87 year old successfully defends home with firearm

[davmat787]

So one old guy shoots an intruder and it becomes the poster child for why we need guns? For every justified shooting of a criminal, there are 500,000 unjustified shooting of an innocent.

lol, you just brought a knife to a gunfight! :awe:

A child is more likely to die from a swimming pool than a handgun, if we are going to speak statistically. And I will even include said statistics, along with a very informative article.

Again, if you do the math and let little Johnny go over to little Billy’s house to swim, he is roughly 100 times more likely to have a fatal accident vs. letting him go over to little Timmy’s house, where dad has a gun.

http://www.smartparentshealthykids.com/blog/?p=11

And another article, this time from freakonomics:

But according to the data, their choice isn’t smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/

tl,dr: your child is less likely to die by accident in the home of a gun owner than one who has a swimming pool.

 

[davmat787]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354



IIRC the homicide rate with firearms in the US is usually around 15,000 per year. So for every homicide you're preventing between 17 and 48 murders, rapes, beatings, or robberies.

I'd love to see your source of 500,000 unjustified shootings of an innocent per justified shootings 🙄

That is a great and very telling statistic if true, would love to see you confirm it with sources (so that I can save it and use it myself next time one of these threads pop up, beating you to it by a minute :awe: )

 

[lotus503]

Shouldn't he have been blood tested, given a polygraph and put under observation?

Another good shoot by a WORTHY American.

This was a good shoot, Im glad he was armed.

 

[FaaR]

we should get rid of cars then.

This is what is called a "non sequitur".

Cars' primary purpose is not killing people.

Also, cars have many other (legitimate) uses than killing people.

Handguns on the other hand, well, unless you seriously want to argue you regularly say, hammer in nails using a firearm...in which case the rest of the universe would do a collective rolleyes at you.

 

[FaaR]

tl,dr: your child is less likely to die by accident in the home of a gun owner than one who has a swimming pool.

So what? That doesn't mean anything. I'm sure you wouldn't want to argue spreading rat poison around the house is a great way of diminishing the comparative risk of kids getting shot to death. However this is essentially what you're doing.

 

[Ausm]

Yawn, P&N <-----

Why is that gay guy promoting a gun-nut website?

Maybe is he is confused politically? 😉

 

[alkemyst]

I just know when I peruse my morning newspaper I hear a lot about this husband shooting that wife and etc and I'm pretty sure those are legally owned handguns.

I love when someone is told they are an idiotic and come back with 'hey guise I was joke!'.

BTW where are you living where you are seeing husbands and wives shooting each other so commonly?

Let me guess "I was joking guise, no one really reads the paper"

 

[werepossum]

Shouldn't he have been blood tested, given a polygraph and put under observation?

Another good shoot by a WORTHY American.

This.

 

[homercles337]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

1) An N of 1 means nothing statistically. Lets see some other group do the same analysis and come to the same conclusions.

2) In 1997, the CDC was known to have been run by right-wing cronies. So the extreme right does not trust government, unless it supports their skewed perspective?

3) This study is based on self-reports in an uncontrolled manner. It was random though, so this may not be terribly relevant. However, they then subsample 34% with guns. Not wise statistically.

4) National projections estimated that 1,896,842 people grabbed for their gun when there was NO intruder. You gun-nuts are a paranoid lot. Its probably best for you to hide UNDER the bed, rather than sleep on it.

5) IFF we believe these numbers, you gun-nuts are accurately predicting intrusion in only 26% of the cases. This means that you gun-nuts are pulling out your gun inappropriately 3 out of 4 times! What a bunch of trigger-happy, paranoid fools.

 

[chucky2]

LOL wut???

Someone is correct 25% of the time in a potentially life threatening situation and you call them trigger happy and/or paranoid?

I think you need to take a step back and think about that one...

 

[RampantAndroid]

4) National projections estimated that 1,896,842 people grabbed for their gun when there was NO intruder. You gun-nuts are a paranoid lot. Its probably best for you to hide UNDER the bed, rather than sleep on it.

5) IFF we believe these numbers, you gun-nuts are accurately predicting intrusion in only 26% of the cases. This means that you gun-nuts are pulling out your gun inappropriately 3 out of 4 times! What a bunch of trigger-happy, paranoid fools.

This isn't a relevant statistic. When you can tell me how many times people pull their gun AND FIRE IT when they have no need to, then let's talk. If something goes bump in the night, meaning I hear something slam in my apartment, or at my door, you're damn right I'll grab a gun and take a look. If it's a girl scout who is intent on selling me cookies to the point she wants to break my door down, fine. Put the gun down and out of view. Open door.

But I can tell you that I think I've picked up my gun thinking there was an intruder only one time. And that one time, there was an intruder. Or, would be intruder. He was trying to take my door of its hinges. So I sat behind the door with a loaded Glock in one hand, phone in the other dialing 911. The cops showed up right as I was dialing 911 and tackled the guy (he'd broken into another apartment, where some guy was showering. Said naked showering guy chased the intruder out of his apartment with a baseball bat.

Had the cops not shown up, I think he might have made it through the door. Regardless, I was not going to open fire until the door came down. And even then, I would have given verbal warning that I was armed and he needed to leave lest he be shot. Oh, and let's also add this detail: the guy was clearly out of it. Too far gone to simply be drunk. Maybe drunk and high at the same time. My point is simply: whether we pull a gun when there's someone there or not, it's about good cause: if you THINK you need to pull it out. Let's talk when the statistic is "number of people who pull gun when they hear a bump in the night, then start wildly shooting into the dark."

lol, you just brought a knife to a gunfight! :awe:

A child is more likely to die from a swimming pool than a handgun, if we are going to speak statistically. And I will even include said statistics, along with a very informative article.



http://www.smartparentshealthykids.com/blog/?p=11

And another article, this time from freakonomics:



http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/

tl,dr: your child is less likely to die by accident in the home of a gun owner than one who has a swimming pool.

I think every gun thread I enter, you've posted this 😉

 

[Ninjahedge]

we should get rid of cars then.

Stupid answer.

The primary function of guns are to shoot bullets. The primary purpose of THAT is to hurt another person.

Whether you use it to scare someone or start a foot race does not matter, that is not what they were made for any more than arrows were made to point at things.

Cars are primarily for transport. They are HORRIBLY inefficient at killing people. The comparison is overworn and thin to begin with.

 

[Ninjahedge]

lol, you just brought a knife to a gunfight! :awe:

A child is more likely to die from a swimming pool than a handgun, if we are going to speak statistically. And I will even include said statistics, along with a very informative article.

Another stupid point.

A pool cannot be used by another in a dark alley or in your living room (w/o some considerable effort). To USE a pool as a weapon is not easy either.

Then you compare actual pool usage, hours in contact and around pools and compare that to hours using a gun and being around one and the numbers start to become more reasonable.

Strait numbers of deaths is not a reasonable descriptor for a "level of lethality" without including primary use and context of the deaths.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Stupid answer.

The primary function of guns are to shoot bullets. The primary purpose of THAT is to hurt another person.

Whether you use it to scare someone or start a foot race does not matter, that is not what they were made for any more than arrows were made to point at things.

Cars are primarily for transport. They are HORRIBLY inefficient at killing people. The comparison is overworn and thin to begin with.

Shooting bullets != killing people. I own my guns for fun, and for defense. More the first than the second. If you want to outlaw everything that CAN be used to kill, we need to all be forced to use dull plastic sporks from now on. No more knives.

Oh, and what about archery? I don't hear people screaming their heads off over a bow? People want to scream about suppressors being made legal, and yet I can more stealthily use a bow to kill. No noise at all.

 

[schneiderguy]

Cars are primarily for transport. They are HORRIBLY inefficient at killing people. The comparison is overworn and thin to begin with.

There's less cars in the US than guns and they kill more people every year. Seems like they're quite efficient at killing to me since they're better at it than something that was designed to kill.

I'm actually surprised no one has ever tried to do a mass murder with a car. Seems like driving down the sidewalk in a busy city would rack up the kill count pretty fast.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Shooting bullets != killing people.

That is what they were made for. Archery contests are not the main reasons for bows and arrows. They are for killing things.

I own my guns for fun, and for defense. More the first than the second. If you want to outlaw everything that CAN be used to kill, we need to all be forced to use dull plastic sporks from now on. No more knives.

Your primary use is not their primary function.

You can't cut a steak with a 9mm. Stop with the secondary uses of primary tools.

Oh, and what about archery? I don't hear people screaming their heads off over a bow?

Because it is no longer relevant. You need more skill to operate a bow, it fires MUCH slower, and it is harder to conceal. Moot point.

People want to scream about suppressors being made legal, and yet I can more stealthily use a bow to kill. No noise at all.

Crossed comparison. A silencer makes a weapon that is more deadly than a bow even moreso.

 

[Ninjahedge]

There's less cars in the US than guns and they kill more people every year.

Please, show me a set of data showing the net hours of use that a car has, per capita, as compared to a gun.

Also, show me how much a car is used for, lets say, commerce as compared to a gun.

You are dancing around numbers in hopes they will all come dancing with you, but the FACT is, a gun kills more. Period.

You want a direct comparison? Tell me how many people have been deliberately killed by a gun and how many have been deliberately killed by a car.

Take your time.

Seems like they're quite efficient at killing to me since they're better at it than something that was designed to kill.

Illogical semantics. They are HORRIBLY inefficient.

I'm actually surprised no one has ever tried to do a mass murder with a car. Seems like driving down the sidewalk in a busy city would rack up the kill count pretty fast.

How are you surprised? I am more surprised that you actually refuted your own argument.


BTW, even at 55, it is a hell of a lot easier to dodge a car than a bullet, and a hell of a lot harder to get a car into a room of crowded people.

 

[RampantAndroid]

You can't cut a steak with a 9mm. Stop with the secondary uses of primary tools.

Where do you think a lot of the historical advancements with steel come from? What was the driving force behind Damascus steel? Being able to better cut your steak, or to better cut down someone with a sword? A knife is as much a tool for killing as it is a utensil for the dinner table.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but a knife is a tool. It CAN be used to kill, or cut your dinner. A gun can be used to shoot a target, kill an animal that'll become dinner, or kill a person.

Because it is no longer relevant. You need more skill to operate a bow, it fires MUCH slower, and it is harder to conceal. Moot point.

If you lived in WA, and I trusted you (which, I don't. But I don't trust many people.) I'd take you to the range, put a target at 25 yards and pay you $100 to hit it in the first shot. My friend did this three days ago, with me calling out where he was hitting. He was firing cheap off the shelf ammo (not SD rounds) and his shots were all over the place. Most on target (target being a human shape) but all over the place. He took his time on each shot, and was not shooting fast. And he's been firing guns for years. With my 41 magnum revolver I'd be happy to be as accurate as he was at 25 yards.

There are trained cops out there that cannot hit the broad side of a barn with 16 shots. A composite bow can be fired very quickly, and I'd argue it requires just as much skill and practice to be accurate with it, as it takes with a pistol.

Crossed comparison. A silencer makes a weapon that is more deadly than a bow even moreso.

And just how does a suppressor make a weapon more dangerous? It certainly makes it harder to control and MUCH harder to conceal. You ever handled or fired one? I mean, we're talking something that has been readily available for YEARS..In WA, you could always own one. Only in the last year were you legally allowed to USE it. So where, just WHERE can you point to people in WA using suppressors to kill? Or are you telling me that people are only going to use them to kill now that they are legal to use?

Suppressors allow me to fire my guns in a manner that poses less risk to my own and others hearing. I wish everyone had a suppressor. And let's remember: you pay a $200 tax stamp to GET one.

 

[xBiffx]

There are four states that allow it, none allow you to drink though.

I can pack and drink in Iowa all I want. I personally choose not to but it's not illegal here.

 

[davmat787]

Another stupid point.

A pool cannot be used by another in a dark alley or in your living room (w/o some considerable effort). To USE a pool as a weapon is not easy either.

Then you compare actual pool usage, hours in contact and around pools and compare that to hours using a gun and being around one and the numbers start to become more reasonable.

Strait numbers of deaths is not a reasonable descriptor for a "level of lethality" without including primary use and context of the deaths.

So your argument boils down to the utility of the device, whether or not one may kill more than another is secondary? Seems to be a theme to your replies in this thread (cutting steak with a 9mm, cars, .etc). In this thread, it has been pointed out that pools kill more children than guns, and cars kill more people than guns, but that doesn't matter because they are designed not to do so? That their utility lies elsewhere? I have heard this argument before (from HAL9000 iirc), and I just do not understand it. Do you think it matters to a mother or father if their child was murdered by a car or a gun? Or is the difference that you use and enjoy cars and pools?

I can respect those who are anti gun, I just wish they would come out say that they simply don't like the damn things, rather than arguing that the utility matters more than the results.

And you mention hours around guns vs. pools, perhaps a fair point. However, what do you think about gun deaths vs. rounds fired? No way to really tell I assume, but it would be bajillions of rounds fired to a single death I would guess, way more than hours driven or hours in a pool vs. a death.

Regardless of which side you are on in this debate, isn't amazing how relatively few wrongful gun deaths there are here in the US, when you consider how many guns there are?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yep.

Otherwise your feeble argument extends to many tools, from cars, to plows to knitting needles.

As was said before, the primary function of a firearm it to accelerate a lethal (or incapacitating) projectile at a target. The original design was not for "target practice" as the "practice" in that phrase indicates, but to fire it at another living creature.

Handguns were developed specifically for portability with the intent to fire at other human beings, as rifles and other long-bore firearms were more effective for game hunting.

Constantly comparing them to cars and airplanes is a lame attempt to justify their primary function and effectiveness thereof.

The main problem comes when the supporters of these devices try to site current environmental conditions as similar to the original conditions that the device was made to either actuate or foil. (robbery or protection thereof being an example).

Times have changed, there is no "Wild West", Terrorists are not coming in armed bands requiring direct armed response, Mexican Drug Lords are not threatening the majority of American Citizens, and our military is no longer home grown and stationed.

There are a few arguments that can be placed on gun ownership, but the problem occurs when the ones yelling the loudest use every argument posted on the net to try and validate their statements when 95% of them are just imbecilic maladjusted appropriations of outdated justifications.


IOW, drop the "cars are deadlier" argument. It was, is, and will be a piece of crap that will not lend credence to your position.

 

[homercles337]

LOL wut???

Someone is correct 25% of the time in a potentially life threatening situation and you call them trigger happy and/or paranoid?

I think you need to take a step back and think about that one...

Some one CLAIMS they are correct 1 in 4 attempts. There is a pretty standard correction for this when using self reports. Its usually a divide by root(N) kind of correction, but this study subsampled thus making all statistics biased. Divide by N is more conservative correction for bad statistics. This means that gun-nuts correctly draw 0.0155% of the time (that is a PERCENTAGE). I think YOU and your idiot ilk need to take a step back and think about what you are doing. Paranoid, rabid, bat shit crazy fucktards...

No personal insults allowed in P&N

You've earned an infraction.

Fern
Super Moderator

 

[homercles337]

This isn't a relevant statistic.

I did not conduct that study, or collect the data. I was commenting on the "my sample of ONE makes your point invalid" nonsense spouted by gun-nuts, and right wing idiots in P&N. I provided a perfectly valid correction for this percentage below. Feel free to critique my corrections in that post. I did not design, conduct, or analyze this study.

 

[homercles337]

...snip...

This post completely lacks logic. I read, and reread your post a few times. I tried to find it, but its simply absent. Did you spend ANY time at all thinking about your argument before typing that out? You are the reason for gun control. You would fail even the most rudimentary psychological assessment, and yet you feel you are qualified to carry around a killing machine?

 

[alkemyst]

I can pack and drink in Iowa all I want. I personally choose not to but it's not illegal here.

You are full of shit. Your CCW card should have that verbiage on it if you have one.

The exact text is "Invalid when using or consuming alcohol or illegal drugs"

It's right under your photo on front.

So are you a liar or is this another one of the 'hey guise I was just joking' posts.