US suicides hit an all-time high last year; a main driver is the growing availability of guns

[CLAX1911]

You do not seem to be following the argument.

I don't have to follow what you said to other people I don't care it's not relevant.

If someone enters your home uninvited it's reasonable to us him that they are there to do you harm and thus deadly forces justified there is nothing you said earlier that makes that not true.

This discussion is not about the legality of killing a drunken teenager climbing into the wrong house after midnight.

the age of the intruder in the intoxication level does not change what I said above.

So I'm glad I didn't read your nonsense because it's not relevant.

The discussion is about the moral or ethical response.
A duty to retreat is far better than the SYG/Castle doctrine advanced in many states.

duty to retreat is just a mantra for punishing victims. It doesn't matter if you retreat you're still going to be condemned and possibly even prosecuted so this doctrine is evil and therefore completely unethical in every way. Case in point look at Kyle Rittenhouse. He retreated he only fired on the second person after he tripped and fell and was attacked with an improvised club and then the other person he shot one they actually had a gun in the hand.

Duty to retreat isn't about ethics or reasonableness it's about protecting criminals and prosecuting people who prove that you are in control of your safety and nobody else is.

Since the US is flooded with weapons that people use recklessly and, because they "feel" fearful, use injuriously, the law often exonerates this misuse.

Your opinion is noted. It's not misuse if it's a justified people do misuse firearms like the Amad arbury case. When they do that they can prosecuted in a sentence as they did.

 

[Rich2018]

1. No it's a pro police statement. Good law enforcement officers. True professionals don't want to work alongside

Hardly a pro-police statement. To remind you, Spock said:

No. Law enforcement never uses lethal force unless there is a credible threat of violence against a person.

To which, you derided his comment by saying:

You are kidding...right?

So tell us, what part of your disagreement with Spock, that "Law enforcement never uses lethal force unless there is a credible threat of violence", is pro-police ???

racist over reacting bullying officers. ..not only because it's unprofessional and wrong...but because it's dangerous.

Definitely anti-police comments there too.

The bullying..over reacting racist officers..are the ones that ramp up a situation rather than cool it down. That make a situation dangerous for fellow officers.

Yet more anti-police sentiments...

The problem is..good officers don't have the tools or means and frankly are actively discouraged or outright punished for speaking out against unprofessional LEO'S.

Yeah, like they need more/better guns ?

2. Yep. We have you on record...as long as they are well run.

Nope you're lying again - you do NOT have this "on record"
I have never supported concentration camps, but rather said that they're the lesser of two evils (as opposed to allowing dangerous people to roam free in society). And accordingly, since we must have forced detention, there is nothing wrong with concentration camps, provided that they're well run.

3. Sure you did.

Another lie
I have never supported door-to-door searches for anything, including firearms
If you disagree, then support your lies by citing a post/thread
Lying comes easy to you doesn't it jaeger ?

4. You certainly did support it...

Again, another lie, that oddly enough, you are completely unable to support.

5. That's funny.

I somehow don't find your lies as funny as you do.

 

[Daddyo]

A lot of anti gunners have paranoid delusions about the properties of firearms.

They seem to think that a firearm causes someone to be suicidal..to be violent..to commit crime.

They believe tge world would be a utopia of peace if people didn't have firearms.

Forgetting that the peace and prosperity of the world. Tge democracy etc...
Was fashioned by firearms...that essentially eliminated the warrior/nobility class

Well said.

It’s funny that they refuse to study historical lessons about the evil that man has projected upon other weaker or lesser men. I argued this exact point with them before. Without guns in the hands of the people man will abuse, enslave, and murder other men AND WOMEN.

 

[Daddyo]

Proud to be me. Are you proud of Clarence?

Clarence is one of the best Justices in history. His decisions in line with our founders wishes especially with regard to guns. Unlike the leftist activists on the court who routinely interpret shit the exact opposite of our founders wishes.

I am beyond proud. You know how proud you are of your activist anti American leftist filth on the court? Twice that proud of Clarence.

 

[CLAX1911]

Clarence is one of the best Justices in history. His decisions in line with our founders wishes especially with regard to guns. Unlike the leftist activists on the court who routinely interpret shit the exact opposite of our founders wishes.

I am beyond proud. You know how proud you are of your activist anti American leftist filth on the court? Twice that proud of Clarence.

I'm also grateful for the other justices that uphold the Constitution.

 

[Daddyo]

What will you do when the other guy/gal/kid pulls a gun out?

What a stupid question. What do you think I would do? What would you do? Pull that banana lol. Shit your pants, drop to your knees, and beg for mercy? I know what you won’t do and that’s fight back and actually have a chance at a successful outcome in the face of an armed killer.

 

[Rich2018]

It’s funny that they refuse to study historical lessons about the evil that man has projected upon other weaker or lesser men. I argued this exact point with them before. Without guns in the hands of the people man will abuse, enslave, and murder other men AND WOMEN.

Historical lessons like when and where ?

 

[Daddyo]

We need some hens. We have a large yard that a couple acres of it would be nice for a pony...or a young steer. No fence though. A fence is more than we want to mess with right now.

I had 17 chickens with 16 hens. They produced around 12 eggs per day. This in a tiny backyard. Was a mess but in this small yard 6 hens would have been perfect. I can’t imagine having acres lol.

Prices are finally moving in my direction. Soon.

 

[Daddyo]

How do you influence the behavior, direction or destination AFTER the bullet leaves the firearm? You cannot, although I am sure you will try to come up with some silly, convoluted argument to explain that you can do it. Perhaps with your mind?

You control the bullet before you fire it as we have said multiple times. Control the launch direction is controlling the bullets path. It is the reason hundreds of millions of rounds are fired without injury or death each year.


Other control comes through special media designed to stop or catch flying projectiles like at the range. As you should know the bullets energy is eliminated at the exact point we want it to.

Control comes from baffles as well. Angled concrete designed to redirect the bullets path so that it impacts the desired area.

 

[Spock]

Clarence is one of the best Justices in history. His decisions in line with our founders wishes especially with regard to guns. Unlike the leftist activists on the court who routinely interpret shit the exact opposite of our founders wishes.

I am beyond proud. You know how proud you are of your activist anti American leftist filth on the court? Twice that proud of Clarence.

Clarence Thomas is avenging a life of perceived rejection and punishing American society for not appreciating what a brilliant perjurer he is.
He has scammed the system and exploited his position for personal gain. Clearly he would be someone you would support @Daddyo because his needs are more important than the well-being of American women, African-Americans, or the poor.

 

[Spock]

I don't have to follow what you said to other people I don't care it's not relevant.

I will try to remind myself not to confuse you with facts or sound reasoning in the future.

If someone enters your home uninvited it's reasonable to us him that they are there to do you harm and thus deadly forces justified there is nothing you said earlier that makes that not true.

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

the age of the intruder in the intoxication level does not change what I said above.

You cannot conceive of ANY circumstance where an intruder might be uninterested in harming any occupant?

So I'm glad I didn't read your nonsense because it's not relevant.

Your arguments look silly when they are irrelevant.

duty to retreat is just a mantra for punishing victims. It doesn't matter if you retreat you're still going to be condemned and possibly even prosecuted so this doctrine is evil and therefore completely unethical in every way.

Very confused and inconsistent statement.

Case in point look at Kyle Rittenhouse. He retreated he only fired on the second person after he tripped and fell and was attacked with an improvised club and then the other person he shot one they actually had a gun in the hand.

Rittenhouse posed a THREAT to others. They merely employed the same reasoning you have employed (ignoring the fact that this did not occur within a dwelling). Most SYG confrontations favor the person who shoots first and kills their opponent.

Duty to retreat isn't about ethics or reasonableness it's about protecting criminals and prosecuting people who prove that you are in control of your safety and nobody else is.

Straight out of the NRA propaganda manual I suspect.

 

[Spock]

What a stupid question. What do you think I would do? What would you do? Pull that banana lol. Shit your pants, drop to your knees, and beg for mercy? I know what you won’t do and that’s fight back and actually have a chance at a successful outcome in the face of an armed killer.

Thanks for validating that carrying a firearm disposes to the use of lethal force and increases the likelihood that death or life-threatening injury will occur.
You do know that merely SEEING a weapon is insufficient to justify lethal force by the police, don't you?

 

[Spock]

You control the bullet before you fire it as we have said multiple times. Control the launch direction is controlling the bullets path. It is the reason hundreds of millions of rounds are fired without injury or death each year.


Other control comes through special media designed to stop or catch flying projectiles like at the range. As you should know the bullets energy is eliminated at the exact point we want it to.

Control comes from baffles as well. Angled concrete designed to redirect the bullets path so that it impacts the desired area.

You will never grasp the concept of "inherently dangerous" tool or activity.
Perhaps you think you can control the discharged projectile with your mind.

 

[RF667799]

I will try to remind myself not to confuse you with facts or sound reasoning in the future.

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

You cannot conceive of ANY circumstance where an intruder might be uninterested in harming any occupant?

Your arguments look silly when they are irrelevant.

Very confused and inconsistent statement.

Rittenhouse posed a THREAT to others. They merely employed the same reasoning you have employed (ignoring the fact that this did not occur within a dwelling). Most SYG confrontations favor the person who shoots first and kills their opponent.

Straight out of the NRA propaganda manual I suspect.

The jury found that whatever threat they perceived Rittenhouse posed, was not substantiated as reasonable given that he was running away from them when they attacked him.

 

[RF667799]

You will never grasp the concept of "inherently dangerous" tool or activity.
Perhaps you think you can control the discharged projectile with your mind.

He told you how the projectile is controlled. You don't want to admit he is right. You would rather keep repeating already refuted nonsense as if you're chanting a mantra.

 

[Spock]

The jury found that whatever threat they perceived Rittenhouse posed, was not substantiated as reasonable given that he was running away from them when they attacked him.

He should have kept running and never decided to become a vigilante at a demonstration.

 

[Spock]

He told you how the projectile is controlled. You don't want to admit he is right. You would rather keep repeating already refuted nonsense as if you're chanting a mantra.

I want you to explain how AFTER the projectile leaves the muzzle it can be controlled (we will ignore for the moment the multiple factors at play before the bullet leaves the firearm). I think you do not understand the word "control". If a bullet could be controlled, no one would ever miss a target or hit something behind the target, or hit something that changed position as the shot was fired. Thus... firearms are inherently dangerous devices.

 

[Lursa]

You will never grasp the concept of "inherently dangerous" tool or activity.
Perhaps you think you can control the discharged projectile with your mind.

Not sure you do. I went back more than 10 posts...by your descriptions, plenty of things in our daily lives are inherently dangerous and we dont always have complete control over them.

Knives are inherently dangerous tools. Swimming is an inherently dangerous activity. Cars are inherently dangerous tools, driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Splitting firewood, inherently dangerous (yeah, myself and many other people have wood burning stoves), loads of construction and healthcare jobs, inherently dangerous. Using BBQ grills, inherently dangerous. People that do these things generally follow safety precautions and gain experience in using/participating in them, following safety rules, etc. Some are so common and ingrained we dont even think about them much. Gun owners fall into this category...following safety precautions and rules, experience, etc.

What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms?

 

[RF667799]

He should have kept running and never decided to become a vigilante at a demonstration.

He had difficulty continuing to run when one guy gained on him in hot pursuit, and lunged in an apparent attempt to take his rifle. And when another guy was trying to bash his brains out. And when another appeared to be trying to shoot him.

 

[Lursa]

I want you to explain how AFTER the projectile leaves the muzzle it can be controlled (we will ignore for the moment the multiple factors at play before the bullet leaves the firearm). I think you do not understand the word "control". If a bullet could be controlled, no one would ever miss a target or hit something behind the target, or hit something that changed position as the shot was fired.

The original poster said you control it (direction/target) at the point of aiming and pulling the trigger. How do you control a car that's skidding on wet roads? How do you control a knife that flies out of your hand when it hits bone? How do you control cramps that attack you when swimming? How does a nurse control 100% of the germs spread by a patient?

Plenty of things inherently dangerous things in daily life that cant be 100% controlled. What exactly is your expectation here? In terms of how it's different for firearms (if you think it is)?

 

[RF667799]

I want you to explain how AFTER the projectile leaves the muzzle it can be controlled (we will ignore for the moment the multiple factors at play before the bullet leaves the firearm). I think you do not understand the word "control". If a bullet could be controlled, no one would ever miss a target or hit something behind the target, or hit something that changed position as the shot was fired. Thus... firearms are inherently dangerous devices.

You were told some ways it can be controlled after it leaves the muzzle. Of course, in some circumstances it can't.

Just like you can't change your mind and instantly stop the virtual projectile you're operating, in the split second before you run someone down after having aimed your virtual projectile at them at a high rate of speed.

 

[Lursa]

You were told some ways it can be controlled after it leaves the muzzle. Of course, in some circumstances it can't.

Just like you can't change your mind and instantly stop the virtual projectile you're operating, in the split second before you run someone down after having aimed your virtual projectile at them at a high rate of speed.

Car skidding on wet roads cant be controlled to miss hitting others. BBQs flare up due to wind gusts. Lots of things cannot be controlled but it's not within the reasonable norm of their operation. I dont see how firearms are different.

Now...how often do the law abiding fire their guns in self-defense? More or less than cars losing control on the roads? More or less than people drowning? What's the actual attempted condemnation against firearms here that distinguishes them from other similar risks and inherent dangers he's trying to make?

 

[Spock]

Not sure you do. I went back more than 10 posts...by your descriptions, plenty of things in our daily lives are inherently dangerous and we dont always have complete control over them.

Knives are inherently dangerous tools. Swimming is an inherently dangerous activity. Cars are inherently dangerous tools, driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Splitting firewood, inherently dangerous (yeah, myself and many other people have wood burning stoves), loads of construction and healthcare jobs, inherently dangerous. Using BBQ grills, inherently dangerous. People that do these things generally follow safety precautions and gain experience in using/participating in them, following safety rules, etc. Some are so common and ingrained we dont even think about them much. Gun owners fall into this category...following safety precautions and rules, experience, etc.

What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms?

Look up the definition of "inherently dangerous" and get back to me.

 

[RF667799]

Car skidding on wet roads cant be controlled to miss hitting others. BBQs flare up due to wind gusts. Lots of things cannot be controlled but it's not within the reasonable norm of their operation. I dont see how firearms are different.

Now...how often to the law abiding fire their guns in self-defense? More or less than cars losing control on the roads? More or less than people drowning? What's the actual attempted condemnation against firearms here that distinguishes them from other similar risks and inherent dangers he's trying to make?

Well that's what's going on. He's desperately trying to support a special pleading. Next we might hear something like guns are different from all other dangerous items because of their color or something.

 

[RF667799]

Look up the definition of "inherently dangerous" and get back to me.

How about you give the definition, since you're using the term?