What if she didn't have a gun?

[DigitalDrifter]

Most women are raped by men they know. It's why you almost never hear of these cases of "chased a rapist off with a gun", because they almost never happen.

This just happened last week in the county where I live:

JUNCTION CITY, Ore. - A woman held an intruder at gunpoint until authorities arrived Wednesday morning.

The man then refused to surrender to police, taking up a fighting stance armed with a shoe, the Lane County Sheriff's Office said.

A deputy and an Oregon State Police trooper finally took 33-year-old Joseph Riley Baker into custody with the help of a stun gun.

Law enforcement responded to the High Pass Road home after the resident called to report she was holding an intruder at gunpoint just before 9 a.m. Wednesday.

Baker armed himself with a shoe and threatened to assault the deputy and trooper who first arrived on scene. They used a Taser to take him into custody.

The deputy jailed Baker on charges of Burglary I, Criminal Mischief I, Menacing and Resisting Arrest.

Sheriff: Woman holds intruder at gunpoint | Local | KMTR

Where does the story say he was a total stranger? Because honestly, looking at the picture, the guy has "Jilted Boyfriend" written all over him.

The woman does not know Baker, officials said.

Woman holds intruder at gunpoint in her home | News | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

And by the way, why would it matter if she knew him ? If he had been a former boyfriend, what if he had returned to assault her ?

 

[Brain357]

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence

Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.

I don't give a shit about the NRA.

Banning guns will not decrease violent crime.

Period.

I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.

 

[skookerasbil]

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence

Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.

Here ya go s0n >>>


In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Its a simple connect the dots exercise.

 

[Brain357]

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence

Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.

Here ya go s0n >>>


In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Its a simple connect the dots exercise.

Ok, so of the Scandinavian countries Finland has the most guns and the highest homicide rate. Why is that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.

Here ya go s0n >>>


In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Its a simple connect the dots exercise.

Ok, so of the Scandinavian countries Finland has the most guns and the highest homicide rate. Why is that?

meh



Just read the paper s0n.......and check this out while you are at it.....the idiots in England banned guns and crime went through the roof, especially homicides. Disconnect from emotions s0n!! >>>

GUN WATCH: Homicides Increased in England After Gun Ban

 

[Brain357]

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence

Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.

Here ya go s0n >>>


In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Its a simple connect the dots exercise.

Reading the conclusion seems to disagree with you. It says the number of guns doesn't effect crime. Why is Russia in this study if it is Europe?

 

[Brain357]

Here ya go s0n >>>


In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Its a simple connect the dots exercise.

Ok, so of the Scandinavian countries Finland has the most guns and the highest homicide rate. Why is that?

meh



Just read the paper s0n.......and check this out while you are at it.....the idiots in England banned guns and crime went through the roof, especially homicides. Disconnect from emotions s0n!! >>>

GUN WATCH: Homicides Increased in England After Gun Ban

I think you need to disconnect from emotion and read the conclusion of the paper. Australia's laws have eliminated mass shootings. That would be nice.

 

[mudwhistle]

Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.

I don't give a shit about the NRA.

Banning guns will not decrease violent crime.

Period.

I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.

Sometimes people with an agenda tend to oversimplify a complex issue. Society plays a greater role than they are willing to admit. Set up the optimum conditions and crime, with or without guns, is automatic. Increase poverty, drug addiction, bigotry, lack of communication between races and economic classes and you have a powder-keg of violence waiting to happen.

Why is most of the gun violence in black neighborhoods and in inner cities? Why has every mass shooting in the last several years involved a student, a Muslim, a clinically insane individual, or a minority? Why is it we get nothing but division and hatred from the left?

Because they want guns in the hands of the wrong people so they can take them from the rest of us.

I remember after Sandyhook the left wanted to treat all gun owners the same way they treat anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, like pariahs. That blew up in their faces in Colorado. People remember this, and will punish Democrats come November.

 

[Brain357]

I don't give a shit about the NRA.

Banning guns will not decrease violent crime.

Period.

I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.

Sometimes people with an agenda tend to oversimplify a complex issue. Society plays a greater role than they are willing to admit. Set up the optimum conditions and crime, with or without guns, is automatic. Increase poverty, drug addiction, bigotry, lack of communication between races and economic classes and you have a powder-keg of violence waiting to happen.

Why is most of the gun violence in black neighborhoods and in inner cities? Why has every mass shooting in the last several years involved a student, a Muslim, a clinically insane individual, or a minority? Why is it we get nothing but division and hatred from the left?

Because they want guns in the hands of the wrong people so they can take them from the rest of us.

I remember after Sandyhook the left wanted to treat all gun owners the same way they treat anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, like pariahs. That blew up in their faces in Colorado. People remember this, and will punish Democrats come November.

Much of what you say is correct. I think inequality is the main problem. Unfortunately the right ignores that problem. But taking the guns isn't the only option. Magazine limits, background checks for all sales, and gun registration wouldn't take guns from a single law abiding owner. Would slow the mass shooter though and make it harder for criminals to get guns.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think the military are the best people this country has. I have no doubt they would recognize tyranny and end it. If it was 1/4 military vs 3/4 military I don't think there would even be any fighting. The 1/4 would know they couldn't win. They do all have the same training and weapons after all. And the 1/4 wouldn't exactly be fighting for a good cause.

How would the sides even get separated for a battle? Our military bases have people from all over the country in them. So on a base level you would have 25% for the tyrant and 75% against. The 75% would jail the 25% and then take out the tyrant.

I really have no idea what you're talking about at this point as you are severely over complicating things for reasons I am unsure of. I'll try to put it into simple terms. We agree the military will likely be split, however the exact dimensions of that split is unknown.

What remains is that it is not possible to assume the "good" part of the military will be everywhere at once, and that it would be in a citizen's best interest - in the event of a needed uprising - to have his/her own firearm in the case that he/she needs to defend the homestead in the event the "bad" part of the military reaches their home first.

It's simple.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

What irks me is that psychoes like HOlmes and Lanza can get their hands on AR-15's and slaughter a lot of people. I'm not sure why this doesn't bother you, but I suspect you are compensating for "shortcomings' like most gun nuts.

If AR 15s kill 25 people annually, and handguns 7,000 (homicides), and you go after the AR 15 first, that irks me. Does not make a lot of sense.

It's disingenuous.

I think hi capacity magazines is really the thing to go after. There are lots and lots of examples of shooters being stopped when they reload.

But are high capacity magazines frequently involved in a significant number of murders each year? I just don't see the logic behind wasting energy, time, and resources on "banning" high capacity magazines (which is a very difficult thing to do, given so many are already floating around) when you'd be much more effective at curbing violence by limiting handgun access to the inner city gangs.

Were talking 25 murders a year (high capacity magazine) vs. 8,000 (gangs).

 

[Brain357]

I think the military are the best people this country has. I have no doubt they would recognize tyranny and end it. If it was 1/4 military vs 3/4 military I don't think there would even be any fighting. The 1/4 would know they couldn't win. They do all have the same training and weapons after all. And the 1/4 wouldn't exactly be fighting for a good cause.

How would the sides even get separated for a battle? Our military bases have people from all over the country in them. So on a base level you would have 25% for the tyrant and 75% against. The 75% would jail the 25% and then take out the tyrant.

I really have no idea what you're talking about at this point as you are severely over complicating things for reasons I am unsure of. I'll try to put it into simple terms. We agree the military will likely be split, however the exact dimensions of that split is unknown.

What remains is that it is not possible to assume the "good" part of the military will be everywhere at once, and that it would be in a citizen's best interest - in the event of a needed uprising - to have his/her own firearm in the case that he/she needs to defend the homestead in the event the "bad" part of the military reaches their home first.

It's simple.
.

No it's not simple at all. If you defend your homestead against the military you will die, what is gained by that? Some guy with a gun isn't going to fight off today's military, it's foolish to think they could.

You should be agreeing with me as I've mostly used your own arguments, how can you not understand? There is no situation where citizens with guns would help. They would be a huge friendly fire problem more than a help.

 

[KevinWestern]

Guy, if you bring intelligent arguments to the table, I'll be happy to address them.

If you are going to spew a lot of NRA propaganda because you are compensating for a tiny penis, not so much.

All I have presented is logic.

Stricter gun regulation beyond what we have now is illogical because it simply does not work. You can't disappear all of the guns in the United States - they're here to stay. Criminals - time and time again - have demonstrated themselves to be criminals (crazy, isn't it?) and have illegally gotten their hands on guns.

If they have guns, I want guns too. It's that simple.

And I want to add that your insults are childish and further strengthen my case that you lack a great deal of basic intelligence. If you want to debate with the big boys, then grow up.


.

 

[Brain357]

If AR 15s kill 25 people annually, and handguns 7,000 (homicides), and you go after the AR 15 first, that irks me. Does not make a lot of sense.

It's disingenuous.

I think hi capacity magazines is really the thing to go after. There are lots and lots of examples of shooters being stopped when they reload.

But are high capacity magazines frequently involved in a significant number of murders each year? I just don't see the logic behind wasting energy, time, and resources on "banning" high capacity magazines (which is a very difficult thing to do, given so many are already floating around) when you'd be much more effective at curbing violence by limiting handgun access to the inner city gangs.

Were talking 25 murders a year (high capacity magazine) vs. 8,000 (gangs).

Where do you get your numbers?! Mass shootings alone are more than 25 murders. I have read many examples of shootings stopped when shooter reloads, I'd prefer he shoot less before being stopped. Studies show defense uses 2-3 shots.. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. Why should we have them?

 

[KevinWestern]

No it's not simple at all. If you defend your homestead against the military you will die, what is gained by that? Some guy with a gun isn't going to fight off today's military, it's foolish to think they could.

You should be agreeing with me as I've mostly used your own arguments, how can you not understand? There is no situation where citizens with guns would help. They would be a huge friendly fire problem more than a help.

Then why - Brain - did those folks in Afghanistan and Iraq (pockets of rebels) enjoy a great deal of success holding off our supremely powerful military for so many years in an area a fraction the size of the US?

They were less educated, less wealthy, and had weapons that were about 40 years old.

Why isn't your theory holding up to the facts?

 

[Brain357]

No it's not simple at all. If you defend your homestead against the military you will die, what is gained by that? Some guy with a gun isn't going to fight off today's military, it's foolish to think they could.

You should be agreeing with me as I've mostly used your own arguments, how can you not understand? There is no situation where citizens with guns would help. They would be a huge friendly fire problem more than a help.

Then why - Brain - did those folks in Afghanistan and Iraq (pockets of rebels) enjoy a great deal of success holding off our supremely powerful military for so many years in an area a fraction the size of the US?

They were less educated, less wealthy, and had weapons that were about 40 years old.

Why isn't your theory holding up to the facts?

We ran over both countries quite easily. Both were invasions by another country, not tyranny taking over long standing democracies. Your insulting our military.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think hi capacity magazines is really the thing to go after. There are lots and lots of examples of shooters being stopped when they reload.

But are high capacity magazines frequently involved in a significant number of murders each year? I just don't see the logic behind wasting energy, time, and resources on "banning" high capacity magazines (which is a very difficult thing to do, given so many are already floating around) when you'd be much more effective at curbing violence by limiting handgun access to the inner city gangs.

Were talking 25 murders a year (high capacity magazine) vs. 8,000 (gangs).

Where do you get your numbers?! Mass shootings alone are more than 25 murders. I have read many examples of shootings stopped when shooter reloads, I'd prefer he shoot less before being stopped. Studies show defense uses 2-3 shots.. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. Why should we have them?

Mass shooting numbers vary greatly from source to source, and that 25-30 number is related to deaths by a "psycho" on a killing spree. I believe total mass shooting deaths roll up to about 100 annually (with a great majority being gang related w/handguns).

But my question - we have millions of these high capacity magazines floating out there, they're easy to make (and soon to be easy to print), and the fact of the matter is you're not going to get rid of them unless you would like to authorize our government to go door to door and search each gun-owner's house (which I do not advocate).

In a few years, criminals will be able to print high-capacity magazines on their computer and there will be no preventing this.

So with that said, what exactly will a ban accomplish (logically)?

 

[KevinWestern]

No it's not simple at all. If you defend your homestead against the military you will die, what is gained by that? Some guy with a gun isn't going to fight off today's military, it's foolish to think they could.

You should be agreeing with me as I've mostly used your own arguments, how can you not understand? There is no situation where citizens with guns would help. They would be a huge friendly fire problem more than a help.

Then why - Brain - did those folks in Afghanistan and Iraq (pockets of rebels) enjoy a great deal of success holding off our supremely powerful military for so many years in an area a fraction the size of the US?

They were less educated, less wealthy, and had weapons that were about 40 years old.

Why isn't your theory holding up to the facts?

We ran over both countries quite easily. Both were invasions by another country, not tyranny taking over long standing democracies. Your insulting our military.

We ran over Iraq "quite easily"? We spent ten years there, Brain. Ten freaking years. Thousands of military men/women dead. Spent (what will amount to) $3-4 trillion dollars. Al Qaeda - earlier this year - just seized control of two cities in Western Iraq and is gaining ground.

To top it off, Iraq is about a fourth the size of Texas! A fourth!

Please, man. Let's stay grounded in reality here.

 

[Brain357]

But are high capacity magazines frequently involved in a significant number of murders each year? I just don't see the logic behind wasting energy, time, and resources on "banning" high capacity magazines (which is a very difficult thing to do, given so many are already floating around) when you'd be much more effective at curbing violence by limiting handgun access to the inner city gangs.

Were talking 25 murders a year (high capacity magazine) vs. 8,000 (gangs).

Where do you get your numbers?! Mass shootings alone are more than 25 murders. I have read many examples of shootings stopped when shooter reloads, I'd prefer he shoot less before being stopped. Studies show defense uses 2-3 shots.. Only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. Why should we have them?

Mass shooting numbers vary greatly from source to source, and that 25-30 number is related to deaths by a "psycho" on a killing spree. I believe total mass shooting deaths roll up to about 100 annually (with a great majority being gang related w/handguns).

But my question - we have millions of these high capacity magazines floating out there, they're easy to make (and soon to be easy to print), and the fact of the matter is you're not going to get rid of them unless you would like to authorize our government to go door to door and search each gun-owner's house (which I do not advocate).

In a few years, criminals will be able to print high-capacity magazines on their computer and there will be no preventing this.

So with that said, what exactly will a ban accomplish (logically)?

It would make them much harder and illegal to buy. Similar to the machine gun ban. Those aren't easy to get now are they?

Do you know how expensive it will be to make them with your computer?

Do you really think criminals will bother? They don't really need hi cap to commit crimes, but they use them because they are easy to get now.

 

[KevinWestern]

Brian - I know you guys say that civilization in the western world is going to be "ok" from now until the distant horizon, but our friends over at NASA disagree. Just wanted to post this story I came across today because it kind of shocked me too:

Civilisation Is Doomed Warns Safa Motesharri's Nasa-Funded Study

I mean, NASA isn't some kook organization. What if a portion of our civilization were to collapse temporarily or long term? Is it a horrible idea to have a shotgun handy to defend your family if need be? Not talking the apocalypse, just saying it's fair to assume a portion (maybe big or small) of the US would experience some sort of catastrophe in the next 50 years.

I don't take chances with my family. What you want to do is your choice, but don't take away my right to defend myself. Please.