Home invasion repelled with guns

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

You are blaming the survivors for winning the fight.

Yes, and I am seeing nothing wrong with that, I have stated that I think they should be charged with manslaughter at least. They used unreasonable force resulting in death. 

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

No, it is a just consequence of Home Invasion.

Death is not the consequence of a Facebook fight in any country that deploys gun regulation 

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

The only people who are complacent about weapons are idiots. A world that moves at a pace set by idiots is called an Idocracy. 

That's what your op is, people being complacent with deadly weapons resulting in death over a disagreement. 

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

I guess I will have to take on that monsterously huge post up there after all, but I will do it at my own pace.

I can't see how anything you post can justify death in this instance. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Alaric said:

Women who employed no self defense methods against a rapist had rape completed against them 48% of the time and suffered injuries 31% of the time.

Women who employed a gun in self defense against a rapist had rape completed against them 0.09% of the time and were injured 0.0%.

Those using a knife or other weapon in self defense had rapes completed 0.0% and 9.9% of the time, respectively... but were injured 69% and 59% of the time in the process.

Statistics are pretty clear here, the best way for women to prevent rape and associated injuries is to use a firearm in self defense.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Kleck/publication/249985228_Rape_and_Resistance/links/57164c1d08aedb90cac43482/Rape-and-Resistance.pdf?origin=publication_detail

So your saying the men who riddled the 18 year old with bullets were fearing rape now?? 

[Michelle]

13- and 14-year-olds stole Fort Worth mother's iPhone before killing her, police say

Two teenage boys are suspected of killing a Fort Worth mother Friday in what they thought would be an easy robbery, police say. 

The boys, 13 and 14, were arrested Sunday and each face a charge of capital murder in the death of 31-year-old Yesenia Gutierrez, police said. They have not been identified because they are juveniles.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/05/22/13-14-year-old-boys-arrested-fort-worth-womans-murder

But hey, they were just innocent kids.

[psyche101]

@Gunn

How do you feel the mental health argument applies to the OP? 

[psyche101]

Just now, Michelle said:

13- and 14-year-olds stole Fort Worth mother's iPhone before killing her, police say

Two teenage boys are suspected of killing a Fort Worth mother Friday in what they thought would be an easy robbery, police say. 

The boys, 13 and 14, were arrested Sunday and each face a charge of capital murder in the death of 31-year-old Yesenia Gutierrez, police said. They have not been identified because they are juveniles.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/05/22/13-14-year-old-boys-arrested-fort-worth-womans-murder

But hey, they were just innocent kids.

And that speaks for all kids now? 

How does the fact that such doesn't happen in countries with regulation not illustrate that gun culture elevates situations from argument to life and death? 

[Michelle]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

And that speaks for all kids now? 

If you are going to respond to me don't put words in my mouth.

[psyche101]

25 minutes ago, Michelle said:

If you are going to respond to me don't put words in my mouth.

I am not speaking for you, I'm asking a question, hence the question mark seeming as you didn't offer how this applies to the situation. It's a valid point IMHO. 

[Maureen_jacobs]

Needed to chime in.  In a perfect world, we would not need weapons.  Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world.  While guns seem to be the most simple of methods to kill, there are plenty of crimes committed without the use of a firearm.  I’m not stating that having or not having a firearm is what you need to do, however, knowing your options and being educated about it is key.  In society since day one, people have sought to kill, maim, hurt, rape, pillage, etc. Countless wars have been won and loss.  Unfortunately the current climate is one of blatant disregard for human life.  The criminal that “beats the system”by securing a gun willl always find a way to achieve the end result.  The laws, weather lax, stringent, or somewhere in the middle, have only served those who follow the rules.  My child, when he was 7, commented on a sign at a store.  The sign stated that firearms were not to brought in.  He commented, which I was surprised, stated that anyone with ill will isn’t going to refrain from going on.  I couldn’t believe the sense this kid had.  Simple, but to the point.  So if a person breeches your home and/or corners you, I would think that defending yourself or family is a right you should exercise.  The bottom line is to try and run away, but that isn’t always feasible.  

Discussing he school shootings, it is tragic.  The simplest solution is the most overlooked.  Treat every school like a courthouse and incidents will surely almost disappear.  

Another plague in society is the easy access to,drugs/alcohol, both legal and illegal.  

Im all for legal gun laws wnership and deployment when absolutely necessary, but fail to see how enacting more laws will prevent these types of tragedies.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent illegal purchase and acquisition of firearms.  Perhaps punishing people for crimes would be a better solution.  No more slaps on the wrist.  Stricter sentencing with no chance of early release outs be a start.

 

thank you

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, Maureen_jacobs said:

Needed to chime in.  In a perfect world, we would not need weapons.  Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world.  While guns seem to be the most simple of methods to kill, there are plenty of crimes committed without the use of a firearm.  I’m not stating that having or not having a firearm is what you need to do, however, knowing your options and being educated about it is key.  In society since day one, people have sought to kill, maim, hurt, rape, pillage, etc. Countless wars have been won and loss.  Unfortunately the current climate is one of blatant disregard for human life.  The criminal that “beats the system”by securing a gun willl always find a way to achieve the end result.  The laws, weather lax, stringent, or somewhere in the middle, have only served those who follow the rules.  My child, when he was 7, commented on a sign at a store.  The sign stated that firearms were not to brought in.  He commented, which I was surprised, stated that anyone with ill will isn’t going to refrain from going on.  I couldn’t believe the sense this kid had.  Simple, but to the point.  So if a person breeches your home and/or corners you, I would think that defending yourself or family is a right you should exercise.  The bottom line is to try and run away, but that isn’t always feasible.  

Discussing he school shootings, it is tragic.  The simplest solution is the most overlooked.  Treat every school like a courthouse and incidents will surely almost disappear.  

Another plague in society is the easy access to,drugs/alcohol, both legal and illegal.  

Im all for legal gun laws wnership and deployment when absolutely necessary, but fail to see how enacting more laws will prevent these types of tragedies.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent illegal purchase and acquisition of firearms.  Perhaps punishing people for crimes would be a better solution.  No more slaps on the wrist.  Stricter sentencing with no chance of early release outs be a start.

 

thank you

Regulation makes access difficult so the price of black market weapons goes up. That helps keep them away from many petty criminals. 

[Myles]

Death is a justified consequence of breaking into someones house with a weapon and wearing a mask 

[psyche101]

9 minutes ago, Myles said:

Death is a justified consequence of breaking into someones house with a weapon and wearing a mask 

Holloween must be a bloodbath at your place then. Stangers on your property bashing at doors wearing masks. 

Why dosent the US just do a purge night? Makes just as much sense. 

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So your saying the men who riddled the 18 year old with bullets were fearing rape now?? 

As of the moment you posted that, you need a completely new Avatar. 

You are obviously so full of it your eyes must be brown.

Edited May 24, 2018 by AnchorSteam

[psyche101]

14 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

As of the moment you posted that, you need a completely new Avatar. 

No I'm good. I doubt you 'get it' 

14 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

You are obviously so full of it your eyes must be brown.

Maybe it's just that you are so full of it that it not only falls out of your mouth every time you open it, but you so full of it everything you see now is brown. Or maybe it's like rose coloured glasses but yours are not rose coloured, the spatter from your claims tinted them brown , could be anything really. But it takes that level of BS to state that a Facebook fight turned into a life and death situation is an appropriate use of deadly weapons 

[AnchorSteam]

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

Agreed. Your not focusing on the thread title, your insisting on defending gun ownership.

You are trying to make it seem that you have been sticking to the topic more religiously than I have.

Starting with page two, that has not been the case.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

It was not confiscation, people were trusted. That's somthing that seems very foreign to you. The laws changed, and people got behind it in the wake of Port Arthur to make our country a better place and they did. 

Trusting the Government, you mean. And you are still determined to play Brick Wall whenever the words gun confiscation comes up. Most other people ain't that limited;

Regarding the 1996 Gun Confiscation;  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/

The New York Times;  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/australias-gun-laws-america.html

 

Voluntary? Let me introduce you to the concept of coercion; 

(look familiar?)

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

No they haven't, l a link offered earlier in the thread to illustrate crime here actually stated crime is falling. You can find media to support either claim if you look. I live here, I walk the streets. I don't believe stats saying things are getting worse when I can see the opposite. We don't have school shootings. We don't have public massacres happening with regularity. Gun crime makes big news because its rare and shocks people. 

Yes, same here, shocking and rare and very politically useful.

So, basically, you are saying that you can't be persuaded by any information that contradicts your point of view on even the most basic academic level because you know it all.

Figures.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

Sorry, I don't believe that. Hammers would be a sub-section of bludgeoning objects. We don’t know how many of those are hammers but my guess the number is much smaller than the overall “bludgeoning” category. Also, the FBI crime statistics make it clear that handguns, which are of course a type of gun, are the most popular choice as an implement of murder in the US.

No, because 3/4ths of the people "killed" with handguns are actually suicides. But I can see how a policy wonk would fall back on the Biblical definition of suicide as some sort of murder. 

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

Any whom we have supported in the past that have nuclear armaments if that becomes the case. Citizens with guns aren't going to make any difference whatsoever in that situation. Irrelevant. 

So, you are saying that any popular uprising should be met with Nuclear weapons, but the Government of that country?

Wow.... I mean, I know marxist rhetoric conceals a deep-seated contempt for Humanity, but I didn't know that fash-frying everyone with an opposing political viewpoint was being taken for granted by the Far Left these days.

I'm glad you weren't me Commander in Iraq, I might as well come home wearing an SS armband.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

That was some tome ago, what makes you think old mistakes would be repeated in the same way? 

Because I know history.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

Its not punishment  that's a selfish view. Its community spirit to make a safer environment. Australia obviously finds community of greater value than personal ideals. People who are willing to be responsible act accordingly, anyone who doesn't would appear to have personal motives. I don't think that the fact we do not have massacres like you do is the best value for that collective movement for the better and is more than worthwhile. 

It is STILL communal punishment, and ten times as many things happen here because we have ten times as many people.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

Its only guilt if you feel guilty, if your motives are truly honorable I can't see why one would even consider guilt a factor. 

Nice try, but this kind of cheap projection shows why you never made it to the 201 level of your chosen field. 

I mean, really, using the word you are trying to deny that you are using as a weapon 3 times in 2 short sentences? 

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

And dictatorships are not required. Only community spirit. 

I have community spirit, but unlike your sort I also place some value in the concept of individuality. 

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

A bunch of overly confident people with guns isn't going to be of any help either, should such an extremely unlikely event occur in this day and age. I don't see why our troops would let us down, they never have before. 

"Overly" confident? Is that the best you can do?

Your troops can be disarmed by a bureaucrat with a key visiting the armory in the middle of the night, and there is nothing that any of them can do about it 

And as for your Police, you should look at the Stamford Study of 1971.

You do that, and they tell me about how much "trust" you still have.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

That just sounds like an extreme case of paranoia. 

I can't cure your misconceptions.... and it seems like nobody else can either. 

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

No, never entered my head, that's your paranoia yet again at play. I'm pointing out that we live in differnt times and in a different world. 

Different times, sure, but not a different world. That is fantasy-talk right there.

What makes you think everything magically changed with the new calendar? Why is everyone today so superior, and everyone that came before you so inferior?

Oh, and BTW, what is the point at which this New World and New Man came into being? Because Pol Pot wasn't that long ago, and Rwanda was even more recent. That latter one was done with Machetes ... but I get that the average Tutsi Homeowner was wishing they could deal with gangs bent on Home Invasion the way we do here in the USA.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

No idea what you are ranting about now. We had gun culture here too before the buyback. I can't see how modern developments that require things like gun control for a safer community are in any way connected to those who are known as founding fathers. Nothing to do with each other. And I haven't mocked Americans, I have stated that the Americans who heavily support gun culture in its current form are the reason more deaths happen than should. 

So it is the fault of Gun Owners with no criminal record when criminals kill people?

I guess you never heard about this, but large parts of the USA have tried exactly the course you are suggesting; Detroit, Chicago, New York and other cities and states (see California) have enacted the strictest Gun Control laws we have.... and they have the highest crime rates of ALL locations in the country. 

I live here, I know, I have been to 41 of the 50 states in the Union. Those policies don't work in THIS country.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

No, your being a bigot. Radical Islam has real problems associated with it, the majority of Muslims are no threat whatsoever. And yes, I speak out against radical Islam like any other rational person on these boards. 

Check the religious skeptic section then. I'm an atheist and have no love or support for religion as a whole. It's also an outdated system that really should be rationalised as the literary work it is. 

So, in two sentences you contradict yourself more totally than a career politician giving testimony under oath... and it is actually a great thing to see.

On the one hand, you call me a Bigot for criticizing a religion... and in the very SAME line you brag about doing the same thing! 

And isn't it funny, how you damn a political system for being too outdated because it came into being in 1776-90, and yet chastise me for being the same way about a religion that came into being in the 7th century.

Thanks for the laughs!

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

And none of them equal the death count at the latest US school shooting. More children died at that sad occurence than adults at those sad massacres listed above.

11 is greater than 23?  Must be the "new" math...

On 5/22/2018 at 4:17 PM, psyche101 said:

And I don't see why other people killing people for the wrong reasons has any bearing on each other, the goal shouldn't be to compare the highest death count  but to reduce it. I never understand why US posters think that death by other causes somehow justifies gun death. Unnecessary death is unnecessary death.

I went and had a look at the Skepticism board, and in the ten threads at the top I saw about half a dozen posts from you.... and not a single one was saying anything critical of Islam.

Still, and interesting place, I will have to start a thread there soon.

 

One last thing for everyone that is still trying to minimize the thread of the Global Jihad... or try to make it seem like these shootings in the US could even hold a candle to Islamic Terrorism, have a look at this;

For April alone; 150 attacks, 901 deaths, 940 injured.

And more recently;

 

 

So, how's that sense of scale looking now?

[psyche101]

21 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

You are trying to make it seem that you have been sticking to the topic more religiously than I have.

Starting with page two, that has not been the case.

I disagree, I've tried to keep the op in the conversation but all your interested in is a gun culture debate. I keep saying it's supposed to be about that incident representing a good reason for deadly weapons in the household and it illustrates the very opposite to a rational mind. 

Quote

Trusting the Government, you mean.

Our government has to trust us. If they don't perform they are out of the position to make way for someone who can make a difference, and make a difference it did. We don't have public massacres, yet where gun culture is defended, its a regular occurence. 

Quote

And you are still determined to play Brick Wall whenever the words gun confiscation comes up. Most other people ain't that limited;

Regarding the 1996 Gun Confiscation;  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/

So someone has am axe to grind with Obama.  isn't that a national pastime over there? 

The link states that the Vox doesn't see a causal link in its charts, and the official statement that article quotes does not indicate confiscation, it clearly states gun owners had to show genuine reason for owning a weapon. 

Criminal activity is not one such exception. So how does that not make it all the harder for the undesirables to take advantage of lax laws and then use that advantage to commit crime? 

And it states no significant impact is obvious? Talk about head in the sand. What about the stop to public massacres, that sure as heck wasn't in decline before and its not happening anymore, in the 18 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, there were 13-gun homicides in which five or more people died, not including the perpetrator. That stopped, how is that not a significant impact? 

Quote

The New York Times;  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/australias-gun-laws-america.html

And this opinion piece states that the gun laws worked.

From your link. 

Australia introduced a comprehensive gun control regime after a massacre in Tasmania 22 years ago, and mass shootings here dropped to zero. 

Where it goes wrong is where it tries to state that we are for some reason afraid of guns  nobody opposed the legislation, and that shooting was considered a fringe sport. None of which is true, its just a condacending opinion piece and does not support either argument factually. I grew up on a farm, we had guns, we went spotlighting at night and hunted predators, pigs and roos during the day. It was a part of life, not a fringe sport, and there were indeed opposing factions, John Howard, who implemented the legislation even wore a bullet proof vest to the rallies opposing the sensible move of the buyback. 

Quote

Voluntary? Let me introduce you to the concept of coercion; 

(look familiar?)

Yes it look familiar, it's a poster for the 2017 amnesty. People are encouraged to submit non complying weapons without fear of prosecution. 

And in Western Australia. Miles from anywhere really. 

Western Australians are encouraged to hand in unlicensed firearms as part of a national amnesty, commencing 1 July.

The amnesty is an opportunity for members of the public to surrender any unlicensed firearms that they have in their possession without fear of prosecution.

“This is a great chance to remove these firearms from our community,” Acting Commissioner of Police Gary Dreibergs said.

“We are putting out the welcome mat. Bring us your unlicensed firearms and ammunition without fear of prosecution.”

People breaching laws even 22 years after being introduced are being invited to comply with the law. No people knocking on doors like the paranoid first link you offered above, no confiscation, voluntary hand in. It's left to people's own conscience. A level of trust that you seem unable to imagine, real freedom. 

Quote

Yes, same here, shocking and rare and very politically useful.

The US has a mass shooting on a regular basis. I can't see how that claim applies. That's what we are discussing is it not? The US situation? 

Quote

So, basically, you are saying that you can't be persuaded by any information that contradicts your point of view on even the most basic academic level because you know it all.

Figures.

I'm saying I live here and I know my own country and that we don't have mass shootings. Isolated incidents from mentally unwell people, immigrants who do not understand or accept our gun policies, high end criminals or financial failure suicides are not mass public killings, those incidents are exaggerated to use statistics to paint a picture that does not reflect the reality of the situation. It's a zealous attempt by gun proud people who wish to find any aspect they can to validate a want. 

Quote

No, because 3/4ths of the people "killed" with handguns are actually suicides. But I can see how a policy wonk would fall back on the Biblical definition of suicide as some sort of murder. 

Then forget them and concentrate on the public sector and the mass murder reductions. No children go to school here and get killed for that. People don't go for a picnic or to a nightclub and get slaughtered for it  and nobody shoots up a movie theater. How is that not worth the regulation? 

Quote

So, you are saying that any popular uprising should be met with Nuclear weapons, but the Government of that country?

Wow.... I mean, I know marxist rhetoric conceals a deep-seated contempt for Humanity, but I didn't know that fash-frying everyone with an opposing political viewpoint was being taken for granted by the Far Left these days.

I'm glad you weren't me Commander in Iraq, I might as well come home wearing an SS armband.

No, how can you possibly be that thick, are you trying especially hard to be obtuse or what? 

I said a bunch of weapons are useless against a modern government. It has all sorts of strike capabilities to end an insurgency in matter of minutes. This is not the 1700s. Its 2018. 

You said do I expect help in a war situation

I said yes I expect our allies with nuclear capabilities whom we have offered support to historically to assist with nuclear defence if it becomes a genuine issue as we have agreed not to hold or make nuclear weapons. 

How you got that twisted version out of that is truly an unexplained mystery. 

Quote

Because I know history.

You live in the past. It's counter productive in a modern world. Sure we have lessons to learn from, that's the key. Learning from them, not using them as a standard. 

Quote

It is STILL communal punishment, and ten times as many things happen here because we have ten times as many people.

No it's not punishment, its accountability, I am more than suspicious if those who consider responsibility punishment. They tend to be the people who know they are doing the wrong thing and wish to hide that. 

And you could also say regulation would be ten times more effective. I think you would use any excuse to avoid responsibility. 

Quote

Nice try, but this kind of cheap projection shows why you never made it to the 201 level of your chosen field. 

I do very well in my career thanks, I don't know any apprentices that I did my time with who are also now in design and estimating. 

Quote

I mean, really, using the word you are trying to deny that you are using as a weapon 3 times in 2 short sentences? 

Yes, its a descriptor, it helps get the point across 

Quote

I have community spirit, but unlike your sort I also place some value in the concept of individuality. 

You're placing it above the community by stating that the best action for the community is punishment for the individual. Its not punishment though, its accountability for the bigger picture by showing responsibility for owning a deadly weapon. 

Quote

"Overly" confident? Is that the best you can do?

What more needs be offered? It's what happens when gun culture breeds complacency with a deadly weapon. 

Quote

Your troops can be disarmed by a bureaucrat with a key visiting the armory in the middle of the night, and there is nothing that any of them can do about it 

No they can't, we don't stockpile everything we have in one location. 

Quote

And as for your Police, you should look at the Stamford Study of 1971.

You're on your own there, I don't see how that applies to gun regulation, or our police forces at all. 

Quote

You do that, and they tell me about how much "trust" you still have.

Plenty, in general I have confidence in our police, they do a great job and are friendly to the community. It might even be another positive aspect of gun control fir that matter. 

Quote

I can't cure your misconceptions.... and it seems like nobody else can either. 

I have no interest in your zealous personal approach to community safety. 

Quote

Different times, sure, but not a different world. That is fantasy-talk right there.

Rubbish. Your founding fathers were at musket level technogy, how are you proposing their thoughts were able to account for things like drones or religious based terrorism? 

Quote

What makes you think everything magically changed with the new calendar? Why is everyone today so superior, and everyone that came before you so inferior?

Technogy changed everything. 

Quote

Oh, and BTW, what is the point at which this New World and New Man came into being? Because Pol Pot wasn't that long ago, and Rwanda was even more recent. That latter one was done with Machetes ... but I get that the average Tutsi Homeowner was wishing they could deal with gangs bent on Home Invasion the way we do here in the USA.

If the average Tutsi homeowner didn't live in a third world country they would be in the situation they are on. Its not an equal comparison from any view. 

And Pol Pot suicided before he could face the war crimes he had committed, that would not happen in the 1700s, different world. 

Quote

So it is the fault of Gun Owners with no criminal record when criminals kill people?

People insisting that regulation is a punishment are empowering criminals by making access to weapons easy and cheap. And that puts the entire community at risk. 

Quote

I guess you never heard about this, but large parts of the USA have tried exactly the course you are suggesting; Detroit, Chicago, New York and other cities and states (see California) have enacted the strictest Gun Control laws we have.... and they have the highest crime rates of ALL locations in the country. 

I live here, I know, I have been to 41 of the 50 states in the Union. Those policies don't work in THIS country.

Of course I have heard of them, and I applaud their valiant efforts that were doomed to failure thanks to surrounding states who did not support them and made it as easy as ever to gain illegal access to deadly weapons. How can regulation work when a 2 hour drive takes you to a state outside of that legislation? 

They were let down by their neighbours. If people create loopholes through stubborn policies, it will have a notable and adverse effect on those trying to do the right thing. 

Quote

So, in two sentences you contradict yourself more totally than a career politician giving testimony under oath... and it is actually a great thing to see.

On the one hand, you call me a Bigot for criticizing a religion... and in the very SAME line you brag about doing the same thing! 

No, I don't know how you read these things into my posts, it had to be deliberate. 

You slammed Islam as a whole. I pointed out only radical Islam, the minority, are a threat. That makes you a bigot. I said I protest radical Islam specifically, so no, not the same thing at all. 

Quote

And isn't it funny, how you damn a political system for being too outdated because it came into being in 1776-90, and yet chastise me for being the same way about a religion that came into being in the 7th century.

Thanks for the laughs!

I never stated I supported the religious views either  I pointed out that you're using an unfair broad brush. That's exactly what will assist the radicals. Islam is not radical Islam, Islam is Islam, and radical Islam is radical Islam, what your saying is like saying all Christians conform to the Westboro policies. That's not the case at all, just like Islam is not radical as a whole. It has bad factions like any religion does. 

Quote

11 is greater than 23?  Must be the "new" math...

Which incident that you posted had 23 fatalities? I stand corrected on the first incident which had 13 fatalities, the rest don't have a count of 23.

Quote

I went and had a look at the Skepticism board, and in the ten threads at the top I saw about half a dozen posts from you.... and not a single one was saying anything critical of Islam.

I didn't start this thread, you did. I said I spoke out, I didn't say I started threads, I said I have commented. 

And I oppose all religion and spirituality regardless of origin. I feel it should all be made redundant as its use has been superseded. 

Quote

Still, and interesting place, I will have to start a thread there soon.

Well your more than welcome to, I just try to avoid the beliefs section out of respect for those who wish to discuss their beliefs in peace . I try to contain my debates on the subject to the skeptical section. 

Quote

One last thing for everyone that is still trying to minimize the thread of the Global Jihad... or try to make it seem like these shootings in the US could even hold a candle to Islamic Terrorism, have a look at this;

For April alone; 150 attacks, 901 deaths, 940 injured.

And more recently;

 

 

So, how's that sense of scale looking now?

I'm wondering why those deaths make school and public shootings acceptable. 

I don't know why gun nuts think that if someone dies from any random act or accident that it somehow justifies needless gun death. That's just wierd. Aren't your troops supposed to be sorting that out? Why do they need civilians to own deadly weapons in another part of the world? How does that help? 

Edited May 25, 2018 by psyche101

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

You slammed Islam as a whole. I pointed out only radical Islam, the minority, are a threat. That makes you a bigot. I said I protest radical Islam specifically, so no, not the same thing at all. 

Wrong.

I have to get to the rest of this tomorrow, but meanwhile there are a couple of lies in this dance of Rhetoric for its own sake that I can't let stand for even one day.

 

Scrolling back will show anyone that I asked one simple question; if you are trying so hard to influence people on the other side of the world because you find violence so abhorrent even when it has nothing at all to do with your life, why aren't you doing the same when it comes to the Global Jihad?

And then you came back with the skepticism thing, trying to get the moral high ground but in the process you basically did so by saying that you slam all religious beliefs. If that isn't the broadest of all possible brushes, I don't know what is.

Quote

I'm wondering why those deaths make school and public shootings acceptable. 

THEY DON"T.

But I have to hand it to you, nobody ties a Gordian knot out of thin air the way you do.

I assumed you were a shrink from your nick, but Lawyer seems more like it now.

I post those deaths because you seek to minimize the death toll in a truly terrible campaign of terror that nobody on the Left seems very interested in, and certainly not anywhere nearly as concerned with as the suddenly fantastic fact that Americans are almost half as as well armed as we have been, proportionate to the population, as we have been for the last 2 1/2 centuries. 

Which means that all this angsty hollering is political in nature, and deserves to be treated as such.

Edited May 25, 2018 by AnchorSteam

[psyche101]

20 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Wrong.

No not wrong, here are your words that you posted 

Quote

If you really want to make the world better by guilt-shaming people on the internet, how many threads have you started about a truly evil and backwards culture; Islam? 

See Islam. No distinction. 

Quote

I have to get to the rest of this tomorrow, but meanwhile there are a couple of lies in this dance of Rhetoric for its own sake that I can't let stand for even one day.

You're just mad because you're wrong. You have not refuted squat let alone proven anything I have posted to be a lie. 

This is how posters tend to react when backed into a corner. Anger and ad hims, it's all you have left isnt it? 

Quote

Scrolling back will show anyone that I asked one simple question; if you are trying so hard to influence people on the other side of the world because you find violence so abhorrent even when it has nothing at all to do with your life, why aren't you doing the same when it comes to the Global Jihad?

Are you saying I have missed an active thread on the subject? You can post a link to it if so. If you want my thoughts on radical Islam the right thing to do is take that to the appropriate section of the forum. 

Quote

And then you came back with the skepticism thing, trying to get the moral high ground but in the process you basically did so by saying that you slam all religious beliefs. If that isn't the broadest of all possible brushes, I don't know what is.

Its rationality. Modern discoveries have removed the need for a god character with regards to creation. Again, a subject for another part of the forum. Read up on new atheism perhaps. 

Quote

THEY DON"T.

But I have to hand it to you, nobody ties a Gordian knot out of thin air the way you do.

I'm just posting facts, if you can't counter them that's not my problem. 

Quote

I assumed you were a shrink from your nick, but Lawyer seems more like it now.

You're miles off. 

Quote

I post those deaths because you seek to minimize the death toll in a truly terrible campaign of terror that nobody on the Left seems very interested in, and certainly not anywhere nearly as concerned with as the suddenly fantastic fact that Americans are almost half as as well armed as we have been, proportionate to the population, as we have been for the last 2 1/2 centuries. 

What death a have I attempted to minimise? This seems to be a product of your imagination. Can you quote whatever it is that gives you this wild interpretation? 

I think you're just using the issue of radical Islam as deflection to avoid the fact that this thread is a monument fail. 

Quote

Which means that all this angsty hollering is political in nature, and deserves to be treated as such.

Nothing political about the fact that the measures introduced after port Arthur have without doubt benefited pubkic safety here, and that an incident in the OP just wouldn't happen here because of that. It well illustrates how gun culture breeds complacency resulting in elevated levels of aggression within the general community that is a real threat to the general public all because you find being accountable for a deadly weapon and showing responsibility for it violates your personal  choices. Well, kids die for no good reason so you can have that freedom, and it removes public safety. 

[Alaric]

On 5/17/2018 at 10:47 AM, Myles said:

I agree.   It just bugs me when people try to say I don't care about kids getting shot because I am against banning guns.   In my opinion, that can be used for any number of items we are allowed to have that have killed kids.  

Yep, using that same logic you could say they don’t care about the literally millions of muggings, rapes, assaults and other violent crimes prevented every year by guns in the hands of citizens...

From an analysis of a CDC study on defensive gun usage:

“The final adjusted prevalence of 1.125% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996-1998, 2.23 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense against a person. This estimate confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995). As a point of comparison, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that there were 680,391 violent crimes committed by offenders possessing (though not necessarily using) firearms in 1997 (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999). CDC’s results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims more than three times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”

[Alaric]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:16 PM, psyche101 said:

So your saying the men who riddled the 18 year old with bullets were fearing rape now?? 

Huh? How does that even make any sense at all?

Because home invaders never rape the people whose homes they break into? Are you saying that men can’t get sexually assaulted if the home invaders are other men? Does it really matter what kind of violent victimization the residents feared being the victim of?

The point is, guns are ultimately the most effective means of self defense by far... regardless of the crime being perpetrated.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Alaric

[Alaric]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:16 PM, psyche101 said:

So your saying the men who riddled the 18 year old with bullets were fearing rape now?? 

Yes, it’s entirely possible...

“Three men sexually assaulted during home invasion... they were beaten with a baseball bat and broom handle... sodomized and sexually assaulted with the weapons. The incident lasted for nearly nine hours.”

http://m.wmcactionnews5.com/story/18147868/three-men-sexually-assaulted-during-violent-home-invasion

“Gang members raped man, doused him in gas during home invasion”

https://nypost.com/2017/10/03/gang-members-raped-man-and-doused-victims-in-gas-cops/amp/

[psyche101]

53 minutes ago, Alaric said:

Huh? How does that even make any sense at all?

Because I am referring to the thread title. 

53 minutes ago, Alaric said:

Because home invaders never rape the people whose homes they break into? Are you saying that men can’t get sexually assaulted if the home invaders are other men? Does it really matter what kind of violent victimization the residents feared being the victim of?

What indicates that was the case with the story in the OP that this thread is supposed to be about? 

53 minutes ago, Alaric said:

The point is, guns are ultimately the most effective means of self defense by far... regardless of the crime being perpetrated.

And they are the most effective means for a criminal mind to enact crimes and evil deeds. If someone want to commit a crime and has a deadly weapon, it strikes me they are going to be more dangerous than someone who has a weapon purely for self defence. It gives the advantage to the criminal. Mind. 

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Alaric said:

Yes, it’s entirely possible...

“Three men sexually assaulted during home invasion... they were beaten with a baseball bat and broom handle... sodomized and sexually assaulted with the weapons. The incident lasted for nearly nine hours.”

http://m.wmcactionnews5.com/story/18147868/three-men-sexually-assaulted-during-violent-home-invasion

“Gang members raped man, doused him in gas during home invasion”

https://nypost.com/2017/10/03/gang-members-raped-man-and-doused-victims-in-gas-cops/amp/

It was a Facebook altercation, what indicates rape was ever a possibility? 

[skliss]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It was a Facebook altercation, what indicates rape was ever a possibility? 

The point being that you don't know what their intentions were. They broke into someone else's house with a weapon in hand. You have no idea what the level of threat expressed on Facebook was...did they say they were coming over for tea? Did they say, I'm coming to your house to "mess" you and your family up? My friend and I are teaching our first women's self defense course starting in June and one thing we will stress is self defense is your responsibility. 

I've never liked guns, I think they are scary and dangerous but it's people like you that are making me consider, for the first time, learning to shoot and getting my CCW. I think you make us all less safe. And you constantly talk as if we have no gun regulations...we have reams and reams of regulations..they just need better enforced. That doesn't mean handing our personal safety, and guns, over to someone else...who doesn't have the same level of caring or love for my family as I do.

[Myles]

16 minutes ago, skliss said:

The point being that you don't know what their intentions were. They broke into someone else's house with a weapon in hand. You have no idea what the level of threat expressed on Facebook was...did they say they were coming over for tea?

They took a big leap going from Facebook threats to actually busting through a door wearing masks and armed.  

[Alaric]

6 hours ago, skliss said:

The point being that you don't know what their intentions were. They broke into someone else's house with a weapon in hand. You have no idea what the level of threat expressed on Facebook was...did they say they were coming over for tea? Did they say, I'm coming to your house to "mess" you and your family up? My friend and I are teaching our first women's self defense course starting in June and one thing we will stress is self defense is your responsibility. 

I've never liked guns, I think they are scary and dangerous but it's people like you that are making me consider, for the first time, learning to shoot and getting my CCW. I think you make us all less safe. And you constantly talk as if we have no gun regulations...we have reams and reams of regulations..they just need better enforced. That doesn't mean handing our personal safety, and guns, over to someone else...who doesn't have the same level of caring or love for my family as I do.

If you do any research on rape whatsoever, you will find that it is often said that it is not a crime of sex, but of power. What better way to obliterate the perceived manhood of rival gang members?

I’d say that male on male sexual assault is probably more common than generally thought in these type of situations, but severely underreported... the victims themselves would not speak up, for obvious reasons.