Yet another antigun teacher projecting her insecurities

Nothing here changes the fact that you cannot prove your claim that you pushed intruders out the door to be true.
Guess I need to be careful or the bad-ass intentet ninja will kick my butt.

When will you learn?
CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION

 

And when will you learn to use that appropriately

LOLS!!!!!

 

I did, internet ninja.
And you know it.

 

In your dreams

But this is why anecdotal evidence is not always reliable

So let us look at what happens OUTSIDE the USA where guns are not so much a factor

UK

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/03/28/defend-home-intruder-australia_n_9559346.html

As you see self defence here, in general must be in proportion to the perceived threat - so reliance on guns is rare here and nearly always results in a manslaughter charge

Despite that we are not getting killed in our homes by the thousands


You are

 

Rubbish, an untrue anecdote.

 

I'm not your mate, this is not a term Americans use. Sorry. But very illustrative of your ignorance of our culture.

But wait! I thought there wasn't gun violence in your country! Unless you're referring to injuries from other means? This certainly once again shows your ignorance. Falling off a ladder might cause injury, but not terror. Having a thug beat your husband while you stand idly by, terrified and helpless, is quite different.

My favorite part in debating an echo-chamber leftist? When the only reply they can come up with is "Illogical claptrap based on political bias."

Because you are so one-dimensial in your thinking, so shallow in thought when it comes to the big wide world, so shocked that anyone can have a different perspective than you do, well, gosh, it must be rubbish.

What I really enjoy is when someone from another country lectures me on the importance of gun control; you read the NY Times online and feel you're an expert. But again, this is what arrogant leftists do...

 

Actually, liberals/progressives/socialists see very little of real life. Many are raised in sheltered suburbs and live in ignorance.

It's ironic, and illustrative, examining the mindset of a collective statist who depends on the government vs the person who believes in personal responsibility. I've spent far more time responding to a non-gun owners residence who hears phantom noises in the night and hides, terrified, in a closet than I do to homes of gun owners. (And yes, we ask).

What I found is a confident gun owner, when hearing a noise, will arm themselves, look out the window, discover nothing is amiss, and go back to bed. Never calling the police and acting like an adult instead of a scared child. I discovered this by informally asking people on and off the job; it's a difficult stat to quantify because an adult who handles an issue on their own without having to call the police isn't tracked.

For all those fools who say we should tax gun owners for the "cost" to society, I suggest we tax all non gun owners for their inability to be a grownup, continuously tying up police resources when we could be actually be proactive.

Two last points: Every time I hear an anti-gun nut talk about "common sense" laws, I roll my eyes. The goal of these people is to disarm us, as the Australian here on this thread keeps suggesting. The only common sense law I could see applied to guns is lengthy prison sentences for those who use a gun for violent means. A thug shoots at someone during a robbery and misses, for example, should be locked away from society for life, just as if he actually killed the victim. Instead, he might be plead out to a few months in the county jail. I see it all the time.

Finally, I have quite a few people, friends and acquaintances as well as strangers when I was on duty, ask me about the merits of owning a firearm. Ironically, many of these are people who consider themselves liberal who were victimized somehow by a thug. Some of the most passionate gun rights people are those who at one time were opposed to gun ownership.

 

******************************************

Considering the circumstances of these shootings, and the fact that laws do not deter criminals or their activities, and that so many more peoples lives are actually spared from death every year by actively resisting criminal attacks.

Firearms are treated as dangerous instruments at the point of sale as there are classes of people prohibited from owning firearms.

Criminals constantly attack and kill other Criminals while conducting illegal businesses, since reducing Criminal activity is the actual aim, how is reducing firearms in the possession of law abiding people going to help reduce overall costs of Crime related to shootings ???

it will actually increase costs as more law abiding people are subsequently killed or injured as the end result of Criminal attacks on unarmed or disarmed victims of Crime.

 

Your post is a great perspective from a LEOs point of view.

The Anti Gun advocates fail to acknowledge the many successes of law abiding gun owners, they concentrate more on crimes committed by drug dealers on other drug dealers and criminal activities as if those crimes could be successfully influenced by reducing firearms in the possession of law abiding people !

They fail to take into account the total successes of people that successfully resist home invasions, robberies, and other crimes.
They also willfully refuse to understand that if those people had been unarmed, they might well be dead.

Lastly, the hypocrisy of Anti Gun sources that lump self defense shootings and the deaths of criminals with the deaths of victims of crime, thereby confuse actual statistics and related facts.

 

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

 

I'm giving you a
And as for the creationist websites = Ah! (*)(*)(*)(*) but they are entertainingly wrong - and have been proven so time and again. But some of the claims are unprovable simply because they are so outrageous that no thinking scientifically literate person would have entertained the thought in the first place

Continents sliding around the planet like skateboarders - lol!!![/quote]

You believe the same thing only at a slower pace. I'm saying the process could've sped up if the continents were softer and there was a layer of water underneath to act as a lubricant.

When UK and the OZ had prohibited guns they gun crimes went up and then slowly came down. How do you explain that if less guns equal less gun crimes? Also you haven't answered my question. Name one mass shooting that happened where guns are prevalent.

 

You believe the same thing only at a slower pace. I'm saying the process could've sped up if the continents were softer and there was a layer of water underneath to act as a lubricant.




When UK and the OZ had prohibited guns they gun crimes went up and then slowly came down. How do you explain that if less guns equal less gun crimes? Also you haven't answered my question. Name one mass shooting that happened where guns are prevalent.[/QUOTE]

Don't have to explain internet rubbish - that is up to you to prove your allegations not me to first prove and then disprove

Your claim is a cherry picked allegation mostly found in NRA funded websites AND it is a straw man gun control has nothing to do with overall crime - or did you think that it would reduce DUI

Next time - check with Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

- - - Updated - - -

Ah! (*)(*)(*)(*)!

Another inappropriate use of a truism

Just posting that over and over again will not prevent me from annihilating ridiculous arguments

 

Don't have to explain internet rubbish - that is up to you to prove your allegations not me to first prove and then disprove

Your claim is a cherry picked allegation mostly found in NRA funded websites AND it is a straw man gun control has nothing to do with overall crime - or did you think that it would reduce DUI

Next time - check with Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

- - - Updated - - -



Ah! (*)(*)(*)(*)!

Another inappropriate use of a truism

Just posting that over and over again will not prevent me from annihilating ridiculous arguments[/QUOTE]


*******************************************************************************************************************

Even if I do ignore NRA and NRA funded research and web sites, true facts as far as guns in the right hands are proof enough, more guns equal less crime as crime in the U.S. is currently at an all time low and decreasing every year, if less guns did equal less crime, and more guns did equal more crime, our current lowering crime rates would according to Anti Gun folks would be distinctly impossible.

 

Hmmm - a little more actual research and a little fewer NRA memes might be helpful here

firstly why should gun ownership rates affect crime?

Oh I know that the NRA has spread bull about criminals cowering in fear at the thought of an armed home owner but truth is it simply makes them go and get armed

Ends with a civilian arms race

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/

 

Is this the part where you suggest throwing dishes again to terrify your attacker?

 

I'll ask the next person who tries to break into my house to harm me or my family, assuming they survive (doubtful).

Let's see, who are criminals more likely to attack....those who don't own guns, those who might own guns, or those who they know own guns? Not much logic needed there.

 

frisbee plates?

 

In the U.S., about 80% of violent crimes involve no weapon. That is why I need a gun--to defend myself against everything except guns. Pretty much if the criminal has a gun, I don't have much of a chance. However, if the criminal doesn't have a gun, a gun allows this middle aged fat man to defend myself against anyone.

In the U.S., most burglaries are also during the day. Most criminals that enter a home at night have more than just burglary in mind. Again, that is why I need a gun. Not for the daytime burglaries, but for the unknown reason somebody comes into my house at night.

 

But you are more at risk with a gun in the house

Also having almost free access to firearms for everyone just assures that there is essentially a civilian arms race - you have a gun so the robber will ensure they have a gun - you get a bigger gun - they will ensure etc

Don[t forget the mantra that if you take all the guns away only criminals will have guns lol!!!

Sad truth is it is far too easy for criminals to access guns in the USA - UK, Australia and many other places in the world have made it harder - that has not stopped the hardened crim but you rarely have problems with them because they do not want to get nicked just for a second hand TV - they would rather go after bigger more lucrative markets.

It is the first time, casual criminal that you have to be concerned about and that is the one you do NOT want with a gun

 

Even if such were true, that is ultimately a decision for the individual to make.

The various news outlets for the united states have not been reporting anything resembling a rash of home invasions where the perpetrator was armed with a rifle in the event of the intended target having a rifle or shotgun.

It is a side effect of it being too easy for violent offenders to be released back into society and continually reoffend. It is known as the revolving door of justice.

 

Criminals are banned form having guns in the US - how can you make it harder for them to get guns after you ban them from doing so?

- - - Updated - - -

Good question -- why would more guns = ore crimes?

 

Not really. I use common sense precautions, and there are no mental health issues in my immediate family. The risk is minimal.

Yet, in real life that isn't happening, outside of the drug cartels. Most criminals in the U.S. are using the same kinds of guns that the police are--handguns. There is no arms race. Also, just to be technical, there is a big difference between a robber and a burglar. A robber is using force to steal, so yes, most robbers use guns or other weapons (burglars are using stealth to steal). The only chance I have against a robber is to be armed with a gun. If that robber has a knife or is simply a better fighter than me, I have no chance. If I have a gun, I have some chance. Also, if I use a bat or knife for self defense, practically speaking, I have to try to kill the criminal. With a gun, I can hold him at gunpoint. In military terms, the gun is a standoff weapon.

No need to say it, since it's obvious. Any gun law will inconvenience law abiding gun owners more than criminals. It's just a fact.

The criminals in the U.S. just trying to get stuff from a house aren't doing it when somebody is present. The criminals in the U.S. with more nefarious purposes--rape or serial killer type things, are the primary people breakign into homes while occupied. That's why we have the castle doctrine. The U.S.'s violent crime rate is much lower than it was 25 years ago. Our murder rate is half of what it was in 1994 (our murder rate is at historic lows, based on the FBI's monitoring which began in 1960). Things are proceeding in the direction of lower crime here, despite (or perhaps because) we have less strict gun laws than we did then.

That is the one I need to defend against. The thing is there is no gun control scheme that will disarm him but not me. I'm not willing to take that risk, and there really is no need, since our crime rate in this country has been plummeting for 20 some-odd years.

 

Thing is - that is not needed elsewhere

UK you do not need a gun because the criminals are unlikely to also have one

Same here - although the gun crime rate here is higher than the UK

Keeping control of the flow of guns means making it harder for the average criminal to access one. It is not as if you can walk down a street calling out "Guns, I wanna buy me some guns!!"

To get a gun you have to know someone who has access to one, and because we track them we know where the gun came from and THAT person is also implicated in the felony committed by the gun user. Yes there are illegal imports but sooner or later they will surface and when they do the cops track where they come from (which is not always that difficult) and then they arrest the importers.

You have a gun here that is not licenced then your arse belonga copper

 

You aren't reading my posts are you. I need a gun because it gives a middle aged fat man a chance to defend myself against non-gun attacks. I'm not worried about others with guns--I'm worried about the street thugs without guns. Also, a gun gives me a chance to defend myself without killing someone. If I were to use crockery or a knife, I would have to kill or try to kill to defend myself. The gun gives me a chance to hold them without harming them.

can't do that here either. Love the strawmen you create. They are lovely and false.

Mexico has similar policies to Australia's. It doesn't help them much. America has had reduced crime rates since we started having less gun control. Gun control has nothing to do with crime.

 

You cannot meaningfully speak as to what anyone, anywhere needs.
You can speak as to what you think YOU need, but that means nothing.