statement that your position is chock full of holes of all calibers. To be honest, it initially was an off the cuff reply on my part that took on a life of its own. I do apologize.

I do not agree with you on whether lethal force should be allowed by a civilian to protect property. The law allows it under many/most circumstances, but then the law allows many silly things. As for protecting life, IMO – it should only be allowed as a last resort, even if this restriction results in some level of victim death. (For example, requiring warning shots, aiming for limbs, using rubber bullets, etc.) IMO – your right to life should be no greater than the right to life of the person you have presumed to be a bad guy.

I do not believe/recall that you have adequately addressed the good guy/bad guy dilemma – that the labeling distinction occurs after the fact and thus prevents any meaningful penalty for being wrong. For example, say a `good guy` (no evil intent) simply handles his weapon but I see this and think he has evil intent and shoot him dead. I get to tell the story so am a good guy, and he is both dead and a bad guy. Of course it is easy enough to call it an accident, but easier still to put the blame on the now dead guy.

If by addressing it, you mean that you have stated an opinion on accidents, or maybe refused to recognize the others` right to life as being above your right to own a gun, then I disagree that it has been adequately addressed.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby nmblum88 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:55 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: Contrary to your implied claim, not all guns are designed exclusively for the taking of human life. Some are designed for hunting and some are designed for sport shooting and some are designed for lawful self defense.

I made no such claim, implied or otherwise.

OK, I stand corrected. I misinterpreted your argument. Thank you for clearing that up.

TJrandom wrote: That said, guns that are under discussion for possible restriction – were indeed designed for the taking of life.

For the sake of discussion, I will accept your premise that the guns under question are more or less designed to have lethal effect. That is in fact what makes them so effective for self defense, especially when the bad guy is significantly bigger and stronger than the victim, or when there are more bad guys than victims.

My position on "possible restrictions" -- and I have said this more than once on this forum -- is that the Second Amendment (and many state constitutions) say that my right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Various courts have ruled that no right is absolute, and so we are then debating where to draw the line. My position is to have as few restrictions as possible. Other people may disagree and argue for more restrictions. But that is merely a disagreement with my position, not a refutation of it.

Since you claimed there are holes in that position, please state them and show why you think my position is flawed.

TJrandom wrote: That they can be used otherwise is mere fluff.

I disagree. That looks more like a personal opinion than a fact. Please explain how other lawful uses of a gun are mere fluff. In framing your answer to that, keep in mind my previous argument:

Harry: People die from guns, so guns should be banned.

Robert: People die from cars and swimming pools, so according to your argument, those should be banned too.

Harry: No, cars and swimming pools have legitimate and lawful uses, and deaths from those things are not a valid reason for banning them.

Robert: Likewise, guns have legitimate and lawful uses, and according to your argument, deaths from guns are not a valid reason for banning them.

My argument is the same as Robert's. Where is the flaw in Robert's argument?

Correct me if I'm wrong -- are you saying that guns have no legitimate and lawful use in the hands of civilians?

TJrandom wrote: Even in the cause of self defense, they are designed to kill.

Most are, yes, so let's go with that. My claim is that when used in lawful self defense by a civilian, if the bad guy gets killed, that is legally justified. If you disagree, you are making a moral statement, not a statement of fact. Having a moral disagreement does not demonstrate a flaw in my position, it merely means you disagree.

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: Another part of your objection is the implied claim that killing someone with a gun is never justified.

Again, I made no such claim, implied or otherwise. Quite justifiably, the police and the military use them to kill people.

Again, thank you for clarifying your position. I stand corrected. Further clarification is required. Do you also agree that civilians have lawful justification for using lethal force to defend themselves, even if that results in the bad guy being killed? Or is it your position that civilians are never justified in killing anyone even in self defense.

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You also only focus on successful use of a gun events for defense by `good guys` and ignore that those same `good guys` are just gun owners who may be `bad guys` in the next instant, or permit their toy to harm others accidentally, or in suicide.

Wrong. That is a blatantly false accusation, and you should know better, if you have been paying attention. I have not ignored those other things. Just because I have a thread focusing on self defense, does not mean I have ignored any of the other things. The evidence is clear from my other postings on this forum that I have NOT ignored them. I can post links and quotes if you insist. Your objection is refuted by actual evidence.

Well, I have missed it then. Please do either provide a link, or express your opinion here.

It is just as easy to restate my position here, and if you still require links to prove I addressed these in the past, I can still do that.

TJrandom wrote: Something along the lines of [1] how future bad guys are identified and prevented from acquiring guns so that [2] a need for good guys to carry guns is eliminated, and [3] how gun suicides and accidents would then fall off since guns would not be available

There are several parts to your question (red added by me):

1. I do not currently know of a solution for keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys that does not also infringe my right to keep and bear arms. I do not claim such a solution is impossible -- I simply do not (yet) know of one. There may be several good solutions to this problem that I simply do not know about. I would likely be in favor of it, if one can be found. My position is that I am against solutions that infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

2. As long as there are bad guys who might wish to harm me, even if they have no guns (see for example: viewtopic.php?p=456978#p456978 ), my position is that I still have the right to use a gun for self defense. My position is that I am not required to demonstrate "need" in order to exercise my right to use a gun for self defense.

3. I agree that if there are fewer guns, there would likely be fewer accidents and suicides by gun. Same as if there are fewer cars, there would likely be fewer deaths from cars. My position is this: Just because some people have accidents with guns or use them to kill themselves, that is not sufficient reason to infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

Some people disagree with my position, but that does not mean my position has holes in it. It merely means you do not agree. If you want to show holes in my position, then you need to do more than merely disagree.

previously, TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

You have shown some examples where I have misunderstood your position, and I thank you for correcting that for me. But I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate an actual flaw in my position.


Thank you for recognizing the limits of what I had stated and at the same time clarifying your position.

I withdraw my statement that your position is chock full of holes of all calibers. To be honest, it initially was an off the cuff reply on my part that took on a life of its own. I do apologize.

I do not agree with you on whether lethal force should be allowed by a civilian to protect property. The law allows it under many/most circumstances, but then the law allows many silly things. As for protecting life, IMO – it should only be allowed as a last resort, even if this restriction results in some level of victim death. (For example, requiring warning shots, aiming for limbs, using rubber bullets, etc.) IMO – your right to life should be no greater than the right to life of the person you have presumed to be a bad guy.

I do not believe/recall that you have adequately addressed the good guy/bad guy dilemma – that the labeling distinction occurs after the fact and thus prevents any meaningful penalty for being wrong. For example, say a `good guy` (no evil intent) simply handles his weapon but I see this and think he has evil intent and shoot him dead. I get to tell the story so am a good guy, and he is both dead and a bad guy. Of course it is easy enough to call it an accident, but easier still to put the blame on the now dead guy.

If by addressing it, you mean that you have stated an opinion on accidents, or maybe refused to recognize the others` right to life as being above your right to own a gun, then I disagree that it has been adequately addressed.



(Emphasis mine, NMB).
And because it is so worth repeating.
Quite possibly the most rational, eloquent posting on an actually significant and relevant issue to appear here in a very long time.

For its temperance, of course, but more emphatically for your ability to succinctly and without rancor, state the position of those citizens of the United States whose devotion to the US Constitution is NOT limited to its Second Amendment…

Including that most important of dilemmas in any society, but most particularly in a nation so currently distressed by increasing assaults on our once formative mythologies of social and economic equality, equal justice before the law, incomparable inventiveness, military invincibility…In short in an United States that appears to by increasingly frayed by any standards by which nations are judged.

And that is the all important question, transcending not only the mindless but ominous proliferation of guns but extending into every area of any society: Where do one man's rights end, and another man's begin?


NMB

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:56 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:The effects uv the GIT will be to demotivate ownership ...

That is a clear admission that the purpose of the GIT is to reduce gun ownership of the good guys by making it more expensive for them. You claim that is a "side effect", but since you know it will be an effect, you are in effect promoting that effect as a good thing.


OK. Thats a reazonable interpretation.

A few problemz with it tho. Sumwun can be a bad guy that iznt legally identified az wun, so can legally own gunz. Altho the immediate effect uv the GIT woud be to make it more expensiv to purchase and rejister a gun, the secondary effect will be to make all gunz more expensiv, including thoze privately sold. The buy back program, wich woud pay at least the full retail prise uv a gun woud escalate that effect. Supply & demand.

Imajin you are an ordinary hard working home burgler who ownz a few dozen nise gunz that you acquired wile doing your job. Theyv been sitting in your attic for yirz, gathering dust. Befor, your fens only offered 100 bucks each, so you kept them in spite uv the risk uv extra charjez if you got arrested. Now you can get 1,000$ each for them, no questionz asked!

The obvious effect iz that the number uv gunz available to the bad guyz will rapidly drop. And sins ordinary sitizenz are not going to hav gunz just sitting in a drawer near the front door 'for protection' anymore, the supply uv stolen gunz will dry up.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:20 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:The effects uv the GIT will be to demotivate ownership ...

That is a clear admission that the purpose of the GIT is to reduce gun ownership of the good guys by making it more expensive for them. You claim that is a "side effect", but since you know it will be an effect, you are in effect promoting that effect as a good thing.

OK. Thats a reazonable interpretation. A few problemz with it tho. Sumwun can be a bad guy that iznt legally identified az wun, so can legally own gunz.

Yes, that is one of the problems that is currently unsolved.

JO 753 wrote: Altho the immediate effect uv the GIT woud be to make it more expensiv to purchase and rejister a gun, the secondary effect will be to make all gunz more expensiv, including thoze privately sold.

And that's why I do not vote for your proposed solution.

JO 753 wrote:The buy back program, wich woud pay at least the full retail prise uv a gun woud escalate that effect. Supply & demand.

I am not interested in paying into a system that pays full price to buy back guns from people who no longer want them.

JO 753 wrote:Imajin you are an ordinary hard working home burgler who ownz a few dozen nise gunz that you acquired wile doing your job. Theyv been sitting in your attic for yirz, gathering dust. Befor, your fens only offered 100 bucks each, so you kept them in spite uv the risk uv extra charjez if you got arrested. Now you can get 1,000$ each for them, no questionz asked!

That's in interesting conjecture, but is not supported by the evidence. There have been many gun buyback programs in the US and none of them have shown any significant reduction of the number of guns in the hands of the bad guys. Also, black market guns (often) sell for more than retail, sometimes two and three times the retail price for higher quality guns.

JO 753 wrote:The obvious effect iz that the number uv gunz available to the bad guyz will rapidly drop. And sins ordinary sitizenz are not going to hav gunz just sitting in a drawer near the front door 'for protection' anymore, the supply uv stolen gunz will dry up.

Another interesting conjecture not supported by any evidence.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby xouper » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:31 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
previously, TJrandom wrote:Your position is chock full of holes, of all calibers.

You have shown some examples where I have misunderstood your position, and I thank you for correcting that for me. But I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate an actual flaw in my position.

Thank you for recognizing the limits of what I had stated and at the same time clarifying your position.

I appreciate we could sort this out amicably.

TJrandom wrote:I withdraw my statement that your position is chock full of holes of all calibers. To be honest, it initially was an off the cuff reply on my part that took on a life of its own. I do apologize.

Thanks for explaining. No harm done. Perhaps we can continue where you explain your position and I explain mine, and where we disagree, well, then we disagree and that's that.

TJrandom wrote:I do not agree with you on whether lethal force should be allowed by a civilian to protect property.

You are not alone in that position. I have mixed feelings about it myself. Example, if my car is in my driveway and someone tries to steal it and I come out of the house waving my gun at them, am I justified to shoot them? In my personal opinion, I would not shoot unless they pose an immediate threat to my safety. If they merely get in my car and drive away, then I was never in any immediate danger of harm, and thus I should not shoot them.

Likewise, if I come home and discover there is a bad guy in my house, I am not going in there and risk confronting him. I will call the police and wait nearby for them to come. Maybe try to video the bad guy if he leaves before the police arrive, if I can do so safely. There is no point in risking my life to save some of my stuff.

On the other hand, if am already home and someone breaks into my house and in their mind they only intend to steal some of my stuff, there is no way I can assume they do not also intend to harm me, and thus I am fully justified in shooting them without pause. The mere fact that they are in my house uninvited under unusual circumstances is all the evidence I need to assume an immediate threat to my safety or the safety of my family.

TJrandom wrote:The law allows it under many/most circumstances, but then the law allows many silly things.

I can't argue with that.

TJrandom wrote: As for protecting life, IMO – it should only be allowed as a last resort, even if this restriction results in some level of victim death. (For example, requiring warning shots, aiming for limbs, using rubber bullets, etc.) IMO – your right to life should be no greater than the right to life of the person you have presumed to be a bad guy.

You and I do not fully agree on those points. If someone attacks me, they have just forfeited their right to life, and under the principle called "individual sovereignty" I have the right to use lethal force to stop the threat. Their right to life stops the moment they try to violate my right to life. That is my personal opinion, and that is the law in the US.

TJrandom wrote:I do not believe/recall that you have adequately addressed the good guy/bad guy dilemma

Fair enough. I can address it further.

TJrandom wrote:that the labeling distinction occurs after the fact and thus prevents any meaningful penalty for being wrong. For example, say a `good guy` (no evil intent) simply handles his weapon but I see this and think he has evil intent and shoot him dead. I get to tell the story so am a good guy, and he is both dead and a bad guy. Of course it is easy enough to call it an accident, but easier still to put the blame on the now dead guy.

That's an interesting point. There will always be gray-area examples of what counts as legitimate self defense and the authorities will consider more than just your description of the event in making that determination. I predict that if you explain it to the police the same way you did here, they will arrest you for homicide. You could of course lie and make it sound as if your life were in danger, but if you are not a convincing liar, the police may not buy your story.

However, do these kinds of examples discredit the examples where the bad guy was clearly the bad guy? I say no.

I am reminded of a scene from the fictional movie "Dirty Harry".

Mayor: I don't want any more trouble like you had last year in the Fillmore District. Understand? That's my policy.

Insp. Harry Callahan: Yeah, well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard; that's my policy.

Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?

Insp. Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.

Mayor: [after Callahan has left] I think he's got a point.

Sometimes it's not difficult to identify an actual bad guy. This thread has many such examples.

Please explain what conclusion you wish us to make from your example?

TJrandom wrote:If by addressing it, you mean that you have stated an opinion on accidents, or maybe refused to recognize the others` right to life as being above your right to own a gun, then I disagree that it has been adequately addressed.

I'm not clear on what you are asking me.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Examples of successful self defense with a gun

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:37 am

Maybe he wuz collecting for the red cross but hiz salez pitch wuz a little too hard sell.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest