Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

 

 

Later, Jeffie (Len, Tom and others, too) affirmed the belief that it's fair game to shoot fistfighters. WTF?

Hello? No wonder we have a gun violence problem!

 

(Omitted by Jeff: Jeff's plan to assault Spatial Ed at some future US regatta>)

So what DO you think is fair in regards to fist fighters? You DO know that fist fighters account for more violent murders than scary black rifles, right?

 

If an old guy in his 80s or a small woman is getting beaten up by a fist fighter, what should they be allowed to do other than just take their beating? What if a fist fighter weighing 290lbs of pure tattooed muscle and hatred and hopped up on meth decided he wanted to beat your ass to a pulp? What would you do? Just lay there and take it?

 

I think there are reasonable circumstances where its perfectly acceptable to put a 230 grain hollow point into a fist fighter's face. And there are other times that its not appropriate. Your blanket assertion that its never ok is total douchetopian BS!

 

 

Rather than change the subject, let's first address the cycle of violence we have witnessed.

 

Person X takes something the wrong way, and plans a little fistfight with Spatial Danger.

Person X can also easily justify using a firearm against a fistfighting attacker.

See where this is going?

 

This very week you again professed your thorough non-violence. You seem confused, so I'll talk you through it a bit.

 

It was quite possible for you to break this chain of violence (what Spatial said was your issue, you said then, yet what was said was not even directed towards yourself).

You made TWO unnecessary, non-compelling violent choices here, to fight, and to conceivably use a weapon once fist fighting.

If using a 230 grain hollow point , that of course is a third violent contribution.

 

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

 

You sound philosophical tonight. Sitting around thinking about shooting bad guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1700 SF is just about the footprint of a double-wide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why are you stuck on this women thing? I have four sisters dude, and a foxy single daugher NYC.

I don't know of a father anywhere on the planet who refers to his daughter as "foxy and single", unless maybe he was pimping her out to feed his drug habit.

 

You are one creepy dude.

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

JBSF getting ready to defend his daughter from Jocal...........

gallery_6160_1047_12969.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why are you stuck on this women thing? I have four sisters dude, and a foxy single daugher NYC.

I don't know of a father anywhere on the planet who refers to his daughter as "foxy and single", unless maybe he was pimping her out to feed his drug habit.

 

You are one creepy dude.

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

JBSF getting ready to defend his daughter from Jocal...........

gallery_6160_1047_12969.jpg

 

 

We are experiencing some identification issues hereBoothyasMonkeysUnicorn_zpsb20fd40a.png

 

Twins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You called your daughter 'hot'.

 

Fuck you you fucking fuck sicko-fuck....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

Or fuk stik pushes your nose into your brain or causes massive brain hemorrhage and you die. Is that 'fair'?

 

People who think 'fist fights' aren't lethal have never truely been in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

Or fuk stik pushes your nose into your brain or causes massive brain hemorrhage and you die. Is that 'fair'?

 

People who think 'fist fights' aren't lethal have never truely been in one.

 

He'd live on without that brain just fine. I doubt we'd even notice the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Sounds great until you have a raving lunatice who is fully capable of killing you with one punch trying to do just that. Is killing him with your bare hands acceptable? Yes it is (Cody Koch dies in Saginaw, Michigan).

 

But what if that guy went nuts on someone who couldn't defend themselves against him with their bare hands? They probably be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating?

 

What? Did they have no hands and no feet?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

 

Disabled people, elderly people, women, or just people who do not happen to be as good at fighting as their attacker(s) do have hands and feet but can't defend themselves, so what should they do? Take their beating seems to me the only option left under your rules. Yes, you did say that.

 

Yes, I've been in fights, but not in a long time. Never lept over a car.

 

Self defense does mean effective self defense or it's not self defense.

 

The fact that some don't result in death doesn't change the fact that hundreds DO result in death and many more result in serious injury. Why should an attacker be allowed to violate someone's rights that way?

 

HTFU and take your beating because it might not be fatal isn't an acceptable response to being attacked to me. Effective self defense is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

 

Or fuk stik pushes your nose into your brain or causes massive brain hemorrhage and you die. Is that 'fair'?

People who think 'fist fights' aren't lethal have never truely been in one.

He'd live on without that brain just fine. I doubt we'd even notice the difference.

 

Gee, thanx Mom......:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disabled people, elderly people, women, or just people who do not happen to be as good at fighting as their attacker(s) do have hands and feet but can't defend themselves, so what should they do? Take their beating seems to me the only option left under your rules. Yes, you did say that. Cite it, buster.

 

Yes, I've been in fights, but not in a long time. Never lept over a car. Start with a Spitfire

 

Self defense does mean effective self defense or it's not self defense. You are intentionally escalating the violence, in other words.

 

The fact that some don't result in death doesn't change the fact that hundreds DO result in death and many more result in serious injury. Why should an attacker be allowed to violate someone's rights that way? You have attackers on the brain.

Most violence involves interactions between parties who know one another. Stranger danger fatality was covered here.

 

HTFU and take your beating because it might not be fatal isn't an acceptable response to being attacked to me. Effective self defense is. You plan to ramp an "attack" up to gunplay, but you are against the violence found in our country.

 

 

 

I DIDN'T say that self defense was bad, bad, bad. But hell yes, I scoff at armed self-defense.

As usual, you equate armed self defense with self defense.

You don't even realize you do it.

 

 

Defense means guns? Tom w. PBO

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&p=4822966

PBO, on 26 Jan 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

We're discussing* my proposed theory that the American attitude to self defense, because it in itself is inherently violent, contributes to the overall violence problem within the US. However it (the American attitude to self defense) is not recognised as a contributing factor because the American attitude to self defense is both insidious & carefully crafted.

Tom Ray Posted 26 January 2015 - 05:48 PM

(…) People who initiate violence contribute to violence, and no one else. Defense stops it.

Jocal Posted 27 January 2015 - 11:03 AM

Post 317

The bolded shows how insidious the "self defense" mentality is.

Because defense does not automatically mean armed defense.

And armed defense does not mean defense with AW's.

Tact and diplomacy are powerful self-defenses, at least for certain types.

Three posts later, Tom panicked and changed the subject... to gun confiscation.

Tom Ray Posted 27 January 2015 - 01:01 PM

It's all the same in Highland Park, where an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon and thus subject to confiscation.

Sorry again for the use of the "c" word and the resulting paranoia, just quoting the law again.

PBO Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:37 AM

Jocal can identify the subtle & insidious nature of self defense mentality - he picked it within Tom's post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Sounds great until you have a raving lunatice who is fully capable of killing you with one punch trying to do just that. Is killing him with your bare hands acceptable? Yes it is (Cody Koch dies in Saginaw, Michigan).

 

But what if that guy went nuts on someone who couldn't defend themselves against him with their bare hands? They probably be dead.

the scary campfire talk of a Girl Scout

What are the odds of encountering "a raving lunatic who is fully capable of killing you with one punch"?

You once argued that a crazy professional boxer could have my ass. LMFAO.

Why does your mind dwell on such images?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

 

 

Show me your evidence that guns increase women's safety.

Because the experts see it like this right now (see quote block):

(Note: by one account, study author Susan Sorenson is the love interest of gun researcher Phillip Cook.)

Cook Ludvig Social Cost of Gun Violence

http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

 

Sorensen 2004, DV, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women

Am J Public Health. 2004 August; 94(8): 1412–1417.

 

Firearms in Most Recent Relationship

Firearm ownership by the partner.

Two fifths (39.1%) of the respondents reported that their most recent partner owned a gun during the time of the relationship. (Few [3.8%] said that they did not know whether their partner owned a gun.) Among the 163 respondents whose partner owned a firearm, 53.4% reported that he obtained a firearm during the time of the relationship. Most respondents (66.9%) reported that the partner’s having a gun made them feel less safe; 11.7% reported feeling more safe, and 8.0% reported feeling safer at first but less safe later. One third (35.0%) of the partners who had a gun had more than 1.

 

Firearm presence in the home.

About one third (36.7%) of respondents reported that they had a gun in their home at some point during the time of the relationship with their most recent partner. Most reported that having a gun in the home made them feel less safe (79.2%), but some said that they felt safer (11.7%) or safer at first but less safe later (5.8%).

As shown in Table 2

 

Adding the number of weapons used against the woman improved the fit of the model, and for every additional weapon ever used against the woman, the odds of having a gun in the home increased by 1.38.

 

 

Methods used by battered women in self-defense.

Although few women had used objects as weapons to harm an intimate partner, it was common for them to have used objects in self-defense (see the third column of Table 1).

 

The use of words, hands or fists, and feet was common. A substantial minority had used a door or wall, household object, or motor vehicle in self-defense.

Few of the respondents reported having used a gun in self-defense. There was some overlap between using a gun in self-defense and using a gun in aggression. Of the 15 women who had used a firearm in self-defense, 5 had also used a firearm aggressively against a partner. Of the 6 who had used a gun aggressively against a partner, 5 also had used the gun in self-defense.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448464/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the disinformation in play, Boothy may have mis-understood the actual situation.

Among the 22 high- income nations of the world, a whopping 90% of the women killed by guns are killed in the USA.

Guns victimize women.

"Vermont Carry" for example, has baggage: half their adult murders are domestic violence.

 

According to the state-issued Domestic Violence Fatality Commission Review Report, half of the 237 adult homicides committed in Vermont between the years 1994 and 2013 were related to domestic violence. Fifty-six percent of adult domestic violence homicides during that time were committed with firearms. And although gun-related domestic violence isn’t always fatal, assaults committed with guns are twelve times more likely to kill their victims than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

You still haven't addressed the hundreds of murders using hands and feet, other than to say beatings are not always fatal. OK, but what about the ones that are?

 

Does your "use other skills" approach apply to women, the elderly, disabled people, or those facing multiple attackers?

 

Do you agree with this nutjob that self-defense should be sporting?

 

I don't really want to give an attacker a "sporting" chance at killing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

Other skills such as what? MMA cage fighting? And what if you don't have any other skills to defend yourself? What if you are a petite 5'1 woman who weighs in at 98lbs and she is attacked by a 6'2 scary black rapist? Or even a scary white rapist? Your advice to here is to lay there and take it? What about a wheelchair bound grandfather or grandmother? What is their defense against a home invader? What skills should they employ if attacked by a thug bent on doing evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

 

 

Show me your evidence that guns increase women's safety.

 

 

Ok, happy to show you:

 

 

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Show me your evidence that guns increase women's safety.

 

 

Ok, happy to show you:

 

 

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

 

 

Your evidence is skimpy, and stretched, too.

Your cite does not refer to women (nor does Priorities have a section which does). Since women are primarily murdered by

lovers, your DGU evidence in public places is meaningless.

 

You just put both feet in doo doo. Your quote reflects the staff of Gary Kleck quoting Gary Kleck---AND YOUR STUDY QUALIFIED YOUR PARAGRAPH.

 

Your evidence is a narrowly chosen anomaly, one snippet removed from its context , quoting a discredited author (whose material has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal in a dozen years).

Kleck's Latest, and a rebuttal from Evan DePhillipis, 2015

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Why my critics still have it wrong.

By GARY KLECK

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VQW8ONLF-gx>

 

 

Let's continue.

1. You only support parts of this study; you haven't read it either, mate.

2. The research of the study called for has not been financed---and though given the chance you have not protested that gun-lobby research blockage.

3.The study said that presently, armed self-defense figures fluctuate so wildly that they can't be trusted, and that other research conflicts Kleck's extrapolateded telephone survey DGU claims, which were full of false positives.

 

Let's read the report in context, eh? From P 15

 

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).c

 

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

 

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Jeffie's bit here: Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compcc 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

 

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

 

Pasted from <http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the disinformation in play, Boothy may have mis-understood the actual situation.

Among the 22 high- income nations of the world, a whopping 90% of the women killed by guns are killed in the USA.

Guns victimize women.

"Vermont Carry" for example, has baggage: half their adult murders are domestic violence.

 

 

According to the state-issued Domestic Violence Fatality Commission Review Report, half of the 237 adult homicides committed in Vermont between the years 1994 and 2013 were related to domestic violence. Fifty-six percent of adult domestic violence homicides during that time were committed with firearms. And although gun-related domestic violence isn’t always fatal, assaults committed with guns are twelve times more likely to kill their victims than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

 

 

Wow JokeAwf, a whopping one-homicide-a-fuking-month over a ten year period.

 

Jfc but it's alarmist 'studies' like these with bullshit headline grabbing titles that your side pulls out in an attempt to make it appear that there's an epidemic of women being murdered by the millions.....when the truth is the exact opposite. Congrats on yet another fail, idiot.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So jocal, you still aren't answering the question...... WHAT should women, the elderly, the infirm and well anyone who is not a good hand to hand combat fighter like you must be supposed to do to protect themselves from an attack by a physically superior assailant who intends to do them bodily harm? That's a direct question. I'd appreciate a direct answer. If a woman can't jump over a car, what else is she to do? Not everyone has your skillz.

 

I honestly fail to understand why you continually tap dance around this. You have repeatedly said that "armed" self-defense" is an abomination unto mankind. So what is your alternative? And why won't you at least acknowledge that there are many murders and very serious injuries caused by hands and feet? Are you actually implying that if someone is attacked by an unarmed assailant, that they should just take their chances they won't be one of those 4000+ non-gun murders per year? If that's what you're implying, just fucking come out and say it. That way you won't come off as such a douchebag about it. Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Philadelphia study suggests that something about a guy packing a gun increases the trouble factor four and a half times.

Let's call it Branas 2009.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/>

 

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476>

 

 

The Branas work was considered lacking by a very interesting Lone Ranger figure within the anti-gun-violence community, Garen Wintemute.

He's the UC Davis researcher who photographed a few hundred gun shows and a stream of straw buyers.

He is a surgeon who follows and repairs hollow point bullet damage, too.

He grew up plinking with guns in a rural setting.

 

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Garen Wintemute

peer reviewed in American Journal of Public Health

June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 967-968

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted).

Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied.

We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

 

(near the end)

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results.

--Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—

--or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship.

 

The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters.

<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476#>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all the disinformation in play, Boothy may have mis-understood the actual situation.

Among the 22 high- income nations of the world, a whopping 90% of the women killed by guns are killed in the USA.

Guns victimize women.

"Vermont Carry" for example, has baggage: half their adult murders are domestic violence.

 

According to the state-issued Domestic Violence Fatality Commission Review Report, half of the 237 adult homicides committed in Vermont between the years 1994 and 2013 were related to domestic violence. Fifty-six percent of adult domestic violence homicides during that time were committed with firearms. And although gun-related domestic violence isn’t always fatal, assaults committed with guns are twelve times more likely to kill their victims than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

 

Wow JokeAwf, a whopping one-homicide-a-fuking-month over a ten year period.

 

Jfc but it's alarmist 'studies' like these with bullshit headline grabbing titles that your side pulls out in an attempt to make it appear that there's an epidemic of women being murdered by the millions.....when the truth is the exact opposite. Congrats on yet another fail, idiot.....

 

 

We have a problem here, Boothy.

When the subject of guns and domestic violence came up, the SC went radical on your gun loving ass, 9-9, in the Castleman Decision.

If you so much as shove your significant other now, it could be bye bye guns. Wow.

 

YE MANLY AMERICAN MEN

This, below, is why they put their judicial foot down.

Again, World Health Org figures indicate that 90% of the women killed (in 22 high-income countries) are our US women,

Femicide. Is it not another form of gun bloodbath?

 

 

Statistics on Domestic Violence & Firearms

Posted on Sunday, January 1st, 2012

Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.1

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.4

A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.5 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.6

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.7

Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.8

A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.9

For additional information about domestic violence and firearms, including background information and state and local laws on the topic, see LCPGV’s Domestic Violence and Firearms Policy Summary.

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This Philadelphia study suggests that something about a guy packing a gun increases the trouble factor four and a half times.

Let's call it Branas 2009.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/>

 

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476>

 

 

The Branas work was considered lacking by a very interesting Lone Ranger figure within the anti-gun-violence community, Garen Wintemute.

He's the UC Davis researcher who photographed a few hundred gun shows and a stream of straw buyers.

He is a surgeon who follows and repairs hollow point bullet damage, too.

He grew up plinking with guns in a rural setting.

 

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Garen Wintemute

peer reviewed in American Journal of Public Health

June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 967-968

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted).

Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied.

We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

 

(near the end)

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results.

--Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—

--or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship.

 

The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters.

<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476#>

 

 

 

Oh good, you're back.

 

Do you wish you could have been present with a firearm when your wife was assaulted and that you could have prevented her attack? Simple question, Jokeawf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So jocal, you still aren't answering the question...... WHAT should women, the elderly, the infirm and well anyone who is not a good hand to hand combat fighter like you must be supposed to do to protect themselves from an attack by a physically superior assailant who intends to do them bodily harm? That's a direct question. I'd appreciate a direct answer. If a woman can't jump over a car, what else is she to do? Not everyone has your skillz.

 

I honestly fail to understand why you continually tap dance around this. You have repeatedly said that "armed" self-defense" is an abomination unto mankind. So what is your alternative? And why won't you at least acknowledge that there are many murders and very serious injuries caused by hands and feet? Are you actually implying that if someone is attacked by an unarmed assailant, that they should just take their chances they won't be one of those 4000+ non-gun murders per year? If that's what you're implying, just fucking come out and say it. That way you won't come off as such a douchebag about it. Just sayin'

 

Guns in some situations are okay, he says. Then he considers the logistics of a viable handgun in a wheelchair, a walker, or a hospital bed.

His imagery spans the degredation of a once-viable society.

 

Isolated guns in some situations are okay, Then, very soon, SDU attitudes quickly develop excesses.

Our Mr. Booth is a walkin' talkin' example of vigilante mindset.

Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167901&p=5057792

He does it for lowbrow entertainment, for chuckles from the SA Gun Club regulars. It is accepted FFS.

No criminal fuk stik is safe, once deemed better off dead by Boothy, yet Boothy's past is checkered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

misc. manly man discussion of studies showing the gun victimization of US women

 

Oh good, you're back.

 

Do you wish you could have been present with a firearm when your wife was assaulted and that you could have prevented her attack? Simple question, Jokeawf.

 

 

Every Saturday morning. Same disgusting bit. Same pinhead too.

 

Is this your stalker question? The one your brain has been stuck on for four weeks?

Is it not some rape fantasy hypothetical to the fifth power?

IF I were'nt living on the east coast at the time

IF I even knew her then,

IF I had ever been in the East Bay,

IF I happened upon the crime in progress, and

IF I had a loaded weapon handy...

You see, if I answer yes, I would shoot, I fear how you will lever that.

Next would fear how your elk would train my sweetie, since you hold cheap values. Destroy your attacker, get lethal, be a violent sort...

In short, you get a FAIL on basics, i.e. "thou shalt not kill".

 

tiger by the tail time

She would firmly reject your training, and send you packing.

 

You would degrade the planet with lowbrow social awareness, gayly escalating misunderstandings with tools of lethal violence.

You'd sell my sweetin a bazooka and an attitude, while Tom Ray would justify the artillery (on behalf of the rights of the poor).

No thanks. Get lost III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This Philadelphia study suggests that something about a guy packing a gun increases the trouble factor four and a half times.

Let's call it Branas 2009.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/>

 

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476>

 

 

The Branas work was considered lacking by a very interesting Lone Ranger figure within the anti-gun-violence community, Garen Wintemute.

He's the UC Davis researcher who photographed a few hundred gun shows and a stream of straw buyers.

He is a surgeon who follows and repairs hollow point bullet damage, too.

He grew up plinking with guns in a rural setting.

 

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Garen Wintemute

peer reviewed in American Journal of Public Health

June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 967-968

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted).

Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied.

We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

 

(near the end)

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results.

--Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—

--or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship.

 

The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters.

<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476#>

 

 

 

Oh good, you're back.

 

Do you wish you could have been present with a firearm when your wife was assaulted and that you could have prevented her attack? Simple question, Jokeawf.

 

 

Every Saturday morning. Same disgusting bit. Same pinhead too.

You see, if I answer yes, I fear how your elk might train her,, since you hold cheap values.

You would degrade the planet with lowbrow social awareness, gayly escalating misunderstandings with tools of lethal violence.

You'd sell her a bazooka, while Tom Ray would justify that (on behalf of the poor).

No thanks. Get lost III.

 

 

So, is that a yes or a no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd damn but you are an absolute abject failure as a human being. Please self-murderate yourself asap.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No thanks. Get lost III.

 

 

So, is that a yes or a no?

 

 

I would do whatever it takes, pronto, even for a stranger, NGS.

But your little question assumes my proximity with a weapon, so the question itself is inherently flawed.

Answering such a question sets up dishonest representations, depending on the integrity of who is asking,

(aka Not worth drooling over for four weeks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

So jocal, you still aren't answering the question...... WHAT should women, the elderly, the infirm and well anyone who is not a good hand to hand combat fighter like you must be supposed to do to protect themselves from an attack by a physically superior assailant who intends to do them bodily harm? That's a direct question. I'd appreciate a direct answer. If a woman can't jump over a car, what else is she to do? Not everyone has your skillz.

 

I honestly fail to understand why you continually tap dance around this. You have repeatedly said that "armed" self-defense" is an abomination unto mankind. So what is your alternative? And why won't you at least acknowledge that there are many murders and very serious injuries caused by hands and feet? Are you actually implying that if someone is attacked by an unarmed assailant, that they should just take their chances they won't be one of those 4000+ non-gun murders per year? If that's what you're implying, just fucking come out and say it. That way you won't come off as such a douchebag about it. Just sayin'

 

Guns in some situations are okay, he says. Then he considers the logistics of a viable handgun in a wheelchair, a walker, or a hospital bed.

His imagery spans the degredation of a once-viable society.

 

Isolated guns in some situations are okay, Then, very soon, SDU attitudes quickly develop excesses.

Our Mr. Booth is a walkin' talkin' example of vigilante mindset.

Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167901&p=5057792

He does it for lowbrow entertainment, for chuckles from the SA Gun Club regulars. It is accepted FFS.

No criminal fuk stik is safe, once deemed better off dead by Boothy, yet Boothy's past is checkered.

 

 

Could you please translate that into english, for favor? Snagalese is FAR easier to discern than the authentic frontier gibberish you're shoveling out. Try that again please, because I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So jocal, you still aren't answering the question...... WHAT should women, the elderly, the infirm and well anyone who is not a good hand to hand combat fighter like you must be supposed to do to protect themselves from an attack by a physically superior assailant who intends to do them bodily harm? That's a direct question. I'd appreciate a direct answer. If a woman can't jump over a car, what else is she to do? Not everyone has your skillz.

 

I honestly fail to understand why you continually tap dance around this. You have repeatedly said that "armed" self-defense" is an abomination unto mankind. So what is your alternative? And why won't you at least acknowledge that there are many murders and very serious injuries caused by hands and feet? Are you actually implying that if someone is attacked by an unarmed assailant, that they should just take their chances they won't be one of those 4000+ non-gun murders per year? If that's what you're implying, just fucking come out and say it. That way you won't come off as such a douchebag about it. Just sayin'

 

Guns in some situations are okay, he says. Then he considers the logistics of a viable handgun in a wheelchair, a walker, or a hospital bed.

His imagery spans the degredation of a once-viable society.

 

Isolated guns in some situations are okay, Then, very soon, SDU attitudes quickly develop excesses.

Our Mr. Booth is a walkin' talkin' example of vigilante mindset.

Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167901&p=5057792

He does it for lowbrow entertainment, for chuckles from the SA Gun Club regulars. It is accepted FFS.

No criminal fuk stik is safe, once deemed better off dead by Boothy, yet Boothy's past is checkered.

 

 

Could you please translate that into english, for favor? Snagalese is FAR easier to discern than the authentic frontier gibberish you're shoveling out. Try that again please, because I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

 

 

The "violent attacks" come from known men, many are past or present love interests.

As far as my specifics for defense, what d ya got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Guns in some situations are okay, he says. Then he considers the logistics of a viable handgun in a wheelchair, a walker, or a hospital bed.

His imagery spans the degredation of a once-viable society.

 

Isolated guns in some situations are okay, Then, very soon, SDU attitudes quickly develop excesses.

Our Mr. Booth is a walkin' talkin' example of vigilante mindset.

Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167901&p=5057792

He does it for lowbrow entertainment, for chuckles from the SA Gun Club regulars. It is accepted FFS.

No criminal fuk stik is safe, once deemed better off dead by Boothy, yet Boothy's past is checkered.

 

Jeff: Could you please translate that into english, for favor?

 

Jocal: First, what is this bit? You want to present (and dwell upon) a hero with a gun, offing a rapist in the act. (FOUR of you now.

First Tom (with Mrs, Mason 3X), then Boothy, then NGS stalking hysterically from thread to thread, and now Simple Jeff, again.)

 

Jeff: Snagalese is FAR easier to discern than the authentic frontier gibberish you're shoveling out. Try that again please, because I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

 

Jocal: I am weighing the planned gun excesses of the Boothies among us, whoopsie, they out-weigh the rare benefits of women facing stranger rapists while armed.

 

Jeff: I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

Jocal: Try to keep up. See post 878 for the weapons of choice of actual victims. Words, hands feet, other...wrt the gal who used a motor vehicle, YMMV...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

No thanks. Get lost III.

 

 

So, is that a yes or a no?

 

 

I would do whatever it takes, pronto, even for a stranger, NGS.

But your little question assumes my proximity with a weapon, so the question itself is inherently flawed.

Answering such a question sets up dishonest representations, depending on the integrity of who is asking,

(aka Not worth drooling over for four weeks.)

 

 

Ahhh. Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have finally acknowledged -- after several weeks of dodging the question -- not only the inherent value of a firearm for self-defense but in the specific that you yourself would defend others with a gun, if necessary. (Why it took four weeks for you to acknowledge this is puzzling to me, but we now have it on record: Jokeawf would protect his wife, family and even strangers with a firearm "pronto" in the right circumstances. Maybe you are a human being after all.)

 

May we also conclude that you would not wish to deprive others of that same right, of the ability to protect their loved ones or other innocents with a firearm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Sounds great until you have a raving lunatice who is fully capable of killing you with one punch trying to do just that. Is killing him with your bare hands acceptable? Yes it is (Cody Koch dies in Saginaw, Michigan).

 

But what if that guy went nuts on someone who couldn't defend themselves against him with their bare hands? They probably be dead.

the scary campfire talk of a Girl Scout

What are the odds of encountering "a raving lunatic who is fully capable of killing you with one punch"?

You once argued that a crazy professional boxer could have my ass. LMFAO.

Why does your mind dwell on such images?

Because I'm from Saginaw, Michigan. I GUARANTEE you if that guy was standing in front of you at that specific time and you didn't have the means to defend yourself from that guy - fuck, even if you did - that you'd wish you had a gun in your hand. He'd probably have lived beyond that evening as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You obviously were never a Boy Scout....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

Besides his parents?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Jeff: I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

Jocal: Try to keep up. See post 878 for the weapons of choice of actual victims. Words, hands feet, other...wrt the gal who used a motor vehicle, YMMV...

 

Still tap-dancing and won't answer the question I see. Typical jocal.

 

Let me see if I can rephrase the question a bit better for you..... So a woman who is getting the shit beat out of her on a daily basis by her abusive BF finally has had enough and gets an RO from a judge. But she knows her ex is a violent psycho-abuser who will ignore the RO and come and try to kill her anyway. So she goes to the local gunstore and buys a handgun to protect herself against psycho Boy.

 

If he breaks in her house or attacks her on the street and she shoots and kills him with her new gun - is that "self-defense" or "vigilantism"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

Besides his parents?....

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jeff: I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

Jocal: Try to keep up. See post 878 for the weapons of choice of actual victims. Words, hands feet, other...wrt the gal who used a motor vehicle, YMMV...

 

Still tap-dancing and won't answer the question I see. Typical jocal.

 

Let me see if I can rephrase the question a bit better for you..... So a woman who is getting the shit beat out of her on a daily basis by her abusive BF finally has had enough and gets an RO from a judge. But she knows her ex is a violent psycho-abuser who will ignore the RO and come and try to kill her anyway. So she goes to the local gunstore and buys a handgun to protect herself against psycho Boy.

 

If he breaks in her house or attacks her on the street and she shoots and kills him with her new gun - is that "self-defense" or "vigilantism"?

 

 

 

Simple Jeff asks:

So a woman who is getting the shit beat out of her on a daily basis by her abusive BF finally has had enough and gets an RO from a judge. But she knows her ex is a violent psycho-abuser who will ignore the RO and come and try to kill her anyway. So she goes to the local gunstore and buys a handgun to protect herself against psycho Boy.

If he breaks in her house or attacks her on the street and she shoots and kills him with her new gun - is that "self-defense" or "vigilantism"?

 

1.If you lower lowest denominator far enough, a pro-rights guy will win the argument every time.

2. LMFAO. Are you really dwelling on such images?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Jeff: I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

Jocal: Try to keep up. See post 878 for the weapons of choice of actual victims. Words, hands feet, other...wrt the gal who used a motor vehicle, YMMV...

 

Still tap-dancing and won't answer the question I see. Typical jocal.

 

Let me see if I can rephrase the question a bit better for you..... So a woman who is getting the shit beat out of her on a daily basis by her abusive BF finally has had enough and gets an RO from a judge. But she knows her ex is a violent psycho-abuser who will ignore the RO and come and try to kill her anyway. So she goes to the local gunstore and buys a handgun to protect herself against psycho Boy.

 

If he breaks in her house or attacks her on the street and she shoots and kills him with her new gun - is that "self-defense" or "vigilantism"?

 

 

Guns can come in handy. Sometimes having one can work out for the better.

Other times, not so much.

 

So, is that a yes or no? I can't really tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns can come in handy. Sometimes having one can work out for the better.

Other times, not so much.

 

A few of the reasons we shot each other in January, 2016

Courtesy of Parents Against Gun Violence

1.A kid rang my doorbell and ran away, so I shot him. (OK, 1/1)

http://www.newson6.com/story/30866853/police-pryor-teen-shot-while-pulling-prank-in-neighborhood

2.The guy in the apartment upstairs unintentionally fired his gun through the floor and killed my relative, so I took my gun up there and shot him dead. (TN, 1/4)

http://m.wmctv.com/wmctv/db_381569/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=4hUIVKe2

3.My son and I were arguing about the lottery numbers he chose, so I shot him. (LA, 1/9)

http://www.ksla.com/story/30927852/father-in-custody-after-son-dies-in-shooting

4.I heard a noise in the basement so I got my gun to investigate. My son jumped out and said “boo!” which startled me, so I shot him. (OH, 1/12)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/12/ohio-father-fatally-shoots-suspected-intruder-who-turned-out-to-be-his-teen-son/?postshare=1991452660353164&tid=ss_mail

5.My wife complained that I keep leaving the coffee maker on, so I shot her dead. (IL, 1/15)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/barrington/news/ct-bcr-barrington-death-investigation-0116-20160115-story.html

6.My dad and I went to the gun shop to pick up a gun that had been repaired. The father and son who own the shop wanted to charge us $25, so we shot them and they shot us. They died; we went to the hospital. (MS, 1/23)

http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/crime/article56305535.html

7.One of my neighbors borrowed my snow shovel without permission (to shovel another elderly neighbor’s walkway), so I shot him. (NJ 1/24)

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/nj-woman-shoots-man-who-was-using-her-shovel-to-clear-elderly-neighbors-driveway/

8.I was driving behind a snowplow and it was too slow so I shot at the driver a few times. (MA, 1/25)

https://manometcurrent.com/shots-fired-snow-plow-driver-winter-storm/

9.I left a folding chair on a public street to save my parking space, but somebody moved it, so I shot him. (MA, 1/25)

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/1-Person-Shot-in-Dorchester-Section-of-Boston-366457321.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_PHBrand

10.I saw a woman walking down the street and tried to flirt with her. She wasn’t interested, so I shot her dead. (PA, 1/22)

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/01/22/police-investigating-deadly-shooting-of-woman-in-homewood/

<https://www.facebook.com/ParentsAgainstGunViolence/photos/pb.413407645397893.-2207520000.1455390323./979842272087758/?type=3&theater>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Guns can come in handy. Sometimes having one can work out for the better.

Other times, not so much.

 

 

I'm still still not seeing a straight answer from you. However, based on your response to NGS that you WOULD use a gun to protect your family (if it happened to be within reach) - I'll put you down in the "Its legitimate armed self-defense" column.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jeff: I'm really interested in what "skills" you expect women to possess to protect themselves from violent attacks.

Jocal: Try to keep up. See post 878 for the weapons of choice of actual victims. Words, hands feet, other...wrt the gal who used a motor vehicle, YMMV...

 

Still tap-dancing and won't answer the question I see. Typical jocal.

 

Let me see if I can rephrase the question a bit better for you..... So a woman who is getting the shit beat out of her on a daily basis by her abusive BF finally has had enough and gets an RO from a judge. But she knows her ex is a violent psycho-abuser who will ignore the RO and come and try to kill her anyway. So she goes to the local gunstore and buys a handgun to protect herself against psycho Boy.

 

If he breaks in her house or attacks her on the street and she shoots and kills him with her new gun - is that "self-defense" or "vigilantism"?

 

 

Guns can come in handy. Sometimes having one can work out for the better.

Other times, not so much.

 

So, is that a yes or no? I can't really tell.

 

 

We are not discussing a yes-or-no subject.

But vigilantism is defined (by others) as taking the law into one's own hands.

You need to figure it out, you have asked the question for years.

 

Yeah, Google away someday. The Wiki definition, incorporating SYG ethics, appropriately defines the word vigilantism as inclusive of legally taking the law into one's own hands.

 

I repeat: a slippage of morals, and a slippage of civil rights, comes along for the ride with your guns and your SAF philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

Other skills such as what? MMA cage fighting? And what if you don't have any other skills to defend yourself? What if you are a petite 5'1 woman who weighs in at 98lbs and she is attacked by a 6'2 scary black rapist? Or even a scary white rapist? Your advice to here is to lay there and take it? What about a wheelchair bound grandfather or grandmother? What is their defense against a home invader? What skills should they employ if attacked by a thug bent on doing evil?

 

 

Here's a guy who has every right to defend himself with his bare hands, or by carrying along a ramp to enable him to jump cars...

 

 

How dare he escalate the violence???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

Other skills such as what? MMA cage fighting? And what if you don't have any other skills to defend yourself? What if you are a petite 5'1 woman who weighs in at 98lbs and she is attacked by a 6'2 scary black rapist? Or even a scary white rapist? Your advice to here is to lay there and take it? What about a wheelchair bound grandfather or grandmother? What is their defense against a home invader? What skills should they employ if attacked by a thug bent on doing evil?

 

 

Here's a guy who has every right to defend himself with his bare hands, or by carrying along a ramp to enable him to jump cars...

 

 

How dare he escalate the violence???

 

 

Scary campfire talk with the Girl Scouts II

You'll always be able to find justified uses of guns.

Building a society around that behavior is another matter.

 

The thread title is about the costs of gun violence.

The costs seem to out-weigh the benefits, if 85% of our gun violence is based on human misunderstandings.

Consider the moral costs. Our legal system allows lethal vigilante behavior based on feeling fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

 

 

My answer would be no. (And would care to add that I conduct my affairs accordingly.)

 

Rockdog, on 13 Feb 2016 - 7:27 PM, said:

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

Tell us more. I suggest beforehand that your involvement won't sound like Mother Teresa.

Was it a drug-crazed heavyweight boxer coming after you, in the trailer park?

Was it Jeffie's fists in the choir loft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking into someone's house is not a misunderstanding.

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Is this not the Ms. Mason gambit, just switching a wheelchair guy for the rape scenario?

Did you ever provide sources for these statements?

 

(Tom Ray :)Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765>

(Tom Ray:) Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

http://forums.sailin...31105&p=3856473

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Breaking into someone's house is not a misunderstanding.

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Did you ever provide sources for these statements?

 

(Tom Ray :)Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765>

(Tom Ray:) Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

http://forums.sailin...31105&p=3856473

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

 

 

Yes, I am the source of my statements. If you want examples, Chicago is a good one, as is Puerto Rico.

 

Now, will you answer the question?

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Or should he have just used "other skills" from his wheelchair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, I am the source of my statements. If you want examples, Chicago is a good one, as is Puerto Rico.

 

Now, will you answer the question?

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Or should he have just used "other skills" from his wheelchair?

 

 

YOU OWN CHICAGO, TOM RAY>

 

I didn't read your wheelchair link (too many of your links are degraded or are rickrolls).

But the gent in the wheelchair seems quite justified in this shoot.

 

You are at this moment promoting guns for the infirm, the elderly, and the wheelchair-bound.

You said you don't promote guns, show me an example where I promote guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes, I am the source of my statements. If you want examples, Chicago is a good one, as is Puerto Rico.

 

Now, will you answer the question?

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Or should he have just used "other skills" from his wheelchair?

 

 

I didn't read your link (too many of them are degraded or are rickrolls).

But the gent in the wheelchair seems quite justified in this shoot.

 

You are at this moment promoting guns for the infirm, the elderly, and the wheelchair-bound.

You said you don't promote guns, show me an example where I promote guns.

 

 

I'm completely indiscriminate in promoting our right to defend ourselves. It's a natural right in my view and belongs to every individual, even those in wheelchairs.

 

I'm wondering what happened to this idea of yours...

 

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't the wheelchair-bound guy have used other skills? Why the exception for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am the source of my statements. If you want examples, Chicago is a good one, as is Puerto Rico.

 

Now, will you answer the question?

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Or should he have just used "other skills" from his wheelchair?

 

 

I didn't read your link (too many of them are degraded or are rickrolls).

But the gent in the wheelchair seems quite justified in this shoot.

 

You are at this moment promoting guns for the infirm, the elderly, and the wheelchair-bound.

You said you don't promote guns, show me an example where I promote guns.

 

 

I'm completely indiscriminate in promoting our right to defend ourselves. It's a natural right in my view and belongs to every individual, even those in wheelchairs.

 

I'm wondering what happened to this idea of yours...

 

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

Why shouldn't the wheelchair-bound guy have used other skills? Why the exception for him?

 

 

Whoopsie Tom's Wheaties are tasting like urine. I can sense his dander is up.

 

The guy in the wheelchair is the weak exception you need, Tom, after playing off the vulnerability of women, to the fears of the weakly-minded.

 

Let's see what your next big pro-gun move is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So, is that a yes or a no?

 

 

I would do whatever it takes, pronto, even for a stranger, NGS.

But your little question assumes my proximity with a weapon, so the question itself is inherently flawed.

Answering such a question sets up dishonest representations, depending on the integrity of who is asking,

(aka Not worth drooling over for four weeks.)

 

 

Ahhh. Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have finally acknowledged -- after several weeks of dodging the question -- not only the inherent value of a firearm for self-defense but in the specific that you yourself would defend others with a gun, if necessary. (Why it took four weeks for you to acknowledge this is puzzling to me, but we now have it on record: Jokeawf would protect his wife, family and even strangers with a firearm "pronto" in the right circumstances. Maybe you are a human being after all.)

 

May we also conclude that you would not wish to deprive others of that same right, of the ability to protect their loved ones or other innocents with a firearm?

 

 

We're waiting on this one also...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So, is that a yes or a no?

 

 

I would do whatever it takes, pronto, even for a stranger, NGS.

But your little question assumes my proximity with a weapon, so the question itself is inherently flawed.

Answering such a question sets up dishonest representations, depending on the integrity of who is asking,

(aka Not worth drooling over for four weeks.)

 

 

Ahhh. Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have finally acknowledged -- after several weeks of dodging the question -- not only the inherent value of a firearm for self-defense but in the specific that you yourself would defend others with a gun, if necessary. (Why it took four weeks for you to acknowledge this is puzzling to me, but we now have it on record: Jokeawf would protect his wife, family and even strangers "pronto"with a firearm No. You have slipped into habitual dishonesty. In fact I protested that no gun would be found near me, but would do "whatever it takes". in the right circumstances. Maybe you are a human being after all.)

 

May we also conclude that you would not wish to deprive others of that same right, of the ability to protect their loved ones or other innocents with a firearm? That depends on how sensible the gun holder is. If you or Boothy is holding the gun, yeah I would deprive you of the gun, based on statements you have both made.

 

 

We're waiting on this one also...

 

 

Not so fast.

 

The "right" you describe exists in the home only. And it is revocable there, sometimes. (Yo, Dick Heller's handgun must be registered, and he must be fingerprinted in person and needs to register his AW, and to get a separate permit for it. )

 

 

In April of 2015, Supreme Court declined to expand it to the out-of-doors when in passed on hearing Drake vs Jerejian. It was the FIFTH time they declined to review gun rights in public.

Because clowns like you and Boothy tend to go over the top with such a right.

Fistfighters and women get shot too much, etc.

 

Would I deprive a person of this "right" in his home? Not as a first choice, but it depends on the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am the source of my statements. If you want examples, Chicago is a good one, as is Puerto Rico.

 

Now, will you answer the question?

 

Do you think that guy was justified in using a gun to defend himself?

 

Or should he have just used "other skills" from his wheelchair?

 

 

I didn't read your link (too many of them are degraded or are rickrolls).

But the gent in the wheelchair seems quite justified in this shoot.

 

You are at this moment promoting guns for the infirm, the elderly, and the wheelchair-bound.

You said you don't promote guns, show me an example where I promote guns.

 

 

I'm completely indiscriminate in promoting our right to defend ourselves. It's a natural right in my view and belongs to every individual, even those in wheelchairs.

 

I'm wondering what happened to this idea of yours...

 

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

Why shouldn't the wheelchair-bound guy have used other skills? Why the exception for him?

 

 

Too much time on your hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So jocal, are you saying I have no right to defend myself out in public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have fallen for the Alan Gura/Tom Ray stream of hyperbole.

Simple Jeff, don't be like our esteemed Florida wanker intellectual and simply assume that "defense" means armed self defense.

You have every right to defend yourself "out in public". But not with a gun.

That's not my view, but the view of the higher courts.

 

If a "right" to a gun is ever determined by the courts, that right will be regulated.

 

Read it someday. Heller is a four-lane freeway whose destination is more gun regulation.

 

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 

A footnote added by Scalia:

“We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.”

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/antonin-scalia-legacy-gun-rights/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're fuking crazy. But you knew that, dincha.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boozer Boi, that post seems more informed than mentally imbalanced.

I think that the people who are obsessed by guns, and who defend this flakey gun culture against the present level of gun carnage in the USA, are off a bit in the head.

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

You have every right to defend yourself "out in public". But not with a gun.

 

 

Really? I think you need to go back and re-read the Heller decision in its raw form and stop listening to all these partisan interpretations. There is nothing whatsoever in Heller that prohibits self-defense outside the home. Because the case before the court was about self-defense INSIDE the home, that's what the majority opinion addressed.

 

As Tom has repeatedly and correctly said, its a bit hard to conceive that the FF's believed in "indoor only" militias. Yes, Heller allows for some reasonable regulations - but to conclude that it does not allow self-defense with a gun outside the home is clearly an indefensible position. And you are clearly a fucking retard for continuing to believe that nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You have every right to defend yourself "out in public". But not with a gun.

 

 

Really? I think you need to go back and re-read the Heller decision in its raw form and stop listening to all these partisan interpretations. There is nothing whatsoever in Heller that prohibits self-defense outside the home. Because the case before the court was about self-defense INSIDE the home, that's what the majority opinion addressed.

 

As Tom has repeatedly and correctly said, its a bit hard to conceive that the FF's believed in "indoor only" militias. Yes, Heller allows for some reasonable regulations - but to conclude that it does not allow self-defense with a gun outside the home is clearly an indefensible position. And you are clearly a fucking retard for continuing to believe that nonsense.

 

 

Where does he get this crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

 

You have every right to defend yourself "out in public". But not with a gun.

 

 

Really? I think you need to go back and re-read the Heller decision in its raw form and stop listening to all these partisan interpretations. There is nothing whatsoever in Heller that prohibits self-defense outside the home. Because the case before the court was about self-defense INSIDE the home, that's what the majority opinion addressed.

 

As Tom has repeatedly and correctly said, its a bit hard to conceive that the FF's believed in "indoor only" militias. Yes, Heller allows for some reasonable regulations - but to conclude that it does not allow self-defense with a gun outside the home is clearly an indefensible position. And you are clearly a fucking retard for continuing to believe that nonsense.

 

 

Where does he get this crap?

 

 

I've repeatedly told joke-al that his "ass" doesn't qualify as an authority on these things. Yet, he still insists on pulling things from there on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

My answer would be no. (And would care to add that I conduct my affairs accordingly.)

Rockdog, on 13 Feb 2016 - 7:27 PM, said: You ever have someone trying to kill you?

Tell us more. I suggest beforehand that your involvement won't sound like Mother Teresa.

Was it a drug-crazed heavyweight boxer coming after you, in the trailer park?

Was it Jeffie's fists in the choir loft?

Well not allowing a spazzed out crazy but back into an establishment for fear of scaring or possible violence occurring against patrons isn't exactly Mother Theresa, but it isn't bad in any way.

 

Fucking guy went nuts. Fucking guy meant business. Fucking guy would not listen to reason. Fucking guy injured innocent people. Fucking guy thought he was invincable. Fucking guy was an animal. Fucking guy was restrained. Fucking guy WOULD NOT STOP. Fucking cops finally arrive. Fucking guy dies.

 

That fucking guy could have easily killed someone if they were alone.

 

Jumping over a car isn't going to resolve a situation like that. Running away isn't going to resolve a situation like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockdog, that sounds like a wild situation. Glad you are still with us.

However the statistical odds of such an occurrence, out-of-the-blue, are pretty small.

I note that the outcome was that the perp was restrained, not executed by citizens.

RD, do I remember correctly that you are NOT presently a gunowner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis of your entire argument against guns is based on 'high statistical odds' of being killed by someone.

 

The only reason things turned out they way they did in the above situation is one of the defenders had been a highly successful golden globes boxer who bench pressed over 400 lbs. Next time you talk about 'fist fighters' or 'fair fights' you should think things through a little bit.

 

That guy was restrained to the point he was no longer a threat. Interesting thing is that because the hadn't been punched or kicked it was deemed there was no intent to harm. Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

 

 

One punch attacks are often fatal. They are often unprovoked and happens before anyone could pull a gun. I saw a guy die when he fell back and cracked his skull on the pub tiled floor, after being punched once. A gun would not have helped.

 

How fucking sad to live in constant fear that someone is going to kill you any minute now. This is bullshit scare talk to promote gun sales.

You ever have someone trying to kill you?

My answer would be no. (And would care to add that I conduct my affairs accordingly.)

Rockdog, on 13 Feb 2016 - 7:27 PM, said: You ever have someone trying to kill you?

Tell us more. I suggest beforehand that your involvement won't sound like Mother Teresa.

Was it a drug-crazed heavyweight boxer coming after you, in the trailer park?

Was it Jeffie's fists in the choir loft?

Well not allowing a spazzed out crazy but back into an establishment for fear of scaring or possible violence occurring against patrons isn't exactly Mother Theresa, but it isn't bad in any way.

 

Fucking guy went nuts. Fucking guy meant business. Fucking guy would not listen to reason. Fucking guy injured innocent people. Fucking guy thought he was invincable. Fucking guy was an animal. Fucking guy was restrained. Fucking guy WOULD NOT STOP. Fucking cops finally arrive. Fucking guy dies.

 

That fucking guy could have easily killed someone if they were alone.

 

Jumping over a car isn't going to resolve a situation like that. Running away isn't going to resolve a situation like that.

RD, are you saying the ciops shot and killed an unarmed man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Taxpayer Relief Shot.

 

A man was shot and killed after breaking into a man’s home in Lockland, Ohio, Tuesday afternoon.

It was close to 2:15 p.m. when a gold car pulled up near the home and four individuals proceeded to get out, while a fifth person remained in the vehicle. The suspects then forced their way inside the home, but unbeknownst to them, the homeowner, who has not been publicly identified, but sounds to be an older gentleman, was there waiting with a gun.

According to reports from a local NBC affiliate, after entering the home, the suspects – one of whom was armed with a knife – threatened to kill the homeowner, but when the knife-wielding intruder tried to cut the homeowner, he opened fire.

The homeowner then placed a call to 911, while holding the remaining suspects at his home. He told the 911 dispatcher that the guy came into his house and tried to cut his throat before he shot him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love a happy ending....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites