Speaking of mental health issues....Don't talk about the gun, even though that's what was used to commit the crime. If people talk about guns, and the merits of owning them, I might lose my masculinity tool replacement gadget. That would make me cry and I don't like crying.
Rather, let's talk about the chef; THE CHEF. What was he doing? Huh? Anyone wanna tell me?
And the knife! Those things are sharp, unlike guns which are blunt and safe and don't kill people. Only people kill people, often times with a knife which are just as dangerous as guns except when they're not.
THIS IS A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE.
Like..I find it odd that lately I've been agreeing with some of what SS is saying, but is it just me or is this board lately becoming more far radical left? I mean, it's like no one has any understanding of personal accountability and wants to blame everyone everything else but the person for their own issues. I'm not even remotely conservative and even I understand that guns aren't the root of any of these problems.
Like..I find it odd that lately I've been agreeing with some of what SS is saying, but is it just me or is this board lately becoming more far radical left? I mean, it's like no one has any understanding of personal accountability and wants to blame everyone everything else but the person for their own issues. I'm not even remotely conservative and even I understand that guns aren't the root of any of these problems.
The left in general is becoming more radical, this board is very leftist in general. I have no illusion that ease of access to guns can contribute to crime and cause higher level of lethality in violent crimes. But, I feel the left has become infatuated with the method and overly magnifies gun violence for the sake of pushing their narrative. If this woman poisoned, stabbed, or bludgeoned with a hammer her husband and he died this wouldn't be a thread.
Is owning a gun making you statistically less safe even a worthwhile argument? I expect most people accept that risk, much like we accept the risk of getting in cars, owning a pool, etc. etc. Responsible owners take steps to mitigate risk, but there's still people who don't buckle up or text and drive.
Is owning a gun making you statistically less safe even a worthwhile argument? I expect most people accept that risk, much like we accept the risk of getting in cars, owning a pool, etc. etc. Responsible owners take steps to mitigate risk, but there's still people who don't buckle up or text and drive.
I’m as shocked as anyone. After all, owning a gun makes you safer, right?
Being married to an insane person makes you less safe. I think we need to ban being married to somebody insane to solve the problem.
But talk about a generation difference on display here. Who orders pr0n channels anymore? Oh, the babby boomers do. Lots of free pr0n on the internet, or so I have been told
Most gun owners are responsible gun owners right up until they day they aren't.People make statistically irrational decisions all the time, but you're also trying to apply national stats to an individual's risk profile. Not everyone is Florida Man. Some people have a higher likelihood of being violent crime victims, others are reactionary fearful suburbanites. Some people properly secure firearms and spend time learning to use them, others bring them into their house without thinking of the consequences. Additionally, many states have gone so far as to restrict every other possible weapon beyond your kitchen knife. So we're essentially discussing restricting an individual's right to defend himself because at the statistically broadest level his firearm is more likely to harm him. At the end of the day it's a push and pull between principles and pragmatism, and I'm not saying we're anywhere close to the right balance, but I think it's a mistake to start determining individual rights this way.
People make statistically irrational decisions all the time, but you're also trying to apply national stats to an individual's risk profile. Not everyone is Florida Man. Some people have a higher likelihood of being violent crime victims, others are reactionary fearful suburbanites. Some people properly secure firearms and spend time learning to use them, others bring them into their house without thinking of the consequences. Additionally, many states have gone so far as to restrict every other possible weapon beyond your kitchen knife. So we're essentially discussing restricting an individual's right to defend himself because at the statistically broadest level his firearm is more likely to harm him. At the end of the day it's a push and pull between principles and pragmatism, and I'm not saying we're anywhere close to the right balance, but I think it's a mistake to start determining individual rights this way.
Is owning a gun making you statistically less safe even a worthwhile argument? I expect most people accept that risk, much like we accept the risk of getting in cars, owning a pool, etc. etc. Responsible owners take steps to mitigate risk, but there's still people who don't buckle up or text and drive.
I think what gets ignored when talking about this is the quality of the risk. We talk quantity all the time. Statistically we aren't likely to have a house fire, but we buy insurance why? Because if it does happen, it could be devastating. Yeah statistically you won't have a home invasion. However if some fool does do it, the possibility of something very bad happening to you or a loved one is more than most people can stand. So some people choose to have guns. Could you be ok with your decision not to have a gun if your daughter was raped or killed by an intruder? Would those stats comfort you? "Well, I made the right decision because statistically it was very unlikely to happen. RIP baby." I don't think most people could be good with that.What's more likely to happen; someone or family member gets hurt with their own gun or a home invasion?
I'd say both are unlikely to happen so it seems pretty irrational to own something for the specific purpose of keeping one's family safe when that very thing makes you and your family less safe.
But hey, being irrational is their problem not mine, well until it is and there in lies the problem. So if the solution isn't a total ban then what other options do we have other than ignoring it?
I think what gets ignored when talking about this is the quality of the risk. We talk quantity all the time. Statistically we aren't likely to have a house fire, but we buy insurance why? Because if it does happen, it could be devastating. Yeah statistically you won't have a home invasion. However if some fool does do it, the possibility of something very bad happening to you or a loved one is more than most people can stand. So some people choose to have guns. Could you be ok with your decision not to have a gun if your daughter was raped or killed by an intruder? Would those stats comfort you? "Well, I made the right decision because statistically it was very unlikely to happen. RIP baby." I don't think most people could be good with that.
I'm not taking anything back. I guess your stats would comfort you in that unlikely event. All I was suggesting is that there are some people who couldn't live with it or at least not well. I guess you don't have insurance either. I'm back to live and let live which some can't seem to do.so now that we have established more people die from lightning strikes then home invasion deaths do you want to walk back your dumb talking point?
I'm not taking anything back. I guess your stats would comfort you in that unlikely event. All I was suggesting is that there are some people who couldn't live with it or at least not well. I guess you don't have insurance either. I'm back to live and let live which some can't seem to do.
The number one reason people cite as a justification for their firearm purchase is self protection so if people are acting rationally the fact that owning a gun makes you less safe should be an awfully compelling reason not to purchase one, no?
We accept the risks from cars because they have significant utility. Guns really don't, outside of recreational activities and frankly that's not a very compelling argument to me. As I said, they actually provide NEGATIVE value for their most commonly cited purpose.
Wow aren't you quite hostile and disrespectful. I'm done talking to you.Do fires randomly start in the homes that have insurance? No? Then shut the fuck up. Sit down.
I think what gets ignored when talking about this is the quality of the risk. We talk quantity all the time. Statistically we aren't likely to have a house fire, but we buy insurance why? Because if it does happen, it could be devastating. Yeah statistically you won't have a home invasion. However if some fool does do it, the possibility of something very bad happening to you or a loved one is more than most people can stand. So some people choose to have guns. Could you be ok with your decision not to have a gun if your daughter was raped or killed by an intruder? Would those stats comfort you? "Well, I made the right decision because statistically it was very unlikely to happen. RIP baby." I don't think most people could be good with that.
I've had guns in my home my entire life, they've only made me safer.
welp we are back to this dumb talking point.
U.S. Dept of Justice does cover home invasions. This report covers a 4 year period from 2003 to 2007. Data is annualized. NO deaths due to home invasions.
bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
Highlights
*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.
*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
*Simple assault (15% or 155,400) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred.
*Robbery (7% 72,520) and rape (3% 31,080) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred.
*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% or 2,405,000 of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% 8,702 of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
*Households residing in single family units and higher density structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.
*Serious injury accounted for 9% or 6, 527 people and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a completed burglary
Wow aren't you quite hostile and disrespectful. I'm done talking to you.