Woman raped in her own garage

[Teddy B 17,252]

If we could find a way to make the gun not work unless it was in the state approved and back ground checked owners hand, you could have all you want. I don't have a problem with you shooting at the target range, hunting, or protecting yourself. But there's far too many unaccounted guns flowing around for my comfort level. Either we need to decrease the flow or find a way to make a gun unusable when not in its owner's hands.

I think the latter is more plausible all around.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Depends on what you consider to be winning. Is walking away with everyone alive and unharmed a win? If so, then if both parties have a gun, the chances of that outcome go way down.

So you'd prefer to be unarmed, knowing you will lose and the stats will be 50% better. You are a remarkable human being. (More likely just a great BS artist)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why assume that there will be a confrontation at all?

[GandD 5,966]

circulus in demonstrando

No its not.

[Teddy B 17,252]

So you'd prefer to be unarmed, knowing you will lose and the stats will be 50% better. You are a remarkable human being. (More likely just a great BS artist)

Please tell us again how your run in with an armed assailant turned out for you and your son after your fit of road rage. You know, seeing you didn't even have a gun n all.

Why assume that there will be a confrontation at all?

Avoiding the confrontation altogether seems to escape him.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

You know, guns can protect someone. This is true and the gun guys have a point. But the protection it is providing is from another gun. You can't win as you probably will not be able to get rid of ALL guns. ONCE AGAIN, if you decrease the guns,, you will decrease gun violence. The "Good guys with guns" are where the "bad guys with guns" are getting their guns. Whether it be through negligence, theft, selling, or "good guys" becoming "bad guys"

I can see your point, and while I agree it's true, I'm not so sure I want to be the one to lead the charge up THAT hill (by volunteering to give up my guns)... I think it's too late for that. But your logic seems to be working in countries such as South Korea.

Honestly. I don't see how we would get out of the "mess" we're in. Guns have been around since the US was taken from the Indians. If the argument is made that we don't need guns, how far do you take that? Law enforcement? Military? Secret Service? I've never seen a president offering to take guns away from the SS as an example of how much better off we'd be without guns.

But I can tell you it was nice living in Korea, it was a VERY civilized country. Not only are there very few gun deaths, there are very few crimes. Leave your TV outside your apartment door at night, and it will be there the next day. That says something about their people as a whole.

[Ban Hammer 13,599]

No its not.

you're assuming that will be the outcome.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

That's not the issue. You said she is dead because she didn't carry a gun. There's nothing to substantiate that claim - it's pure speculation. Then you said that she could have fought back if she had carried a gun and that is also pure speculation. There are plenty of people that despite carrying a gun are attacked and killed without ever having stood a chance to actually fight back.

As to your hypothetical, why would I want to go up against an armed assailant? Why would you?

Quit dancing around the question and deflecting. Answering a question with a question is NOT answering. But you are skilled at that.

What I was attempting to point out is that IF she had carried a gun, she would have been better equipped to defend herself. Imagine if SHE shot the attacker, and he died, and her and her husband lived, and her daughter still had parents. Would that not have been a better ending than the current one?

As to my hypothetical that you failed to answer, I wouldn't want to. But it could happen. And if it did, I know I'd rather have a gun. And I know you would too, though you are too stubborn to admit it publicly.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why assume that there will be a confrontation at all?

That's the funky part. People acquire guns to fend off this confrontation that is very likely to never occur. But by acquring guns, they increase their odds not insignificantly that either they themselves or a member or acquaintance of their houshold falls victim to those very guns. So they put themselves at a higher risk of becoming a victim of gun fire to supposedly decrease their risk of being a victim to gun violence. There's nothing rational about that. But it does explain why they are very suspicious of measures that limit access to guns for those that are mentally not all that sharp.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Please tell us again how your run in with an armed assailant turned out for you and your son after your fit of road rage. You know, seeing you didn't even have a gun n all.

Avoiding the confrontation altogether seems to escape him.

Thankfully, it ended with him just waving his gun and driving off. Must be because he was so civil-minded like you, and chose the peaceful option.

You (wrongly) assume all confrontations can be avoided.

Why assume that there will be a confrontation at all?

Are you daft? Or just pretending to be? Read this forum about all the deaths. I remember you going on about poor Trayvon. He didn't expect a confrontation, did he?

[GandD 5,966]

Yay, trayvon.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

That's the funky part. People acquire guns to fend off this confrontation that is very likely to never occur. But by acquring guns, they increase their odds not insignificantly that either they themselves or a member or acquaintance of their houshold falls victim to those very guns. So they put themselves at a higher risk of becoming a victim of gun fire to supposedly decrease their risk of being a victim to gun violence. There's nothing rational about that. But it does explain why they are very suspicious of measures that limit access to guns for those that are mentally not all that sharp.

Very untrue postulations. I own guns. I don't live in fear of armed confrontation. No one in my family has ever been harmed by one of my guns, unless you count a pinched finger. No risk of gunfire because all my kiddos respect guns. It's all very rational.

Yay, trayvon.

[GandD 5,966]

That's usually the prompt for me to start posting dancing cat gifs and what not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quit dancing around the question and deflecting. Answering a question with a question is NOT answering. But you are skilled at that.

What I was attempting to point out is that IF she had carried a gun, she would have been better equipped to defend herself. Imagine if SHE shot the attacker, and he died, and her and her husband lived, and her daughter still had parents. Would that not have been a better ending than the current one?

As to my hypothetical that you failed to answer, I wouldn't want to. But it could happen. And if it did, I know I'd rather have a gun. And I know you would too, though you are too stubborn to admit it publicly.

I am not dancing around anything. I responded to two statements that you made saying that they are pure speculation. That remains true. You have since tried multiple times to explain what you meant to say but what you said remains the same - pure speculation.

As to the hypothetical, I could break my neck getting out of bed in the morning. It's not very likely to happen. That might be why I don't put on a neck stabilizer before I get up in the morning. I could also get struck by lightning - specially here in lightning capital but the odds are still stacked heavily against that ever happening. So I go on about my normal life even when T-storms are in the forecast. I could win the lottery and become awesomely rich but the odds are so low that I don't bother buying lottery tickets. I think you get the idea...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not going to rise to that dude, sorry. Its not a controversial comment however your reaction to it is typical of the hyperbole that surrounds any discussion of firearms.

As I said, either the USA is a dangerous place and the assumption people are making is not 'if' but 'when' or the fear of being a victim of violent crime massively outweighs the likelihood of being victimised.

Very untrue postulations. I own guns. I don't live in fear of armed confrontation. No one in my family has ever been harmed by one of my guns, unless you count a pinched finger. No risk of gunfire because all my kiddos respect guns. It's all very rational.

Yet your 'rational' argument assumes that at some point you will be victimised.