Your skating thin ice here. Your skating thin ice here. This is not appropriate.
JC
January 10, 2014 @
10:53 PM
This is in poor taste. I This is in poor taste. I expect better from this site and regular contributors.
scaredyclassic
January 11, 2014 @
8:33 AM
Why is this in poor taste? Why is this in poor taste? How is an unknown Internet poster more intimate than a foreign tourist, as related to the dog thread.
spdrun
January 11, 2014 @
8:34 AM
I go for King Solomon’s I go for King Solomon’s solution — half of each gets to live 😀
NotCranky
January 11, 2014 @
11:10 AM
I say, kill your inner I say, kill your inner Nietzsche..or at least beat it down good, then see how you feel about the rest.
Your honesty is good but I think most of us are only there on our bad days…not everyday. Some people truly don’t relate to wanting to off the person in front of them at the grocery store ever….maybe they are repressed dog lovers but more likely you should not be so grandiose as to think everyone is you.
scaredyclassic
January 11, 2014 @
12:00 PM
in the book ON KILLING, a in the book ON KILLING, a seminal treatise on how the military takes new recruits and turns them into killing machines, the author notes that it is not easy to get people to kill other humans. These are recruits who joined the military presumably with at least some inclination to kill. In actual combat however, it is quite common for people to shoot wildly or not at all, and in close quarters to entirely freeze up.
There aren’t that many true killers amongst us.
But I beleive there are many passive killers who could care less about those they dont see.
NotCranky
January 11, 2014 @
12:14 PM
We do it all the time….this We do it all the time….this passive killing.
Jazzman
January 12, 2014 @
5:19 PM
6packscaredy wrote: In actual [quote=6packscaredy] In actual combat however, it is quite common for people to shoot wildly or not at all, and in close quarters to entirely freeze up.
There aren’t that many true killers amongst us.
[/quote]
So does private gun ownership for the purposes of self defense serve a useful purpose? I suppose your assailant doesn’t know which one you are and risks an uncomfortable encounter with a stray, wild bullet. But more to the point, how many gun owners know which one they are?
spdrun
January 12, 2014 @
7:26 PM
I’d suspect that a lot more I’d suspect that a lot more people would be willing to shoot in self-defense vs shooting a foreign soldier who didn’t do anything to them personally.
Problem with carrying a pistol in self-defense is this — unless you have it in hand 100% of the time, how do you go about getting it when a “bad guy” already has one aimed at you?
There are a very limited set of circumstances where a gun is actually useful for self-defense.
CA renter
January 13, 2014 @
12:44 AM
It’s fairly common for people It’s fairly common for people to use guns in self-defense when they hear somebody breaking into their homes.
As for guns used in self-defense (and this study was funded by “liberal,” not pro-gun/conservative sources):
———–
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). 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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
I don’t know you from Adam so I don’t know you from Adam so my dog comes first.
If I’m doing a job which requires saving people, then it’s different. My dog would not be an issue because the dog would not be there
scaredyclassic
January 13, 2014 @
3:12 PM
But. I’m your beloved But. I’m your beloved Internet companion. I give advice. I console you. I’m obviously not just a programmed rssponse. I got a wife. Kids. I’m too young, clever and well muscledto die.
Please change your mind, at least to the exclude scaredy option.
FlyerInHi
January 14, 2014 @
10:32 AM
That’s fine, scaredy. But That’s fine, scaredy. But since I don’t know you, as you’re on the verge of death, you need to identify yourself by yelling “I’m a Piggington, I’m a Piggington”. You will get priority treatment.
all
January 15, 2014 @
8:34 AM
CA renter wrote:
A different [quote=CA renter]
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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[/quote]
But how many kids have died while playing with the dad’s crowbar?
Anonymous
January 15, 2014 @
11:08 AM
Studies show that guns are Studies show that guns are more effective weapons than knives and clubs.
Wow, that’s groundbreaking news.
CA renter
January 15, 2014 @
10:49 PM
all wrote:CA renter wrote:
A [quote=all][quote=CA renter]
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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[/quote]
But how many kids have died while playing with the dad’s crowbar?[/quote]
If you look at accidental deaths for minor children, you’ll see that firearms are at the bottom of the list. Motor vehicle accidents, drownings, fires/burns, poisoning, suffocation/stragulations all outnumber firearm accidents…by a rather significant number.
There are homicides (mostly firearms) and suicides (firearms are second to suffocation/strangulation), but those are not accidents. There is little reason to believe these deaths would be prevented by anti-gun laws.
Anonymous
January 16, 2014 @
11:34 AM
Have we looked at gun Have we looked at gun accident rates in the U.S. vs one of the socialist European countries that have strict gun control laws?
Jazzman
January 21, 2014 @
1:10 PM
harvey wrote:Have we looked [quote=harvey]Have we looked at gun accident rates in the U.S. vs one of the socialist European countries that have strict gun control laws?[/quote]
Yes, we have for all the good it has done us. I believe their research shows that when you remove guns, gun deaths decline markedly for some inexplicable reason. They are socialist lies, lies, lies.
CA renter
January 21, 2014 @
5:06 PM
Jazzman wrote:harvey [quote=Jazzman][quote=harvey]Have we looked at gun accident rates in the U.S. vs one of the socialist European countries that have strict gun control laws?[/quote]
Yes, we have for all the good it has done us. I believe their research shows that when you remove guns, gun deaths decline markedly for some inexplicable reason. They are socialist lies, lies, lies.[/quote]
I don’t give a damn about “gun” deaths. I care about violent crime. If giving up guns means that we have to subject ourselves to violent criminals and more rapes, assaults, etc. (but hey, they aren’t killing us with guns!), then the choice is obvious, at least to me. Violent criminals can rot in hell.
scaredyclassic
January 21, 2014 @
5:20 PM
I think you’ll do better I think you’ll do better fending off rapes by biting off a nose or lip or with a shank to the kidney than by upholster in a pistol.
We all should v et rained in crazed physical self offense resulting in the maiming and incapacitation of I t gers with whatever we have handy including teeth.
CA renter
January 21, 2014 @
9:45 PM
6packscaredy wrote:I think [quote=6packscaredy]I think you’ll do better fending off rapes by biting off a nose or lip or with a shank to the kidney than by upholster in a pistol.
We all should v et rained in crazed physical self offense resulting in the maiming and incapacitation of I t gers with whatever we have handy including teeth.[/quote]
Agree with your last paragraph. 🙂 But, unfortunately, size and strength do matter. It’s said that the winner of the fight for life is determined within the first 30 seconds. Not good for most women (and men) who haven’t trained very intensively for a long time.
all
January 16, 2014 @
5:07 PM
CA renter wrote:all wrote:CA [quote=CA renter][quote=all][quote=CA renter]
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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[/quote]
But how many kids have died while playing with the dad’s crowbar?[/quote]
If you look at accidental deaths for minor children, you’ll see that firearms are at the bottom of the list. Motor vehicle accidents, drownings, fires/burns, poisoning, suffocation/stragulations all outnumber firearm accidents…by a rather significant number.
There are homicides (mostly firearms) and suicides (firearms are second to suffocation/strangulation), but those are not accidents. There is little reason to believe these deaths would be prevented by anti-gun laws.[/quote]
I just think the study should consider side effects like accidental deaths, not just the lower injury rates during incidents. Pool drowning accidents are not relevant unless the intention was to use the pool as a moat.
CA renter
January 16, 2014 @
8:36 PM
Could you elaborate, captcha? Could you elaborate, captcha? Not sure I understand what you mean by a “side effect” of accidental death.
all
January 17, 2014 @
12:26 PM
CA renter wrote:Could you [quote=CA renter]Could you elaborate, captcha? Not sure I understand what you mean by a “side effect” of accidental death.[/quote]
The study you quoted says that those who used guns to defend themselves suffered lower injury rates than those who used other self-protective strategies. However, the ability to use a gun for protection comes with a risk of non-defensive gun-related injuries. I believe any unbiased study should factor in the unintended consequences of being able to defend using a gun.
CA renter
January 18, 2014 @
1:01 AM
all wrote:CA renter [quote=all][quote=CA renter]Could you elaborate, captcha? Not sure I understand what you mean by a “side effect” of accidental death.[/quote]
The study you quoted says that those who used guns to defend themselves suffered lower injury rates than those who used other self-protective strategies. However, the ability to use a gun for protection comes with a risk of non-defensive gun-related injuries. I believe any unbiased study should factor in the unintended consequences of being able to defend using a gun.[/quote]
Well, the link I had posted above lists the leading causes of accidental deaths, and gun-related deaths were low on the list.
People who chose to use guns for self-defense are very likely to understand that there are risks involved. They chose to accept those risks so that they can have a better chance for defending oneself if one should ever have to do so. The above statistics show that the instances of guns used in self defense is much higher than the number of accidental gun deaths. It’s a pretty rational decision.
Personally, I would rather die an accidental death as a result of owning a gun vs. dying at the hands of a violent criminal. Not everyone will make that same choice, but most people who own guns understand the risks.
scaredyclassic
January 21, 2014 @
10:51 AM
Back to dogs: are you people Back to dogs: are you people not on facebook? The level of dog love us staggering.
Godwins law for pigging to is that eventually all threads will devolve into 2nd am. Debates.
Jazzman
January 21, 2014 @
12:50 PM
spdrun wrote:I’d suspect that [quote=spdrun]I’d suspect that a lot more people would be willing to shoot in self-defense vs shooting a foreign soldier who didn’t do anything to them personally.
Problem with carrying a pistol in self-defense is this — unless you have it in hand 100% of the time, how do you go about getting it when a “bad guy” already has one aimed at you?
There are a very limited set of circumstances where a gun is actually useful for self-defense.[/quote]
Your second para is right, but I believe the problem with using a gun in self-defense goes a little deeper.
1. What if there were no witnesses, or the only witness was a fellow assailant? Criminals have good attorneys as well. Think Trayvon Martin.
2. The emotional ordeal of taking another’s life may be underestimated. There will be nagging questions, self doubt, depression, confusion. Investigations into the killing or shooting will compound this.
3. You may have to live under a shower of death threats, or even go into hiding from vindictive friends and family. Your whole life could be turned upside down.
Perhaps for some, this is the price to pay for self preservation and maybe they are right, but all gun control advocates are saying is needless deaths can be avoided by controlling access to guns. Otherwise, you impose on society the right to determine who dies indiscriminately. That may seem like an oxymoron but it makes sense in the context of whether you believe needless deaths trump everything, or some deaths are unavoidable and necessary. To help answer that question, you need to ask whether there is an ideal solution. If that ideal solution involves removing the need to defend yourself with a firearm, then you cannot forcefully argue guns are a necessary evil, because you have already conceded that an alternative may exist.
scaredyclassic
January 21, 2014 @
1:32 PM
Is there some way to file Is there some way to file down dog teeth or cap them so they’re not sharp?
They eat soft food anyway?
CA renter
January 21, 2014 @
5:04 PM
Jazzman,
How, exactly, do you Jazzman,
How, exactly, do you think you can mold society so that self-defense is no longer necessary? How do you turn a violent sociopath into a pussycat?
scaredyclassic
January 11, 2014 @
1:51 PM
I only want my enemies slain I only want my enemies slain while working out. All other times I prefer mercy and peace..
moneymaker
January 11, 2014 @
9:32 PM
Jason Bourne lives! I believe Jason Bourne lives! I believe he had no parents, siblings (at least in the movie), or children. Without social attachment probably makes it easier. When I was in the Marine Corps I didn’t really think about killing any one, and now that I’m older I am just grateful that I never did. I almost ran over a cat today, a black one at that.
your dog is a pack animal who your dog is a pack animal who wants you to be way way way inc harge. this may involve occasionally treating your dog like crap. your dog really doesn’t care about your morality. if you guys were hungry, your dog would bethrilled with you killing and eating someone else, or their pet.
NotCranky
January 22, 2014 @
7:21 AM
Dogs do respond to love too Dogs do respond to love too it seems not just alpha type authority without love.
The dog we got for my son’s 10th birthday present apparently has been abused. Couldn’t tell when we got him and I am not sure why he was so confident at that time. He is skittish and won’t listen because he is afraid. I didn’t really want to show the dog any kindness..sort of saving that for other things.
We have to put the two dogs in at night or they bark at coyotes all night. It was very hard to do get the new dog in because it was so afraid. So, it was pretty clear I going to have to be nice to it. I hugged it and petted it and rubbed it’s belly a few times and now it does whatever I say. Very easy to get in a night.
Now I have to save my kids dog instead of a random pigg.
scaredyclassic
January 22, 2014 @
7:40 AM
Done tr us t these hounds. Done tr us t these hounds. They’re sneaky.
NotCranky
January 22, 2014 @
2:13 PM
Is it true the one of the Is it true the one of the Williams sisters just recently said in an interview that she was anxious to get home and see her son it’s actually a dog? Millionaire tennis player has a dog for a son? Man’s best friend is now also the best son money can buy.
svelte
January 22, 2014 @
9:34 PM
6packscaredy wrote:Done tr us [quote=6packscaredy]Done tr us t these hounds. They’re sneaky.[/quote]
Who woulda thought scaredy would be afeered of dogs? lol
It has been my experience that you have to differentiate between female dogs and male dogs. Some of the female dogs I’ve known have been the sweetest creatures ever, with hearts of pure gold. The males, on the other hand, have often been aggressive, wiley, and to a large degree without conscience.
Which, coincidently, would be the same way I’d describe many of the male and female humans I’ve known…
January 10, 2014 @ 9:54 PM
Your skating thin ice here.
Your skating thin ice here. This is not appropriate.
January 10, 2014 @ 10:53 PM
This is in poor taste. I
This is in poor taste. I expect better from this site and regular contributors.
January 11, 2014 @ 8:33 AM
Why is this in poor taste?
Why is this in poor taste? How is an unknown Internet poster more intimate than a foreign tourist, as related to the dog thread.
January 11, 2014 @ 8:34 AM
I go for King Solomon’s
I go for King Solomon’s solution — half of each gets to live 😀
January 11, 2014 @ 11:10 AM
I say, kill your inner
I say, kill your inner Nietzsche..or at least beat it down good, then see how you feel about the rest.
Your honesty is good but I think most of us are only there on our bad days…not everyday. Some people truly don’t relate to wanting to off the person in front of them at the grocery store ever….maybe they are repressed dog lovers but more likely you should not be so grandiose as to think everyone is you.
January 11, 2014 @ 12:00 PM
in the book ON KILLING, a
in the book ON KILLING, a seminal treatise on how the military takes new recruits and turns them into killing machines, the author notes that it is not easy to get people to kill other humans. These are recruits who joined the military presumably with at least some inclination to kill. In actual combat however, it is quite common for people to shoot wildly or not at all, and in close quarters to entirely freeze up.
There aren’t that many true killers amongst us.
But I beleive there are many passive killers who could care less about those they dont see.
January 11, 2014 @ 12:14 PM
We do it all the time….this
We do it all the time….this passive killing.
January 12, 2014 @ 5:19 PM
6packscaredy wrote: In actual
[quote=6packscaredy] In actual combat however, it is quite common for people to shoot wildly or not at all, and in close quarters to entirely freeze up.
There aren’t that many true killers amongst us.
[/quote]
So does private gun ownership for the purposes of self defense serve a useful purpose? I suppose your assailant doesn’t know which one you are and risks an uncomfortable encounter with a stray, wild bullet. But more to the point, how many gun owners know which one they are?
January 12, 2014 @ 7:26 PM
I’d suspect that a lot more
I’d suspect that a lot more people would be willing to shoot in self-defense vs shooting a foreign soldier who didn’t do anything to them personally.
Problem with carrying a pistol in self-defense is this — unless you have it in hand 100% of the time, how do you go about getting it when a “bad guy” already has one aimed at you?
There are a very limited set of circumstances where a gun is actually useful for self-defense.
January 13, 2014 @ 12:44 AM
It’s fairly common for people
It’s fairly common for people to use guns in self-defense when they hear somebody breaking into their homes.
As for guns used in self-defense (and this study was funded by “liberal,” not pro-gun/conservative sources):
———–
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). 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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[from pages 15-16]
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15
January 13, 2014 @ 1:05 PM
I don’t know you from Adam so
I don’t know you from Adam so my dog comes first.
If I’m doing a job which requires saving people, then it’s different. My dog would not be an issue because the dog would not be there
January 13, 2014 @ 3:12 PM
But. I’m your beloved
But. I’m your beloved Internet companion. I give advice. I console you. I’m obviously not just a programmed rssponse. I got a wife. Kids. I’m too young, clever and well muscledto die.
Please change your mind, at least to the exclude scaredy option.
January 14, 2014 @ 10:32 AM
That’s fine, scaredy. But
That’s fine, scaredy. But since I don’t know you, as you’re on the verge of death, you need to identify yourself by yelling “I’m a Piggington, I’m a Piggington”. You will get priority treatment.
January 15, 2014 @ 8:34 AM
CA renter wrote:
A different
[quote=CA renter]
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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[/quote]
But how many kids have died while playing with the dad’s crowbar?
January 15, 2014 @ 11:08 AM
Studies show that guns are
Studies show that guns are more effective weapons than knives and clubs.
Wow, that’s groundbreaking news.
January 15, 2014 @ 10:49 PM
all wrote:CA renter wrote:
A
[quote=all][quote=CA renter]
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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[/quote]
But how many kids have died while playing with the dad’s crowbar?[/quote]
If you look at accidental deaths for minor children, you’ll see that firearms are at the bottom of the list. Motor vehicle accidents, drownings, fires/burns, poisoning, suffocation/stragulations all outnumber firearm accidents…by a rather significant number.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm
There are homicides (mostly firearms) and suicides (firearms are second to suffocation/strangulation), but those are not accidents. There is little reason to believe these deaths would be prevented by anti-gun laws.
January 16, 2014 @ 11:34 AM
Have we looked at gun
Have we looked at gun accident rates in the U.S. vs one of the socialist European countries that have strict gun control laws?
January 21, 2014 @ 1:10 PM
harvey wrote:Have we looked
[quote=harvey]Have we looked at gun accident rates in the U.S. vs one of the socialist European countries that have strict gun control laws?[/quote]
Yes, we have for all the good it has done us. I believe their research shows that when you remove guns, gun deaths decline markedly for some inexplicable reason. They are socialist lies, lies, lies.
January 21, 2014 @ 5:06 PM
Jazzman wrote:harvey
[quote=Jazzman][quote=harvey]Have we looked at gun accident rates in the U.S. vs one of the socialist European countries that have strict gun control laws?[/quote]
Yes, we have for all the good it has done us. I believe their research shows that when you remove guns, gun deaths decline markedly for some inexplicable reason. They are socialist lies, lies, lies.[/quote]
I don’t give a damn about “gun” deaths. I care about violent crime. If giving up guns means that we have to subject ourselves to violent criminals and more rapes, assaults, etc. (but hey, they aren’t killing us with guns!), then the choice is obvious, at least to me. Violent criminals can rot in hell.
January 21, 2014 @ 5:20 PM
I think you’ll do better
I think you’ll do better fending off rapes by biting off a nose or lip or with a shank to the kidney than by upholster in a pistol.
We all should v et rained in crazed physical self offense resulting in the maiming and incapacitation of I t gers with whatever we have handy including teeth.
January 21, 2014 @ 9:45 PM
6packscaredy wrote:I think
[quote=6packscaredy]I think you’ll do better fending off rapes by biting off a nose or lip or with a shank to the kidney than by upholster in a pistol.
We all should v et rained in crazed physical self offense resulting in the maiming and incapacitation of I t gers with whatever we have handy including teeth.[/quote]
Agree with your last paragraph. 🙂 But, unfortunately, size and strength do matter. It’s said that the winner of the fight for life is determined within the first 30 seconds. Not good for most women (and men) who haven’t trained very intensively for a long time.
January 16, 2014 @ 5:07 PM
CA renter wrote:all wrote:CA
[quote=CA renter][quote=all][quote=CA renter]
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. 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 (Kleck, 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.
[/quote]
But how many kids have died while playing with the dad’s crowbar?[/quote]
If you look at accidental deaths for minor children, you’ll see that firearms are at the bottom of the list. Motor vehicle accidents, drownings, fires/burns, poisoning, suffocation/stragulations all outnumber firearm accidents…by a rather significant number.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm
There are homicides (mostly firearms) and suicides (firearms are second to suffocation/strangulation), but those are not accidents. There is little reason to believe these deaths would be prevented by anti-gun laws.[/quote]
I just think the study should consider side effects like accidental deaths, not just the lower injury rates during incidents. Pool drowning accidents are not relevant unless the intention was to use the pool as a moat.
January 16, 2014 @ 8:36 PM
Could you elaborate, captcha?
Could you elaborate, captcha? Not sure I understand what you mean by a “side effect” of accidental death.
January 17, 2014 @ 12:26 PM
CA renter wrote:Could you
[quote=CA renter]Could you elaborate, captcha? Not sure I understand what you mean by a “side effect” of accidental death.[/quote]
The study you quoted says that those who used guns to defend themselves suffered lower injury rates than those who used other self-protective strategies. However, the ability to use a gun for protection comes with a risk of non-defensive gun-related injuries. I believe any unbiased study should factor in the unintended consequences of being able to defend using a gun.
January 18, 2014 @ 1:01 AM
all wrote:CA renter
[quote=all][quote=CA renter]Could you elaborate, captcha? Not sure I understand what you mean by a “side effect” of accidental death.[/quote]
The study you quoted says that those who used guns to defend themselves suffered lower injury rates than those who used other self-protective strategies. However, the ability to use a gun for protection comes with a risk of non-defensive gun-related injuries. I believe any unbiased study should factor in the unintended consequences of being able to defend using a gun.[/quote]
Well, the link I had posted above lists the leading causes of accidental deaths, and gun-related deaths were low on the list.
People who chose to use guns for self-defense are very likely to understand that there are risks involved. They chose to accept those risks so that they can have a better chance for defending oneself if one should ever have to do so. The above statistics show that the instances of guns used in self defense is much higher than the number of accidental gun deaths. It’s a pretty rational decision.
Personally, I would rather die an accidental death as a result of owning a gun vs. dying at the hands of a violent criminal. Not everyone will make that same choice, but most people who own guns understand the risks.
January 21, 2014 @ 10:51 AM
Back to dogs: are you people
Back to dogs: are you people not on facebook? The level of dog love us staggering.
Godwins law for pigging to is that eventually all threads will devolve into 2nd am. Debates.
January 21, 2014 @ 12:50 PM
spdrun wrote:I’d suspect that
[quote=spdrun]I’d suspect that a lot more people would be willing to shoot in self-defense vs shooting a foreign soldier who didn’t do anything to them personally.
Problem with carrying a pistol in self-defense is this — unless you have it in hand 100% of the time, how do you go about getting it when a “bad guy” already has one aimed at you?
There are a very limited set of circumstances where a gun is actually useful for self-defense.[/quote]
Your second para is right, but I believe the problem with using a gun in self-defense goes a little deeper.
1. What if there were no witnesses, or the only witness was a fellow assailant? Criminals have good attorneys as well. Think Trayvon Martin.
2. The emotional ordeal of taking another’s life may be underestimated. There will be nagging questions, self doubt, depression, confusion. Investigations into the killing or shooting will compound this.
3. You may have to live under a shower of death threats, or even go into hiding from vindictive friends and family. Your whole life could be turned upside down.
Perhaps for some, this is the price to pay for self preservation and maybe they are right, but all gun control advocates are saying is needless deaths can be avoided by controlling access to guns. Otherwise, you impose on society the right to determine who dies indiscriminately. That may seem like an oxymoron but it makes sense in the context of whether you believe needless deaths trump everything, or some deaths are unavoidable and necessary. To help answer that question, you need to ask whether there is an ideal solution. If that ideal solution involves removing the need to defend yourself with a firearm, then you cannot forcefully argue guns are a necessary evil, because you have already conceded that an alternative may exist.
January 21, 2014 @ 1:32 PM
Is there some way to file
Is there some way to file down dog teeth or cap them so they’re not sharp?
They eat soft food anyway?
January 21, 2014 @ 5:04 PM
Jazzman,
How, exactly, do you
Jazzman,
How, exactly, do you think you can mold society so that self-defense is no longer necessary? How do you turn a violent sociopath into a pussycat?
January 11, 2014 @ 1:51 PM
I only want my enemies slain
I only want my enemies slain while working out. All other times I prefer mercy and peace..
January 11, 2014 @ 9:32 PM
Jason Bourne lives! I believe
Jason Bourne lives! I believe he had no parents, siblings (at least in the movie), or children. Without social attachment probably makes it easier. When I was in the Marine Corps I didn’t really think about killing any one, and now that I’m older I am just grateful that I never did. I almost ran over a cat today, a black one at that.
January 22, 2014 @ 4:05 AM
Think
[img_assist|nid=17853|title=Think|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=451|height=637]
January 22, 2014 @ 6:20 AM
your dog is a pack animal who
your dog is a pack animal who wants you to be way way way inc harge. this may involve occasionally treating your dog like crap. your dog really doesn’t care about your morality. if you guys were hungry, your dog would bethrilled with you killing and eating someone else, or their pet.
January 22, 2014 @ 7:21 AM
Dogs do respond to love too
Dogs do respond to love too it seems not just alpha type authority without love.
The dog we got for my son’s 10th birthday present apparently has been abused. Couldn’t tell when we got him and I am not sure why he was so confident at that time. He is skittish and won’t listen because he is afraid. I didn’t really want to show the dog any kindness..sort of saving that for other things.
We have to put the two dogs in at night or they bark at coyotes all night. It was very hard to do get the new dog in because it was so afraid. So, it was pretty clear I going to have to be nice to it. I hugged it and petted it and rubbed it’s belly a few times and now it does whatever I say. Very easy to get in a night.
Now I have to save my kids dog instead of a random pigg.
January 22, 2014 @ 7:40 AM
Done tr us t these hounds.
Done tr us t these hounds. They’re sneaky.
January 22, 2014 @ 2:13 PM
Is it true the one of the
Is it true the one of the Williams sisters just recently said in an interview that she was anxious to get home and see her son it’s actually a dog? Millionaire tennis player has a dog for a son? Man’s best friend is now also the best son money can buy.
January 22, 2014 @ 9:34 PM
6packscaredy wrote:Done tr us
[quote=6packscaredy]Done tr us t these hounds. They’re sneaky.[/quote]
Who woulda thought scaredy would be afeered of dogs? lol
It has been my experience that you have to differentiate between female dogs and male dogs. Some of the female dogs I’ve known have been the sweetest creatures ever, with hearts of pure gold. The males, on the other hand, have often been aggressive, wiley, and to a large degree without conscience.
Which, coincidently, would be the same way I’d describe many of the male and female humans I’ve known…