its unlikely yet i still want one. these streets are unsafe. if you keep them locked away then why have them in the first place? a mans home is his castle. you obvs dont have wife and kids or someone else that you have responsibility for.
ok...so a security camer is going to help me when a man comes into my hose and points a gun at my head? Is it going to shoot a laser?
Come on dude. USE YOUR HEAD! A security camera can see the person and help ID them AFTER the crime, but when it happens, a security camera won't do jack crap. A camera won't help a store owner who has a shotgun in his face, but a gun will. You're argument is absurd.
Who the fuck are you to tell me that I can't keep a loaded gun in a biometric safe right next to my bed. I'm not going to flee from my house when somebody breaks in! Fuck that! I'm putting 2 in the chest and 1 in the head! Oh and a hidden camera is going to help stop an intruder from killing you and raping your wife how???
Right...install a security camera - that way we can watch you being attacked at 4 AM while you're fumbling for the 'phone to call 911. Maybe you'll still be alive when the law eventually does arrive. What ARE you thinking??
@j0hnwi11iams Are you daft? How will a camera protect someone? I guess you could throw it. The fact of the matter is that the bad guys will have guns and use them for thier own motivations. I don't see the point in taking guns away when the bad guys will have them despite any law put in place.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and hear you out, but by the end of your video I hadn't heard anything that was factual regarding what you were saying about accidental discharges or crimes of passion vs. crimes stopped. I don't know where you're getting your made up statistics ... but they are made up. Cameras don't stop crime. Fleeing doesn't stop crime. You have the right to defend yourself and your property.
What's great about this video is John doesn't even believe his own words. "If someone finds it, uses when they can't control their own temper." You're talking about a belief structure you don't follow.
Also, how many police officers prevent crime on and off duty? Just them? Now how man people that own a gun will prevent the crime when someone breaks into their home? Answer? All of them! You have no ground to stand on john. Your mental foundation is based on a hypocritical idea.
Well if you are a moron who owns a gun, Then you will do something stupid with it, Regardless of the situation. If you are cautious and safe gun owner, You will most likely be well trained with the firearm and be able to comfortably use the firearm in a situation as such. You do not seem to be a well organized gun owner. If you own a gun, You should be able to access it with ease in an emergency. I would rather protect what I have because somethings can never be replaced.
@j0hnwi11iams So how does your dependency on locking your gun up keep you safe? You do understand that you are NOT safe when someone breaks into your home. You gamble on something so pathetic that you trivialize your life and your families. If the opportunity ever presents itself, i hope you make the right decision and rely on your security camera and the weapon of your choice broken into 17 different pieces in 10 different places. Good Luck with that.
@Milesdavis2998 A gun is simply a tool, and if it's a tool you can't get to ... it's a useless tool. If it's unloaded ... it's a paper weight. If you have a self defense gun, it NEEDS to be readily available and either loaded, or stored with an available loaded magazine that can be loaded at a moment's notice. Anything less and you may as well not have a gun because an intruder isn't going to wait and give you a minute to get your $#!+ together so that you can defend yourself.
run out the back door ... whilst your wife and helpless child are killed or worse I think not I will defend my self and my family not flee in cowardice
@lolcatofawsumd It is a matter of values. I value my life, maybe you value all your shit. If my family were in danger that would be a different story.
@j0hnwi11iams ahhh.so guns are a SMART Choice if your family is in danger. Or...you know, if the guy defending himself is an atheist liberal. You'll support them 100% right, you biased fool?
@ZangaroZen Don't you think similar occurrences could and do happen with or without guns? Even a kitchen knife in the wrong hands is too dangerous. If we search hard enough, I'm sure we'll find, at some point, a father snuck up on and stabbed someone familiar (unknowingly) whom he thought to be a burglar. We can argue statistics all day. People who've been in that situation and know the feeling can tell you how villains act/think. The worst kinds of people just don't care about cameras or law.
@Histonia, you say "a kitchen knife in the wrong hands is too dangerous", you're kidding? Why do soldiers fight wars with firearms and not "kitchen knives"? Think efficiency and distance. Kitchen knives don't compare.
Next you say "search hard enough, I'm sure we'll find...We can argue statistics all day", WRONG cherry picking odd cases doesn't represent the statistical norm.
You say "worst...people...don't care about cameras", sure they do, as they don't want to get caught.
@j0hnwi11iams At best, I would suggest all means of defense. A ready firearm, an alarm system AND security cameras. But that comes down to cost. Can everyone afford all three? If not, what is most sufficient? Everyone is different so I'll just say what has worked for me. I'd much rather be caught in that situation with a firearm and no camera than with a camera and no gun. If a camera is my only means of defense, the police may only have footage of me getting killed.
@seataclibertarian Very true. I know the impulse for these guys is to jump on this and say it rarely happens. But people, these days, are breaking into homes (en masse) to steal prescription drugs at an alarming rate.
@Histonia, yeah and that's a real tragedy, to lose a few hundred dollars in perscriptions, while you're out, when most burglaries take place. Too bad you didn't install a camera to help catch and convict the criminals.
HTWW's point is the McKinley rare case proves everyone should have a gun.
JW's point is gun ownership greatly increases the risk of family tragedies, far beyond a possible home invasion threat. CTRL-F "Casino" for the idiot proof analogy.
Also, I'd like to correct your error in saying that there are more gun accidents or crimes of passion than times when a gun was used for protection. This is false, the reason that you have made this mistake is simple, you have been brainwashed by the liberal media to believe it is true. You would do well to present facts rather than just your ill informed opinion. Suicides make up 56% of gun deaths.
Accidents accounted for 613 deaths in 2007. Defensive gun use is around 1.5 million a year
I have had a concealed carry permit for 8 years. In that 8 years, carrying a gun saved my ass. The first time was in north Tulsa when a "crip" member approached me in the parking lot of a convenience store about 5 years ago. The other was this halloween when I was approached by a drug addict. It is FOOLISH to rely on security cameras for protection. There were security cameras at both places that I needed to protect myself. All a camera is good for is to catch the guy AFTER he has killed me.
Ever hear about the kimberly cates murder, happened in a very nice neighborhood in NH, poor woman was butchered with a machete and her daughter's throat slit. No motive, were not trying to steal anything, they were just twisted individuals who decided to break in and kill someone. But Hey, she could have just fled, right? Or she could have taken one for the team and put up video cameras to catch their faces as they opened her daughter's throat. These kinds of things can and do happen.
@charlief0xtrot, ever heard of the case where a father thought there was a burgler in his basement, so he went downstairs and shot his son. What about the one where a guy loses it and kills his whole family. Then there's the 1000s of gun cleaning accidents. For ever very rare psycho case you name there are 1000s of less sexy tragedies. Your problem is you think the rare cases are wide spread and the wide spread ones are near non-exsistant, and not the other way round.
@ZangaroZen Please show me a study that actually shows that "1000's" are killed by accidents.
The first example you cite would be tragic, but it is far from commonplace.
If you don't have positive identification of what your target is and what is near/behind it, don't fire. If you plan to carry a weapon for defense, you should get all the training you can.
And "guys losing it", doesn't take a gun to kill your whole family, often times it doesn't. Got two hands? Kitchen knife?
All figures i have seen have actually shown a continued trend of less and less Firearm related deaths ( especially accidental deaths as you say are in the "1000s",) despite record numbers of firearm owners. in 2007 only 613 people were killed by "accidental" firearm discharge. While any death is tragic, given the population in 07, 302.2 million, and 37,304 people being killed in auto accidents, it is not nearly as wide spread a problem as you seem to believe.
@charlief0xtrot, there you go again making up quotes with "especially accidental deaths as you say are in the 1000s", how dishonest, AGAIN my verbatim quote is "Then there's the 1000s of gun cleaning accidents". No more BS quotes OK.
You compare 613 (NRA figure from where?) accidental gun deaths to 37,304 car deaths. Very misleading. Try comparing usage hours, to get a clear picture on which is the more dangerous. Vehicles: 254Mcars x15000miles/50mph
Your preferred course of action is to flee? Leave your spouse (if you have one) children, (if you have them), and just run. No thank you. I keep positive control of my firearm and it is never far away. I assure you i would be capable of safely employing my weapon to protect myself and my family.
"It is unlikely that if you have a weapon you will be able to use it to stop an intruder" ...So I guess I shouldn't wear my seat belt when driving because it is unlikely that I will have an accident. Better to have and not need than to need and not have I always say.
You say it's very unlikely that you will have to protect yourself with a gun? Americans defend themselves with a gun two million times a year usually without firing a shot! You are FAR more likely to be killed in a car accident than by gun, unless you are or associate with drug users.
A camera would not have done anything except record the woman and her baby's execution.
@squidly1117 , you say "American's defend themselves with a gun two million times a year usually without firing a shot!",
I call BS. Where's your reputable source?
How many of you and your closest 10 relatives used guns to defend yourselves?
You say "Camera would not have done anything...", JW was talking about "reducing crime", a camera is irrefutable evidence that captures everything all the time. Clear?
@Houmatt, Gary Kleck, thanks. Wow 2 million prevented crimes, and yet America has the highest first world crime rates. The criminals aren't listening to Kleck. Then again maybe the criminals in America are more apt to carry/use a gun, and have in fact escalted both the crime rate and types of crime.
Here's an old retail trick, if it doesn't sale at $1, then price it at $2 and later have a 50% off sale. The "2 million prevented" is worse misleading BS, as crime is much higher with guns.
@ZangaroZen The simple fact of it all is that number is not make believe. Kleck did unbiased research and found this number to be true.
I am not going to deal anymore with you or this Williams guy. People have the Constitutional right to defend themselves and you are saying no. Williams himself has shown callousness and contempt for the safety of a young widow and her baby. You are just of the opinion people are stupid and therefore should not have the ability to defend themselves.
@Houmatt, you and other's rallying to the McKinley/Oklahoma special case continually fail to distinquish between cherry picking and overall statistics.
Still confused? Here's an idiot proof example:
A man and his $100k life savings, goes to a Casino and is allowed to bet the lot on one roulette number, and it hits. He walks into retirement with $3.5M.
Casinos cite 100s of such cases, and the morons swollow their BS, never realizing for every 1 such winner there are 1000s of losers.
@hitssquad, you say "No. There aer just 37 losers", WRONG on various levels, the incorrect take you were trying to spin is 36 losers (not 37) and 1 winner (out of 37 possibilities, 1 thorough 35, 0 and 00). Even that's wrong. Gambling is not about one big bet (as my casino retirement example analogizes to the McKinley case) but 100s of smaller bets, and over the long run everyone loses to the odds, hense 1000s of losers, and not 36 out of 37. Clear?
@hitssquad, have you ever been in a casino? European roulette has ONE zero, while American roulette greedier with 2 ZEROS, hense the 1 in 37 in Europe and the 1 in 38 in American both pay 35 to 1.
You ask "every single time someone walks into a casiono and bets his live savings all at once, he wins?", ofcourse you're being just as fucktarded as HTWW when he advocates everyone fallow McKinley's example. One lucky case is not a viable retirement plan nor a fool proof safety strategy.
@hitssquad, have you ever been in a casino? European roulette has ONE zero, while American roulette greedier with 2 ZEROS, hense the 1 in 37 in Europe and the 1 in 38 in American both pay 35 to 1.
You ask "every single time someone walks into a casiono and bets his live savings all at once, he wins?", ofcourse you're being just as fucktarded as HTWW when he advocates everyone fallow McKinley's example. One lucky case is not a viable retirement plan nor a fool proof safety strategy.
@ZangaroZen "hense the 1 in 37 in Europe and the 1 in 38 in American"
Didn't I just explain that to you? Is that your explanation of why your "36 losers" claim was wrong?
.
"both pay 35 to 1."
...Where and when they don't pay 34 to 1. However, where and when they do pay 35 to 1, the single bet winner in your example wouldn't walk away with $3.5 million as you claimed. He would walk away with $3.6 million.
@hitssquad, wrote text too fast, not "1 through 35", but 1 through 36, there's the missing 1. In any event there are more than 36 (Europe) or 37 (America) losers as explained. Most lose over the ups and downs (mostly down) over 100s of bets. Advocating a rare case of one huge bet that wins as a viable retirement plan, is analogous to HTWW advocating everyone emulate McKinley's rare case, when like casino losers JW's statistical fact of higher family gun tragedy is more accurate.
@hitssquad, yeah sure 1-36 (not 35 that's the payout on one number), 0 and 00, and walk away with $3.5M winnings and $0.1M bankroll. Sorry wrote that text too fast.
Point remains for every big winner above there are 1000s of losers that get that way over 100s of bets up and down (mostly down), because that's typical. Advocating a retirement plan based on the one rare lucky case is analgous to HTWW wanting to scale up rare McKinsley case dispite an huge increase in family gun tragedy
@ZangaroZen I could show you time and time again examples and clear evidence of how firearms have been used defensively but you would brush it off, because you don't care. That woman and her baby could have been killed if she didn't have that shotgun, and you don't care. You are shallow and selfish and just flat stupid, just like Williams.
1. "I could show...examples" re-read my Casino example
2. "could have been killed...you are saying no [to self-defence]", BS CTRL-F NWSWPTV
3. "Kleck did unbiased research", but oddly left out higher gun induced overall crime rates. What's a better deal 5 million crimes, OR 10 million crimes reduced by 2 million?
4. "flat stupid", re-read CTRL-F "Casino" and point 3. Now repeat your words to a mirror
5. "people are stupid", statistically far more family tragedies
@ZangaroZen My family and I (7 married brothers with children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins with children) all use weapons for protection. We've collectively been (attempted to be) robbed over a dozen times. Want to guess how many times the crooks got away with it? I worked at a retail store about 6 years ago. No guns allowed on premises. 5 security cameras and high-tech alarm system. 4 successful robberies in one year. But maybe it's just an opinion.
@Histonia, you say "My family and I (7 married brothers with children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins with children) all use weapons for protection...(attempted to be) robbed over a dozen times", so about 100 relatives (I asked for the 10 closest) say aged 30 years on average, so 300 years and 12 attempts, about 1 attempt per 3 decades. On par with my experience. 1 incident, 1am, Atlantic City, Atlantic Ave, 2 guys and me without a gun. "Want to guess" what they got?
Obviously you're very proud that your 100 member family didn't give up anything to thieves. Did they kill, hurt, detain any of the robbers? Any arrests? Maybe the 13th robbery will be tragic.
You say "retail store...5 security cameras and high-tech alarm...4 successful robberies in one year", well sure beats 4 tragedies. Your point?
The reason stores forbid employees playing vigilante/cop is statistically it ends very badly, much better/safer to co-operate. BASIC
Personally, I keep a SUPER SOAKER water gun filled with battery-acid at my home for self protection. It won't kill the intruder but he'll wish he were dead everyday for the rest of his blind, burnt life. Firearms are too humane to use as protection but that is just my opinion.
@hitssquad Well it sounds like there is no way to protect one's self at home other than to call our beloved govt. to come take care of ous like children that depend on parents? If I shoot someone with a gun or a super soaker, I can be sued, so what is to stop me? Should I just go ahead and have a garage sale with everything marked as "for free" now or should I at least fight a good fight?
A gun is a tool, no different than any other. All tools require skill and cunning, or you will hurt yourself.
Yes. There are some completely un-mechanical folks who lack the skill and cunning to safely use common power tools, and who shouldn't waste their money buying them.
Likewise, there are those who lack the skill and cunning to PROPERLY own and operate a gun, and shouldn't waste money on one
To responsibly/effectively use a gun for its intended purpose requires skill/cunning and practice
@MachOverspeedsPlace, sounds like your strongly advocating strict gun licensing based on very comprehensive training and incredibly tough testing. Sounds reasonable.
@ZangaroZen On the contrary, I advocate an educated consumer making wise choices.
No way I can intellectually defend any position that would put restrictions on the Framers Intent, which derived from the following reality, Politics 101: The Mission of any Police Force is to protect the Interest of the State, not the Interest of the Individual.
Ergo, the The Individual Right of Self Defense is Immutable.
Besides that, a cop is too big to carry around all the time.
@MachOverspeedsPlace, you say "advocate an educated consumer making wise choices", and if statiscally the consumer overwelmingly makes poor choices and gets themselves and others injured and killed, above and beyond the ideal benefit you toute, what then?
@ZangaroZen Nothing. As I said in a different post, the Individual Right of Self Defense is Immutable, as per the Founders Intent, which was based on the following reality, Politics 101: The Mission of any Police Force is to protect the Interest of the State, not the Interest of the Individual.
Without question, motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns. By far and away. But nobody is suggesting restrictions on motorcycle ownership.
@MachOverspeedsPlace, you say "Self Defense is Immutable", not to excessive force.
You say "motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns...But nobdy is suggesting restirctions on motorcyclye ownership", no just licensing, registration, enforcement, revoking, retesting, etc. You seem to be advocating the same for guns too. Is that right?
How many parked motorcycles kill family members and others?
@ZangaroZen No. Driving is a privilige, not a Right. Nobody is suggesting removing motorcycles from the list of allowed vehicles.
In other words, if nobody is suggesting the restriction of a very dangerous privilige, then how is it logical to suggest restricting a clearly enumerated Right?
I say again, you can couch it any way you want to, but the desire to control guns is really the desire to control people. Period.
What qualifies you to control the lives of others?
1. "statiscally the consumer overwelmingly makes poor choices and gets themselves and others injured and killed, above and beyond the ideal benefit you toute"
2. "licensing, registration, enforcement, revoking, retesting, etc." RESTRICTIONS for motorcycles but not guns
3. Gun ownership is a right
The above correct?
Post a reputable link noting by hour usage that "motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns"
@ZangaroZen No again. Excessive Force is defined by the Law, NOT YOU.
Where do you get off trying to single-handedly re-define ANY legal terminology, much less what does/does not constitute Excessive Force? Who made you the Legislature?
I'm in Texas. The Law here clearly defines when one may use Deadly Force. Fuck it up, and you are in DEEP trouble.
Since we've already got that handled, what's your point, apart from attempting to exercise your sick desire to control others?
@MachOverspeedsPlace, you say "Excessive Force is defined by the Law, NOT YOU...who made you the legislature", and where did I say any of the nonsense you're now spouting regarding excessive force? AGAIN your own link states "The principle has long been superceded in modern English law".
What's stopping anyone from inviting another into their home and then shooting them claiming they pushed their way in? Or shooting some kids on a dare?
Sir, spare me the lies of the anti-gun crowd. Two guys were breaking into her home, one of them with a large knife. You actually think a security camera would have thwarted them? Just how dumb are you?
@Houmatt, Your strawman is "You actually think a security camera would have thwared them?", JW was talking about the general public, how the general public can REDUCE CRIME. A video camera captures everything all the time and is irrefutable, which helps catch/convict criminals.
You ask "Just how dumb are you?", and that's from a guy who's reading comprehension confuses a stated general crime reduction suggestion, with a specific rare case.
@ZangaroZen First off, actually listen to what this goofball said. He said it would have been better for this woman to flee her home. (Problem: She had a baby in the house, too.) He then said placing a video camera IN A HIDDEN LOCATION would reduce crime because you would see who was breaking in and know who he is. Sorry, but that is the height of stupidity. This guy is so dumb he admitted he keeps his own guns and ammo locked up and kept separate.
@Houmatt, more listening comprehension issue on your part. You say "better for this women to flee her home" give the min:sec where JW says that. You can't. You made up the quote.
You need to recognize and separate statistical realities from a rare isolated case.
HTWW uses ONE RARE CASE to claim everyone should follow that example. JW notes STATSICALLY the best course of action is to flee a confrontation
You say "so dumb...guns and ammo locked up...separate", STATISTICALLY saves lives
@ZangaroZen Statistically, saves whose life? The intruder or the victim? A gun is like acetaminophen. You hope you never need it. But when you do, it means the world. This, again, is why statistics don't mean much on this issue. Are we taking into account the number of people who simply didn't own a gun (because they couldn't afford or had never learned to operate) and had no choice BUT to flee?
@Histonia, you ask "Statistically, saves whose life?...intruder of the victim?", man you're dense. Separate the special McKinley case (One rare case is not a silver bullet general solution) from the statistical reality.
My issue with McKinley is CTRL-F "NWSWPTV"
On the SEPARATE and GENERAL issue of guns for protection, statistically guns cause far more family tragedies then criminal ones. In other words families getting hurt with their own guns, without any intruder. Finally clear?
@ZangaroZen In this guy's world, the only thing that would satisfy him would be these two guys getting in and hustling both mother and child at knifepoint, never to be seen again. But, hey, we got this neat camera, so we can watch as they are taken and maybe use it at the murder trial. This guy might think people are too stupid to be able to defend themselves, but this little lady proved him wrong.
@Houmatt, you claim "satisfy [JW]...two guys...hustling both mother and child...never to be seen again", where min:sec does JW say that?
AGAIN you confuse statistical best action with one rare case.
You claim "think people are too stupid to...defend themselves...this little lady proved him wrong", again believing one rare case disproves the 1000s of gun accident tragedies
The mother saw both men clearly, unarmed, had 21 minutes to defuse/defend with a warning shot, but didn't. Why?
@ZangaroZen I would argue that effective crime reduction = actually that, not catching criminals after the fact.
Stopping all criminality in the first place is a worthy, albeit impossible, goal. Which is not to say that clearly visible video cams/warning signs/proper lighting/fences/alarms/etc aren't effective in causing criminals to ply their trade somewhere else, because they are.
But I don't think they actually reduce the incidence of crime nearly as much as dead criminals do
@MachOverspeedsPlace, listen to yourself, "effective crime reduction...not catching criminals after the fact...criminals to ply their trade soemwhere else...don't...actually reduce the incidence of crime...as dead criminals do".
Yeah "dead criminals". If caught breaking and entering the court sentence isn't death, but you demand "dead criminals", so why not execute all convicted criminals and hope science can genetically test for criminality in babies?
Responsible gun ownership is much more effective/expedient than all of these other methods combined. The key word being: RESPONSIBLE. For instance, suppose there is more than one burglar... or you discover a burglar at the planned escape route? We can't always run from danger. Sometimes, we MUST face it head on. Dismissing gun use this way is the very same as saying you never want to get into an automobile because this significantly increases your chance of death.
I have a hard time believing you've ever been robbed or physically assaulted. Do you really believe what you've been told more than what you've actually seen? "The story with the woman is very unlikely" Why? Because you don't see every instance on the news? It happens more often than we'd like to admit. As for fleeing: What about the honor of protecting yourself and your property? As a business owner, I've had two people attempt robbing me. The use of my gun saved me and my property both times.
@j0hnwi11iams The purpose of self defense is not to uphold the law, it is to preserve the lives of lawful folk. If a law abiding person must defend themselves, upholding the law is already moot, as law has failed to protect that individual.
@j0hnwi11iams 4 cameras and an alarm system. Know what they captured both times? Men who didn't care that I had cameras... because they were criminals. Criminals will often do whatever it takes to get what they want. And, contrary to the populist mentality, many of said criminals will kill you for little or no reason at all. In that situation, one might find him/herself wishing he/she had a gun. Are you admitting, then, that you haven't been robbed? If so, your theory holds no weight.
This video represents one man's opinion on how he want's to address the issue of home defense (or lack thereof). I respect his opinion, however do not agree on him advocating this as "the right way" of doing things for everyone. Clearly, having an alarm system, cameras, and/or fleeing your home are choices that people should consider ,however many will still make the educated decision to have a firearm at hand (and be prepared to use it). Everybody's situations and skill-sets are different.
@mr1drfuldude Violence is always a last resort, as far as I'm concerned. You put yourself at significant risk and the penalty for failure is much worse. Add that to the fact that using a gun short circuits justice. Last time I checked people generally do not approve of handing out the death sentence for burglary.
@j0hnwi11iams - I agree that violence is a last resort. As far as "short-circuiting justice"; I feel that guns can just as likely short-circuit a criminal's plans to terrorize, rape, and/or murder your family. Again, I respect your position. I believe that many should'nt have guns in the home, because they're not responsible and/or skilled enough to use them (or don't want to take the time to prepare). This is where your statistics come into play. I however, will choose to lawfully carry.
@mr1drfuldude This. If someone wishes to protect themselves by fleeing or by having a security camera, that's up to them and so long as they don't require _me_ to make the same choices, I'm good with that.
Statistics don't really matter. If someone is breaking into my house and is intent on hurting me or my family, I'm not going to say, "I am much more likely to have been killed by gun accidents than these intruders, so not getting a gun was the right choice."
Statistically, health insurance is a bad investment. This has to be the case, otherwise insurance companies would go out of business. You buy it to protect yourself from the edge cases, not the norm. Guns are life insurance.
@j0hnwi11iams I have never once heard of a gun owner (or their family) being killed by their own gun when they are being responsible with it. I've heard of a ton of fools who have injured or killed themselves by not treating the gun with respect & children being killed by irresponsible storage, but even more people get killed by irresponsible drivers. We don't ban cars. Irresponsible insurance administration kills people in the form of denied coverage, but that's stretching the analogy a bit.
@j0hnwi11iams Buying insurance is an opportunity cost. There are many things you can do with the money you spend on insurance which can improve your life in measurable ways. Looked at from that perspective, insurance harms your standard of living.
@ppardee, you say "Guns are life insurance", which oddly enough result in a far greater probability of injuring or killing members of your own family, then any criminal. But you're OK with that.
@ZangaroZen When I was a kid, two of my friends were shot in the face. Both were around other people playing with a gun. This was a result of stupid gun owners allowing kids access to the guns AND the kids being insulated from guns, so they were curious and were playing with them. In the hands of a responsible gun owner, guns are safe (unless you're the bad guy.) The fact that there are stupid people in the world doesn't negate the fact that a gun can save your life if you know how to use it.
@ppardee, interesting story about the 2 kids, problem is it's just one incident among many 1000s of cases. Cherry picking is irrelevant. The overall stats is what matters in a high level discussion.
You say "stupid people in the world doens't negate the fact that a gun can save your life if you know how to use it", AND can and does cause 1000s of famiy tragedies every year.
Do you consider police stupid and not gun trained/savy?
@ZangaroZen Some people are stupid. Cops are people. Some cops are stupid. There is no cherry picking. (Modern) Guns are safe. People are dangerous. They will be dangerous with guns, knives, rocks, sticks, etc... Any argument you make for guns, I can also make for cars. Both are dangerous if not treated with respect. Both are massively useful.
@ppardee, You say "Some cops are stupid", doesn't change the fact that cops get infinitely more gun training then civies, yet lead in gun tragedies stats. It's the nature of a dangerous tool, even "(Modern) guns"
You say "People are dangerous", but less so with "knives, rocks, sticks, etc", good point.
You say "also make for cars", but car's huge beneift far outweght the risks, and there's training, licensing, re-testing, revoked licenses, enforcement, etc, You want the same for guns?
@ZangaroZen See, now we get to the fundamental issue. The benefit of guns far exceeds that of cars. Guns ensure freedom. Cars enhance it. The 2nd amendment says that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. All the regulation you suggest violates the constitution. Additionally, since guns ensure freedom, the government knowing who has what gun where compromises our ability to defend our freedoms against an increasingly oppressive state.
@ppardee, you say "benefit of guns far exceeds that of cars...guns ensure freedom", explain how transportation, the foundation of the economy is "far" less important then guns, and how guns ensure freedom.
You say "2nd amendment...people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed", aren't convicts, the mentally disturbed, etc. people?
You say "regulation you suggest", be honest, you compare guns to cars, and I note state control regarding driving and ask if you want the same for guns
Really?? HAve you even been to a police academy or even military basic training?
As long as you can hit more than 50% of the targets (with the sole exception of the USMC) you are considered a "marksman". Think of that the standard the military and police train to is if you can hit the target 55% of the time you are good to go.
Meanwhile in order to get my carry conceal permit in the State of North Carolina I had to hit the target 30 times out of 40 shots or 75% of the time.
2. "can hit more than 50% of targets...good to go", 95% is the expert level
3. "75% of the time", how far was the target, etc
4. "In a perfect situation...gather your family and flee...camera is still worthless", CTRL-F "Casino", learn to sever yourself from a cherry picked case (ie far from the norm), to consider overall statistics that note a far higher probability of a family tragedy.
@ViCe1986 Bad analogy. A car is vital for daily survival if you commute to work. No one needs a gun in the same sense, except perhaps law enforcement.
@j0hnwi11iams No one needs a gun. Not until they _really_ need it. You could own a gun for your entire life and never need it, but just one instance where you did need it justifies the purchase many times over.
It is not a bad analogy, possession and ownership of both tools put the owner at risk on injury or death. Yet, though automobile accidents kill tens of thousands of people each year a fraction of firearm accidental deaths, the automobile is not treated the same as a firearm.
The automobile is seen as a tool, the firearm as an abomination that kills. When if anything going on the amount of deaths each's accidents cause the firearm is the tool and the automobile the abomination.
In both cases though it it not the automobile or the firearm that does anything at all except what the owner chooses for it to do.
When a reckless owner cranes into something and kills a person they are seen a responsible since they were the one operation the automobile. Now when it comes to firearms, people act like the weapon arms, loads, and discharges on it's own without any input from the one possessing it.
Plus his straw man, you will kill people if you are armed and mad is dumb
I'll keep my firearm loaded and ready, and hope as I always do that I will never need to use it.
Someone doesn't own a weapon because they want to shoot someone, they own a weapon because they need a ability to defend there life, liberty, and property from the intrusion of ill intentions by wicked people.
A security camera will not hold a burglar till the police arrive, nor would it ever prevent crime.
You are a fool and a hypocrite, I can own a gun but you should not.
@ViCe1986 I know my opinions must seem threatening to you. I am after all advocating that your best alternative is to let the justice system work, and not take justice into your own hands. How helpless you must feel.
@j0hnwi11iams I'm sure the victims cold and rotting corpse will feel ever so grateful for the video camera which prevented their murderer from escaping justice.
Yes, they are a threat to me and to every law abiding citizen in this nation. You are against the right to self defense a inalienable right given to all. Now while you are not actively seeking to remove this right from others, you are advising those considering to purchase a firearm for protection and defense from not doing so at there mortal peril.
Let's say your video found this young mother and she did not have that shotgun when those crooks kicked in her bedroom door?
Your arguments are poor (security cameras do not stop crime, it does do much good to your family when your dead and they got the footage on film), your logic flawed (angry armed people do not shoot people, if that is the case half of the city of Raleigh NC would be dead, since I always carry a firearm), and your position is ultimately derived from false pretenses (that the persons has an avenue of escape, has nothing of vital importance in the home (maybe sleeping children??), and is dumb)
I agree almost all will hopefully never have to discharge a firearm in a situation where there life is in mortal danger. But we don't wear seat belts, get checkups, or save for rainy days because we want to have bad things happen. We do these things as a preventive measure hoping that we never need to face a car accident, serious illness, or fiscal difficulties.
Carrying a firearm is no different, police are not everywhere, and you hope you never need to use a firearm ever.
@ViCe1986, you say "A security camera will not hold a burglar till the police arrive, nor would it ever prevent crime", and please tell everyone where JW said that in his video. Oh right he didn't and you're strawmanning.
JW's point is a video camera is irrefutable, catches everything and all the time, and as such it's a far better tool for crime reduction, by escalating the capture and conviction rates while detering crime.
It is not a straw man, it is a important fact. In a perfect situation where you have time to gather your family and flee when an intruder surprises you in the middle of the night. A camera is still worthless unless you are lucky enough to get a clear full face of the criminal.
That is the best case scenarip, do think of the worst case, you are home in bed on the second floor with your fancy cameras rolling, now you have people in your house on your stairs with nowhere to go.
How is that camera going to stop them from harming your family now?
It isn't but your pump action shotgun will come through in that situation just fine. There is no benefit from a security camera, since it assumes that you will have time to flee and that you intruder will be dumb enough to expose his face clearly to the camera.
A shotgun costs less and is more reliable than any security camera or security alarm.
5. "How is the camera going to stop them", Are you dense? CTRL-F "Casino", and realize the McKinley case is not a silver bullet one time proof of anything. Overall statistics say you're better off without gun access, as the chance of a family tragedy is far greater than having to deal with a burglar?
6. "shotgun costs less...security camera", again separate the specific McKinley case and consider OVERALL CRIME REDUCTION. Cameras work to catch/convict criminals.
That the gun is unlikely to be used for self defense is the whole point.Having a gun means that it is unlikely to be used. Is that not great? And "there is nothing in this house worth risking my life". Well, in my house I have a couple of things: kids and my dignity...
@j0hnwi11iams Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Of course I keep my guns locked up, but I would still use them if there is a threat against my kids. You see, I can live with the idea of getting hurt in the process of defending myself, but I cannot live with the idea of being chased from my home or watching someone molest my kids. Do you have any dignity???
Yes, and if you took your head out of the dirt you would know that 1) education is the key to preventing chidden from getting hurt from firearms (teach them early, teach them always) 2) they have biometric safes specifically designed to hold loaded handguns for that situation. There is no way in the safe without the fingerprint of the adult and it still allows quick and easy access to the weapon in time of need.
Your argument is still a utter failure, with no commonsense.
Have security camera will only work if you advertise that you have video surveillance, even then a dedicated criminal will still try to break in. Yes you can flee, but what if you live in a two story house and get trap on the top floor? Or you live in an apartment?
Security Cameras, NEVER work. Homes with cameras still are robbed, all a camera tells a their is 1) wear a ski mask, 2) this dude has some expensive stuff in this house to be able to afford all those security cameras.
Unless the cameras are automated gun turrets that kill the intruder if he does not surrounded his weapon and lie on the ground till police arrive, they are only there to let the cops see how brutally the crook murdered your family.
Install a security camera? Why? So the police can have visual evidence fo the lady begin raped and murdered and her child being murdered? The plain truth is that violent gun deaths are highest where gun ownership is the most restricted.
Why even have a gun if you don't keep ammunition where you can get to it. And if you "flee", that just leaves your guns for crimimals to find. You should sell them.
@jtkirkfan2002, you ask "camera?...So the police can have visual evidence of the lady[/child] being raped and murdered", in the rare extreme case yes, but in the many magnitudes more common cases, a simple burgery. All amounts to more captures and convictions.
You say "gun deaths are highest where gun ownrship is the most restricted", and which countries compare that way to America? None.
You ask "Why even have a gun", gun clubs, hunting...
Of course gun advocates will argue that crimes are prevented simply because intruders are concerned that you might have a gun, but6 of course unlike crimes of passion, or accidents that are measurable, possible crimes prevented are not, but that doesn't stop them from making that unsupported (by evidence) argument.
Funny how by country crime and gun ownership have an inverse relationship.
Another angle is that more guns promote more violent crimes not less. Society's criminal element, won't stop doing crimes because of more guns, they'll move onto easier targets and/or use more guns. In the end there are more criminals carrying more guns and everyone's more shoot first trigger happy.
Not only that the US states per capita gun death rates correlate almost exactly with legal gun ownership rates. In other words more legal guns equals more deaths (violent, accidental, and suicides) not less. Interestingly enough those numbers also correlate with IQ (lowest average IQ states more legal guns/deaths, higher average IQ fewer guns/deaths.)
So the real problem is education not the weapon, why ban a tool because the operator needs more education. Why not leave the tool alone , fix the real problem, which is the need for more education, and then things improve.
Of course though that would not give you a soap box to stand on, so I guess education is second to political agendas?
@ViCe1986, you say "So the real problem is education not the weapon", hardly it's the WEAPON. A hammer is mostly a hammer, rarely a weapon, while a gun is always a weapon.
As for more education, you seem to be suggesting, comprehensive training and very
its unlikely yet i still want one. these streets are unsafe. if you keep them locked away then why have them in the first place? a mans home is his castle. you obvs dont have wife and kids or someone else that you have responsibility for.
JFAINTER88 4 days ago 2
If you truly value your life, then why restrict gun ownership and possession to normal citizens.
IF a criminal wants a gun, he'll do anything to get it, no matter what the law says.
People still smoke crack, even though it's illegal. People still rob banks and it's illegal. People sill speed and run red lights, and that's illegal.
A law won't stop a criminal. A security camera won't stop a criminal.
The camera is in place o catch them AFTER the fact. But what will you do while being robbed?
pseudohippie55 1 week ago
ok...so a security camer is going to help me when a man comes into my hose and points a gun at my head? Is it going to shoot a laser?
Come on dude. USE YOUR HEAD! A security camera can see the person and help ID them AFTER the crime, but when it happens, a security camera won't do jack crap. A camera won't help a store owner who has a shotgun in his face, but a gun will. You're argument is absurd.
pseudohippie55 1 week ago
Who the fuck are you to tell me that I can't keep a loaded gun in a biometric safe right next to my bed. I'm not going to flee from my house when somebody breaks in! Fuck that! I'm putting 2 in the chest and 1 in the head! Oh and a hidden camera is going to help stop an intruder from killing you and raping your wife how???
beasley822 3 weeks ago 2
Right...install a security camera - that way we can watch you being attacked at 4 AM while you're fumbling for the 'phone to call 911. Maybe you'll still be alive when the law eventually does arrive. What ARE you thinking??
xtraceex 3 weeks ago
I'm sure France would agree with this video LOL
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
"I support the 2nd amendment, however selling guns for self protection is tempting the odds. Get a security camera instead."
Hey, looks like were OK in the UK then because they are fuckin EVERYWHERE!!
1madaboutguitar 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams Are you daft? How will a camera protect someone? I guess you could throw it. The fact of the matter is that the bad guys will have guns and use them for thier own motivations. I don't see the point in taking guns away when the bad guys will have them despite any law put in place.
KnoxSUX 1 month ago
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and hear you out, but by the end of your video I hadn't heard anything that was factual regarding what you were saying about accidental discharges or crimes of passion vs. crimes stopped. I don't know where you're getting your made up statistics ... but they are made up. Cameras don't stop crime. Fleeing doesn't stop crime. You have the right to defend yourself and your property.
HumbleWillis 1 month ago
What's great about this video is John doesn't even believe his own words. "If someone finds it, uses when they can't control their own temper." You're talking about a belief structure you don't follow.
Also, how many police officers prevent crime on and off duty? Just them? Now how man people that own a gun will prevent the crime when someone breaks into their home? Answer? All of them! You have no ground to stand on john. Your mental foundation is based on a hypocritical idea.
Milesdavis2998 1 month ago
A few question
1:05
How do you measure how many crimes are prevented by owning a gun? How do you record a crime that doesn't happen?
2:30
What if he is wearing a ski mask?
And lastly, if you believe all the things you just said, why do you own a gun in the first place?
Jammer8x8 1 month ago
Yes get a security camera so when your raped you have it on film... what a great idea especially when you realized the men are wearing masks.
MrSpikeowns 1 month ago
Well if you are a moron who owns a gun, Then you will do something stupid with it, Regardless of the situation. If you are cautious and safe gun owner, You will most likely be well trained with the firearm and be able to comfortably use the firearm in a situation as such. You do not seem to be a well organized gun owner. If you own a gun, You should be able to access it with ease in an emergency. I would rather protect what I have because somethings can never be replaced.
BelialAndar 1 month ago
@BelialAndar Almost like not having a gun at all. I don't depend on a gun for my safety. I depend on keeping my guns locked up for my safety.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams You having easy access to them does not mean others have easy access to them, Do you ever shoot them?
BelialAndar 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams So how does your dependency on locking your gun up keep you safe? You do understand that you are NOT safe when someone breaks into your home. You gamble on something so pathetic that you trivialize your life and your families. If the opportunity ever presents itself, i hope you make the right decision and rely on your security camera and the weapon of your choice broken into 17 different pieces in 10 different places. Good Luck with that.
Milesdavis2998 1 month ago
@Milesdavis2998 A gun is simply a tool, and if it's a tool you can't get to ... it's a useless tool. If it's unloaded ... it's a paper weight. If you have a self defense gun, it NEEDS to be readily available and either loaded, or stored with an available loaded magazine that can be loaded at a moment's notice. Anything less and you may as well not have a gun because an intruder isn't going to wait and give you a minute to get your $#!+ together so that you can defend yourself.
HumbleWillis 1 month ago
run out the back door ... whilst your wife and helpless child are killed or worse I think not I will defend my self and my family not flee in cowardice
lolcatofawsumd 1 month ago 2
@lolcatofawsumd It is a matter of values. I value my life, maybe you value all your shit. If my family were in danger that would be a different story.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams ahhh.so guns are a SMART Choice if your family is in danger. Or...you know, if the guy defending himself is an atheist liberal. You'll support them 100% right, you biased fool?
pseudohippie55 1 day ago
Idiot....
usmcwo3 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZangaroZen Don't you think similar occurrences could and do happen with or without guns? Even a kitchen knife in the wrong hands is too dangerous. If we search hard enough, I'm sure we'll find, at some point, a father snuck up on and stabbed someone familiar (unknowingly) whom he thought to be a burglar. We can argue statistics all day. People who've been in that situation and know the feeling can tell you how villains act/think. The worst kinds of people just don't care about cameras or law.
Histonia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Histonia, you say "a kitchen knife in the wrong hands is too dangerous", you're kidding? Why do soldiers fight wars with firearms and not "kitchen knives"? Think efficiency and distance. Kitchen knives don't compare.
Next you say "search hard enough, I'm sure we'll find...We can argue statistics all day", WRONG cherry picking odd cases doesn't represent the statistical norm.
You say "worst...people...don't care about cameras", sure they do, as they don't want to get caught.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams At best, I would suggest all means of defense. A ready firearm, an alarm system AND security cameras. But that comes down to cost. Can everyone afford all three? If not, what is most sufficient? Everyone is different so I'll just say what has worked for me. I'd much rather be caught in that situation with a firearm and no camera than with a camera and no gun. If a camera is my only means of defense, the police may only have footage of me getting killed.
Histonia 1 month ago
Guns are a poor security choice?
Well see about that when 20 gangbangers with bats and knives come breaking into your home for oxycottin.
seataclibertarian 1 month ago
@seataclibertarian Very true. I know the impulse for these guys is to jump on this and say it rarely happens. But people, these days, are breaking into homes (en masse) to steal prescription drugs at an alarming rate.
Histonia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Histonia, yeah and that's a real tragedy, to lose a few hundred dollars in perscriptions, while you're out, when most burglaries take place. Too bad you didn't install a camera to help catch and convict the criminals.
HTWW's point is the McKinley rare case proves everyone should have a gun.
JW's point is gun ownership greatly increases the risk of family tragedies, far beyond a possible home invasion threat. CTRL-F "Casino" for the idiot proof analogy.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, I'd like to correct your error in saying that there are more gun accidents or crimes of passion than times when a gun was used for protection. This is false, the reason that you have made this mistake is simple, you have been brainwashed by the liberal media to believe it is true. You would do well to present facts rather than just your ill informed opinion. Suicides make up 56% of gun deaths.
Accidents accounted for 613 deaths in 2007. Defensive gun use is around 1.5 million a year
intrepidorator 1 month ago
Comment removed
intrepidorator 1 month ago
I have had a concealed carry permit for 8 years. In that 8 years, carrying a gun saved my ass. The first time was in north Tulsa when a "crip" member approached me in the parking lot of a convenience store about 5 years ago. The other was this halloween when I was approached by a drug addict. It is FOOLISH to rely on security cameras for protection. There were security cameras at both places that I needed to protect myself. All a camera is good for is to catch the guy AFTER he has killed me.
intrepidorator 1 month ago
Ever hear about the kimberly cates murder, happened in a very nice neighborhood in NH, poor woman was butchered with a machete and her daughter's throat slit. No motive, were not trying to steal anything, they were just twisted individuals who decided to break in and kill someone. But Hey, she could have just fled, right? Or she could have taken one for the team and put up video cameras to catch their faces as they opened her daughter's throat. These kinds of things can and do happen.
charlief0xtrot 1 month ago
@charlief0xtrot, ever heard of the case where a father thought there was a burgler in his basement, so he went downstairs and shot his son. What about the one where a guy loses it and kills his whole family. Then there's the 1000s of gun cleaning accidents. For ever very rare psycho case you name there are 1000s of less sexy tragedies. Your problem is you think the rare cases are wide spread and the wide spread ones are near non-exsistant, and not the other way round.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen Please show me a study that actually shows that "1000's" are killed by accidents.
The first example you cite would be tragic, but it is far from commonplace.
If you don't have positive identification of what your target is and what is near/behind it, don't fire. If you plan to carry a weapon for defense, you should get all the training you can.
And "guys losing it", doesn't take a gun to kill your whole family, often times it doesn't. Got two hands? Kitchen knife?
charlief0xtrot 1 month ago
@charlief0xtrot, my EXACT QUOTE is "1000s of gun cleaning accidents" not "killed by accidents", be honest
links:
webappaDOTcdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2000.html
cdcDOTgov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf
nytimesDOTcom/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html
Summary per year:
52,447 deliberate non-fatal injuries
23,237 accidental non-fatal injuries
17,352 suicides (gun murders is lower than 12,632 murders) 2.240 Other deaths (31,224-17,352-12,632)
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen
All figures i have seen have actually shown a continued trend of less and less Firearm related deaths ( especially accidental deaths as you say are in the "1000s",) despite record numbers of firearm owners. in 2007 only 613 people were killed by "accidental" firearm discharge. While any death is tragic, given the population in 07, 302.2 million, and 37,304 people being killed in auto accidents, it is not nearly as wide spread a problem as you seem to believe.
charlief0xtrot 1 month ago
@charlief0xtrot, there you go again making up quotes with "especially accidental deaths as you say are in the 1000s", how dishonest, AGAIN my verbatim quote is "Then there's the 1000s of gun cleaning accidents". No more BS quotes OK.
You compare 613 (NRA figure from where?) accidental gun deaths to 37,304 car deaths. Very misleading. Try comparing usage hours, to get a clear picture on which is the more dangerous. Vehicles: 254Mcars x15000miles/50mph
You do the gun stats
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
Your preferred course of action is to flee? Leave your spouse (if you have one) children, (if you have them), and just run. No thank you. I keep positive control of my firearm and it is never far away. I assure you i would be capable of safely employing my weapon to protect myself and my family.
charlief0xtrot 1 month ago
I have security cameras.
I even have blinking LED on the main one out front so would be home invaders will move on.
However, if someone makes the decision to enter my home at 3AM then cameras are no better than calling 911. They just offer some info AFTER THE FACT!
I keep ammo in some of my guns so it's ready to go if anyone breaks in.
GodGunsGutsGlory4KJV 1 month ago
"It is unlikely that if you have a weapon you will be able to use it to stop an intruder" ...So I guess I shouldn't wear my seat belt when driving because it is unlikely that I will have an accident. Better to have and not need than to need and not have I always say.
Glock18C2006 1 month ago 3
I disagree with your conclusions.
rangerdanger222 1 month ago
This is a prank video right?
Milesdavis2998 1 month ago
Unlike you, I have something worth protecting in my home: my family. If anybody breaks in while my family is present, they will be shot in the face.
Your advice is crap.
augustc4 1 month ago
You say it's very unlikely that you will have to protect yourself with a gun? Americans defend themselves with a gun two million times a year usually without firing a shot! You are FAR more likely to be killed in a car accident than by gun, unless you are or associate with drug users.
A camera would not have done anything except record the woman and her baby's execution.
squidly1117 1 month ago
@squidly1117 , you say "American's defend themselves with a gun two million times a year usually without firing a shot!",
I call BS. Where's your reputable source?
How many of you and your closest 10 relatives used guns to defend yourselves?
You say "Camera would not have done anything...", JW was talking about "reducing crime", a camera is irrefutable evidence that captures everything all the time. Clear?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen Squidly's source is Gary Kleck.
Houmatt 1 month ago
@Houmatt, Gary Kleck, thanks. Wow 2 million prevented crimes, and yet America has the highest first world crime rates. The criminals aren't listening to Kleck. Then again maybe the criminals in America are more apt to carry/use a gun, and have in fact escalted both the crime rate and types of crime.
Here's an old retail trick, if it doesn't sale at $1, then price it at $2 and later have a 50% off sale. The "2 million prevented" is worse misleading BS, as crime is much higher with guns.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen The simple fact of it all is that number is not make believe. Kleck did unbiased research and found this number to be true.
I am not going to deal anymore with you or this Williams guy. People have the Constitutional right to defend themselves and you are saying no. Williams himself has shown callousness and contempt for the safety of a young widow and her baby. You are just of the opinion people are stupid and therefore should not have the ability to defend themselves.
Houmatt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houmatt, you and other's rallying to the McKinley/Oklahoma special case continually fail to distinquish between cherry picking and overall statistics.
Still confused? Here's an idiot proof example:
A man and his $100k life savings, goes to a Casino and is allowed to bet the lot on one roulette number, and it hits. He walks into retirement with $3.5M.
Casinos cite 100s of such cases, and the morons swollow their BS, never realizing for every 1 such winner there are 1000s of losers.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen "for every 1 such [35 to 1 roulette] winner there are 1000s of losers."
No. There are just 37 losers.
hitssquad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad, you say "No. There aer just 37 losers", WRONG on various levels, the incorrect take you were trying to spin is 36 losers (not 37) and 1 winner (out of 37 possibilities, 1 thorough 35, 0 and 00). Even that's wrong. Gambling is not about one big bet (as my casino retirement example analogizes to the McKinley case) but 100s of smaller bets, and over the long run everyone loses to the odds, hense 1000s of losers, and not 36 out of 37. Clear?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen "the incorrect take you were trying to spin is 36 losers"
That would be European roulette. Have you heard of America?
hitssquad 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen "Casinos cite 100s of such cases [...] but 100s of smaller bets"
So, every single time someone walks into a casino and bets his life savings all at once, he wins?
hitssquad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad, have you ever been in a casino? European roulette has ONE zero, while American roulette greedier with 2 ZEROS, hense the 1 in 37 in Europe and the 1 in 38 in American both pay 35 to 1.
You ask "every single time someone walks into a casiono and bets his live savings all at once, he wins?", ofcourse you're being just as fucktarded as HTWW when he advocates everyone fallow McKinley's example. One lucky case is not a viable retirement plan nor a fool proof safety strategy.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad, have you ever been in a casino? European roulette has ONE zero, while American roulette greedier with 2 ZEROS, hense the 1 in 37 in Europe and the 1 in 38 in American both pay 35 to 1.
You ask "every single time someone walks into a casiono and bets his live savings all at once, he wins?", ofcourse you're being just as fucktarded as HTWW when he advocates everyone fallow McKinley's example. One lucky case is not a viable retirement plan nor a fool proof safety strategy.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen "hense the 1 in 37 in Europe and the 1 in 38 in American"
Didn't I just explain that to you? Is that your explanation of why your "36 losers" claim was wrong?
.
"both pay 35 to 1."
...Where and when they don't pay 34 to 1. However, where and when they do pay 35 to 1, the single bet winner in your example wouldn't walk away with $3.5 million as you claimed. He would walk away with $3.6 million.
hitssquad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad, wrote text too fast, not "1 through 35", but 1 through 36, there's the missing 1. In any event there are more than 36 (Europe) or 37 (America) losers as explained. Most lose over the ups and downs (mostly down) over 100s of bets. Advocating a rare case of one huge bet that wins as a viable retirement plan, is analogous to HTWW advocating everyone emulate McKinley's rare case, when like casino losers JW's statistical fact of higher family gun tragedy is more accurate.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad, yeah sure 1-36 (not 35 that's the payout on one number), 0 and 00, and walk away with $3.5M winnings and $0.1M bankroll. Sorry wrote that text too fast.
Point remains for every big winner above there are 1000s of losers that get that way over 100s of bets up and down (mostly down), because that's typical. Advocating a retirement plan based on the one rare lucky case is analgous to HTWW wanting to scale up rare McKinsley case dispite an huge increase in family gun tragedy
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen I could show you time and time again examples and clear evidence of how firearms have been used defensively but you would brush it off, because you don't care. That woman and her baby could have been killed if she didn't have that shotgun, and you don't care. You are shallow and selfish and just flat stupid, just like Williams.
Houmatt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houmatt, You say:
1. "I could show...examples" re-read my Casino example
2. "could have been killed...you are saying no [to self-defence]", BS CTRL-F NWSWPTV
3. "Kleck did unbiased research", but oddly left out higher gun induced overall crime rates. What's a better deal 5 million crimes, OR 10 million crimes reduced by 2 million?
4. "flat stupid", re-read CTRL-F "Casino" and point 3. Now repeat your words to a mirror
5. "people are stupid", statistically far more family tragedies
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen My family and I (7 married brothers with children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins with children) all use weapons for protection. We've collectively been (attempted to be) robbed over a dozen times. Want to guess how many times the crooks got away with it? I worked at a retail store about 6 years ago. No guns allowed on premises. 5 security cameras and high-tech alarm system. 4 successful robberies in one year. But maybe it's just an opinion.
Histonia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Histonia, you say "My family and I (7 married brothers with children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins with children) all use weapons for protection...(attempted to be) robbed over a dozen times", so about 100 relatives (I asked for the 10 closest) say aged 30 years on average, so 300 years and 12 attempts, about 1 attempt per 3 decades. On par with my experience. 1 incident, 1am, Atlantic City, Atlantic Ave, 2 guys and me without a gun. "Want to guess" what they got?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Histonia, (con't)
Obviously you're very proud that your 100 member family didn't give up anything to thieves. Did they kill, hurt, detain any of the robbers? Any arrests? Maybe the 13th robbery will be tragic.
You say "retail store...5 security cameras and high-tech alarm...4 successful robberies in one year", well sure beats 4 tragedies. Your point?
The reason stores forbid employees playing vigilante/cop is statistically it ends very badly, much better/safer to co-operate. BASIC
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
liberalism
Nothiean 1 month ago
Personally, I keep a SUPER SOAKER water gun filled with battery-acid at my home for self protection. It won't kill the intruder but he'll wish he were dead everyday for the rest of his blind, burnt life. Firearms are too humane to use as protection but that is just my opinion.
dlucas90 1 month ago
@dlucas90 "I keep a SUPER SOAKER water gun filled with battery-acid at my home for self protection."
That's a good way to get sued. Ask a lawyer. And it's not like you don't have better options: google. com/search?q=fox+5.3
hitssquad 1 month ago
@hitssquad Well it sounds like there is no way to protect one's self at home other than to call our beloved govt. to come take care of ous like children that depend on parents? If I shoot someone with a gun or a super soaker, I can be sued, so what is to stop me? Should I just go ahead and have a garage sale with everything marked as "for free" now or should I at least fight a good fight?
dlucas90 1 month ago
@dlucas90 "Well it sounds like there is no way to protect one's self"
Did you miss this part?: google. com/search?q=fox+5.3
hitssquad 1 month ago
A gun is a tool, no different than any other. All tools require skill and cunning, or you will hurt yourself.
Yes. There are some completely un-mechanical folks who lack the skill and cunning to safely use common power tools, and who shouldn't waste their money buying them.
Likewise, there are those who lack the skill and cunning to PROPERLY own and operate a gun, and shouldn't waste money on one
To responsibly/effectively use a gun for its intended purpose requires skill/cunning and practice
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
@MachOverspeedsPlace, sounds like your strongly advocating strict gun licensing based on very comprehensive training and incredibly tough testing. Sounds reasonable.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen On the contrary, I advocate an educated consumer making wise choices.
No way I can intellectually defend any position that would put restrictions on the Framers Intent, which derived from the following reality, Politics 101: The Mission of any Police Force is to protect the Interest of the State, not the Interest of the Individual.
Ergo, the The Individual Right of Self Defense is Immutable.
Besides that, a cop is too big to carry around all the time.
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
@MachOverspeedsPlace, you say "advocate an educated consumer making wise choices", and if statiscally the consumer overwelmingly makes poor choices and gets themselves and others injured and killed, above and beyond the ideal benefit you toute, what then?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen Nothing. As I said in a different post, the Individual Right of Self Defense is Immutable, as per the Founders Intent, which was based on the following reality, Politics 101: The Mission of any Police Force is to protect the Interest of the State, not the Interest of the Individual.
Without question, motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns. By far and away. But nobody is suggesting restrictions on motorcycle ownership.
Gun control is people control.
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
@MachOverspeedsPlace, you say "Self Defense is Immutable", not to excessive force.
You say "motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns...But nobdy is suggesting restirctions on motorcyclye ownership", no just licensing, registration, enforcement, revoking, retesting, etc. You seem to be advocating the same for guns too. Is that right?
How many parked motorcycles kill family members and others?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen No. Driving is a privilige, not a Right. Nobody is suggesting removing motorcycles from the list of allowed vehicles.
In other words, if nobody is suggesting the restriction of a very dangerous privilige, then how is it logical to suggest restricting a clearly enumerated Right?
I say again, you can couch it any way you want to, but the desire to control guns is really the desire to control people. Period.
What qualifies you to control the lives of others?
Nothing.
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MachOverspeedsPlace, in summary, you're OK with:
1. "statiscally the consumer overwelmingly makes poor choices and gets themselves and others injured and killed, above and beyond the ideal benefit you toute"
2. "licensing, registration, enforcement, revoking, retesting, etc." RESTRICTIONS for motorcycles but not guns
3. Gun ownership is a right
The above correct?
Post a reputable link noting by hour usage that "motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns"
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen No again. Excessive Force is defined by the Law, NOT YOU.
Where do you get off trying to single-handedly re-define ANY legal terminology, much less what does/does not constitute Excessive Force? Who made you the Legislature?
I'm in Texas. The Law here clearly defines when one may use Deadly Force. Fuck it up, and you are in DEEP trouble.
Since we've already got that handled, what's your point, apart from attempting to exercise your sick desire to control others?
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MachOverspeedsPlace, you say "Excessive Force is defined by the Law, NOT YOU...who made you the legislature", and where did I say any of the nonsense you're now spouting regarding excessive force? AGAIN your own link states "The principle has long been superceded in modern English law".
What's stopping anyone from inviting another into their home and then shooting them claiming they pushed their way in? Or shooting some kids on a dare?
My point? CTRL-F NWSWPTV
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen Parked motorcycles?
Oh, I see, you're a Crusader....
Fuck me, if it ain't good old Captain Savethekidz.
How Machiavellian can ya' get?
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MachOverspeedsPlace, want to discuss, then be a good sport and address the questions/callouts as I've done for each of your points.
You declare "you're a crusader", hardly, I have both a motorcycle and gun license.
AGAIN:
CTRL-F "The above correct?" and answer (likely yes)
Post a reputable link noting by hour usage that "motorcycles are statistically MUCH more dangerous than guns"
CTRL-F "kids on a dare?"
Well?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
Sir, spare me the lies of the anti-gun crowd. Two guys were breaking into her home, one of them with a large knife. You actually think a security camera would have thwarted them? Just how dumb are you?
Houmatt 1 month ago
@Houmatt, Your strawman is "You actually think a security camera would have thwared them?", JW was talking about the general public, how the general public can REDUCE CRIME. A video camera captures everything all the time and is irrefutable, which helps catch/convict criminals.
You ask "Just how dumb are you?", and that's from a guy who's reading comprehension confuses a stated general crime reduction suggestion, with a specific rare case.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen First off, actually listen to what this goofball said. He said it would have been better for this woman to flee her home. (Problem: She had a baby in the house, too.) He then said placing a video camera IN A HIDDEN LOCATION would reduce crime because you would see who was breaking in and know who he is. Sorry, but that is the height of stupidity. This guy is so dumb he admitted he keeps his own guns and ammo locked up and kept separate.
Houmatt 1 month ago
@Houmatt, more listening comprehension issue on your part. You say "better for this women to flee her home" give the min:sec where JW says that. You can't. You made up the quote.
You need to recognize and separate statistical realities from a rare isolated case.
HTWW uses ONE RARE CASE to claim everyone should follow that example. JW notes STATSICALLY the best course of action is to flee a confrontation
You say "so dumb...guns and ammo locked up...separate", STATISTICALLY saves lives
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen Statistically, saves whose life? The intruder or the victim? A gun is like acetaminophen. You hope you never need it. But when you do, it means the world. This, again, is why statistics don't mean much on this issue. Are we taking into account the number of people who simply didn't own a gun (because they couldn't afford or had never learned to operate) and had no choice BUT to flee?
Histonia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Histonia, you ask "Statistically, saves whose life?...intruder of the victim?", man you're dense. Separate the special McKinley case (One rare case is not a silver bullet general solution) from the statistical reality.
My issue with McKinley is CTRL-F "NWSWPTV"
On the SEPARATE and GENERAL issue of guns for protection, statistically guns cause far more family tragedies then criminal ones. In other words families getting hurt with their own guns, without any intruder. Finally clear?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen In this guy's world, the only thing that would satisfy him would be these two guys getting in and hustling both mother and child at knifepoint, never to be seen again. But, hey, we got this neat camera, so we can watch as they are taken and maybe use it at the murder trial. This guy might think people are too stupid to be able to defend themselves, but this little lady proved him wrong.
Houmatt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houmatt, you claim "satisfy [JW]...two guys...hustling both mother and child...never to be seen again", where min:sec does JW say that?
AGAIN you confuse statistical best action with one rare case.
You claim "think people are too stupid to...defend themselves...this little lady proved him wrong", again believing one rare case disproves the 1000s of gun accident tragedies
The mother saw both men clearly, unarmed, had 21 minutes to defuse/defend with a warning shot, but didn't. Why?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen I would argue that effective crime reduction = actually that, not catching criminals after the fact.
Stopping all criminality in the first place is a worthy, albeit impossible, goal. Which is not to say that clearly visible video cams/warning signs/proper lighting/fences/alarms/etc aren't effective in causing criminals to ply their trade somewhere else, because they are.
But I don't think they actually reduce the incidence of crime nearly as much as dead criminals do
MachOverspeedsPlace 1 month ago
@MachOverspeedsPlace, listen to yourself, "effective crime reduction...not catching criminals after the fact...criminals to ply their trade soemwhere else...don't...actually reduce the incidence of crime...as dead criminals do".
Yeah "dead criminals". If caught breaking and entering the court sentence isn't death, but you demand "dead criminals", so why not execute all convicted criminals and hope science can genetically test for criminality in babies?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
Fair advice
HouseInVisus 1 month ago
Responsible gun ownership is much more effective/expedient than all of these other methods combined. The key word being: RESPONSIBLE. For instance, suppose there is more than one burglar... or you discover a burglar at the planned escape route? We can't always run from danger. Sometimes, we MUST face it head on. Dismissing gun use this way is the very same as saying you never want to get into an automobile because this significantly increases your chance of death.
Histonia 1 month ago
I have a hard time believing you've ever been robbed or physically assaulted. Do you really believe what you've been told more than what you've actually seen? "The story with the woman is very unlikely" Why? Because you don't see every instance on the news? It happens more often than we'd like to admit. As for fleeing: What about the honor of protecting yourself and your property? As a business owner, I've had two people attempt robbing me. The use of my gun saved me and my property both times.
Histonia 1 month ago
@Histonia Do you or do you not have security cameras. A gun is a poor choice for upholding the law unless there are no other alternatives.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams The purpose of self defense is not to uphold the law, it is to preserve the lives of lawful folk. If a law abiding person must defend themselves, upholding the law is already moot, as law has failed to protect that individual.
docdamag 1 month ago
@docdamag EXACTLY. Well said.
Histonia 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@j0hnwi11iams 4 cameras and an alarm system. Know what they captured both times? Men who didn't care that I had cameras... because they were criminals. Criminals will often do whatever it takes to get what they want. And, contrary to the populist mentality, many of said criminals will kill you for little or no reason at all. In that situation, one might find him/herself wishing he/she had a gun. Are you admitting, then, that you haven't been robbed? If so, your theory holds no weight.
Histonia 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
Comment removed
Histonia 1 month ago
This video represents one man's opinion on how he want's to address the issue of home defense (or lack thereof). I respect his opinion, however do not agree on him advocating this as "the right way" of doing things for everyone. Clearly, having an alarm system, cameras, and/or fleeing your home are choices that people should consider ,however many will still make the educated decision to have a firearm at hand (and be prepared to use it). Everybody's situations and skill-sets are different.
mr1drfuldude 1 month ago 4
@mr1drfuldude His opinion for sure. I'll keep my Glocks.
beerbrewer737 1 month ago
@mr1drfuldude Violence is always a last resort, as far as I'm concerned. You put yourself at significant risk and the penalty for failure is much worse. Add that to the fact that using a gun short circuits justice. Last time I checked people generally do not approve of handing out the death sentence for burglary.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams - I agree that violence is a last resort. As far as "short-circuiting justice"; I feel that guns can just as likely short-circuit a criminal's plans to terrorize, rape, and/or murder your family. Again, I respect your position. I believe that many should'nt have guns in the home, because they're not responsible and/or skilled enough to use them (or don't want to take the time to prepare). This is where your statistics come into play. I however, will choose to lawfully carry.
mr1drfuldude 1 month ago
@mr1drfuldude This. If someone wishes to protect themselves by fleeing or by having a security camera, that's up to them and so long as they don't require _me_ to make the same choices, I'm good with that.
docdamag 1 month ago
Statistics don't really matter. If someone is breaking into my house and is intent on hurting me or my family, I'm not going to say, "I am much more likely to have been killed by gun accidents than these intruders, so not getting a gun was the right choice."
Statistically, health insurance is a bad investment. This has to be the case, otherwise insurance companies would go out of business. You buy it to protect yourself from the edge cases, not the norm. Guns are life insurance.
ppardee 1 month ago 4
@ppardee Well said!
beerbrewer737 1 month ago
@ppardee Bad analogy. Buying insurance will never make you sick. Owning guns can kill you or a loved one.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams I have never once heard of a gun owner (or their family) being killed by their own gun when they are being responsible with it. I've heard of a ton of fools who have injured or killed themselves by not treating the gun with respect & children being killed by irresponsible storage, but even more people get killed by irresponsible drivers. We don't ban cars. Irresponsible insurance administration kills people in the form of denied coverage, but that's stretching the analogy a bit.
ppardee 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams Buying insurance is an opportunity cost. There are many things you can do with the money you spend on insurance which can improve your life in measurable ways. Looked at from that perspective, insurance harms your standard of living.
docdamag 1 month ago
@ppardee, you say "Guns are life insurance", which oddly enough result in a far greater probability of injuring or killing members of your own family, then any criminal. But you're OK with that.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen When I was a kid, two of my friends were shot in the face. Both were around other people playing with a gun. This was a result of stupid gun owners allowing kids access to the guns AND the kids being insulated from guns, so they were curious and were playing with them. In the hands of a responsible gun owner, guns are safe (unless you're the bad guy.) The fact that there are stupid people in the world doesn't negate the fact that a gun can save your life if you know how to use it.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee, interesting story about the 2 kids, problem is it's just one incident among many 1000s of cases. Cherry picking is irrelevant. The overall stats is what matters in a high level discussion.
You say "stupid people in the world doens't negate the fact that a gun can save your life if you know how to use it", AND can and does cause 1000s of famiy tragedies every year.
Do you consider police stupid and not gun trained/savy?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen Some people are stupid. Cops are people. Some cops are stupid. There is no cherry picking. (Modern) Guns are safe. People are dangerous. They will be dangerous with guns, knives, rocks, sticks, etc... Any argument you make for guns, I can also make for cars. Both are dangerous if not treated with respect. Both are massively useful.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee, You say "Some cops are stupid", doesn't change the fact that cops get infinitely more gun training then civies, yet lead in gun tragedies stats. It's the nature of a dangerous tool, even "(Modern) guns"
You say "People are dangerous", but less so with "knives, rocks, sticks, etc", good point.
You say "also make for cars", but car's huge beneift far outweght the risks, and there's training, licensing, re-testing, revoked licenses, enforcement, etc, You want the same for guns?
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen See, now we get to the fundamental issue. The benefit of guns far exceeds that of cars. Guns ensure freedom. Cars enhance it. The 2nd amendment says that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. All the regulation you suggest violates the constitution. Additionally, since guns ensure freedom, the government knowing who has what gun where compromises our ability to defend our freedoms against an increasingly oppressive state.
ppardee 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ppardee, you say "benefit of guns far exceeds that of cars...guns ensure freedom", explain how transportation, the foundation of the economy is "far" less important then guns, and how guns ensure freedom.
You say "2nd amendment...people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed", aren't convicts, the mentally disturbed, etc. people?
You say "regulation you suggest", be honest, you compare guns to cars, and I note state control regarding driving and ask if you want the same for guns
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen
Really?? HAve you even been to a police academy or even military basic training?
As long as you can hit more than 50% of the targets (with the sole exception of the USMC) you are considered a "marksman". Think of that the standard the military and police train to is if you can hit the target 55% of the time you are good to go.
Meanwhile in order to get my carry conceal permit in the State of North Carolina I had to hit the target 30 times out of 40 shots or 75% of the time.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ViCe1986, you say:
1. "Have you even been..." yes. Your point?
2. "can hit more than 50% of targets...good to go", 95% is the expert level
3. "75% of the time", how far was the target, etc
4. "In a perfect situation...gather your family and flee...camera is still worthless", CTRL-F "Casino", learn to sever yourself from a cherry picked case (ie far from the norm), to consider overall statistics that note a far higher probability of a family tragedy.
(con't)
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
I guess using your logic we shouldn't buy cars to get to work either since it is far more likely for us to get killed in a car accident!
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@ViCe1986
No, by that logic if public transportation is a viable option then you'd be better off using it because public transportation is demonstrably safer.
TheNakedAtheist 1 month ago
@ViCe1986 Bad analogy. A car is vital for daily survival if you commute to work. No one needs a gun in the same sense, except perhaps law enforcement.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams No one needs a gun. Not until they _really_ need it. You could own a gun for your entire life and never need it, but just one instance where you did need it justifies the purchase many times over.
docdamag 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams
It is not a bad analogy, possession and ownership of both tools put the owner at risk on injury or death. Yet, though automobile accidents kill tens of thousands of people each year a fraction of firearm accidental deaths, the automobile is not treated the same as a firearm.
The automobile is seen as a tool, the firearm as an abomination that kills. When if anything going on the amount of deaths each's accidents cause the firearm is the tool and the automobile the abomination.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
CONT
In both cases though it it not the automobile or the firearm that does anything at all except what the owner chooses for it to do.
When a reckless owner cranes into something and kills a person they are seen a responsible since they were the one operation the automobile. Now when it comes to firearms, people act like the weapon arms, loads, and discharges on it's own without any input from the one possessing it.
Plus his straw man, you will kill people if you are armed and mad is dumb
ViCe1986 1 month ago
I'll keep my firearm loaded and ready, and hope as I always do that I will never need to use it.
Someone doesn't own a weapon because they want to shoot someone, they own a weapon because they need a ability to defend there life, liberty, and property from the intrusion of ill intentions by wicked people.
A security camera will not hold a burglar till the police arrive, nor would it ever prevent crime.
You are a fool and a hypocrite, I can own a gun but you should not.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@ViCe1986-A security camera will not hold a burglar till the police arrive, nor would it ever prevent crime.
Security cameras if they are clearly visible will, and do unquestionably deter crime.
TheNakedAtheist 1 month ago
@ViCe1986 I know my opinions must seem threatening to you. I am after all advocating that your best alternative is to let the justice system work, and not take justice into your own hands. How helpless you must feel.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams I'm sure the victims cold and rotting corpse will feel ever so grateful for the video camera which prevented their murderer from escaping justice.
docdamag 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams
Yes, they are a threat to me and to every law abiding citizen in this nation. You are against the right to self defense a inalienable right given to all. Now while you are not actively seeking to remove this right from others, you are advising those considering to purchase a firearm for protection and defense from not doing so at there mortal peril.
Let's say your video found this young mother and she did not have that shotgun when those crooks kicked in her bedroom door?
ViCe1986 1 month ago
CONT
Your arguments are poor (security cameras do not stop crime, it does do much good to your family when your dead and they got the footage on film), your logic flawed (angry armed people do not shoot people, if that is the case half of the city of Raleigh NC would be dead, since I always carry a firearm), and your position is ultimately derived from false pretenses (that the persons has an avenue of escape, has nothing of vital importance in the home (maybe sleeping children??), and is dumb)
ViCe1986 1 month ago
CONT
I agree almost all will hopefully never have to discharge a firearm in a situation where there life is in mortal danger. But we don't wear seat belts, get checkups, or save for rainy days because we want to have bad things happen. We do these things as a preventive measure hoping that we never need to face a car accident, serious illness, or fiscal difficulties.
Carrying a firearm is no different, police are not everywhere, and you hope you never need to use a firearm ever.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@ViCe1986, you say "A security camera will not hold a burglar till the police arrive, nor would it ever prevent crime", and please tell everyone where JW said that in his video. Oh right he didn't and you're strawmanning.
JW's point is a video camera is irrefutable, catches everything and all the time, and as such it's a far better tool for crime reduction, by escalating the capture and conviction rates while detering crime.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen
It is not a straw man, it is a important fact. In a perfect situation where you have time to gather your family and flee when an intruder surprises you in the middle of the night. A camera is still worthless unless you are lucky enough to get a clear full face of the criminal.
That is the best case scenarip, do think of the worst case, you are home in bed on the second floor with your fancy cameras rolling, now you have people in your house on your stairs with nowhere to go.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
CONT
How is that camera going to stop them from harming your family now?
It isn't but your pump action shotgun will come through in that situation just fine. There is no benefit from a security camera, since it assumes that you will have time to flee and that you intruder will be dumb enough to expose his face clearly to the camera.
A shotgun costs less and is more reliable than any security camera or security alarm.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@ViCe1986, (con't)
5. "How is the camera going to stop them", Are you dense? CTRL-F "Casino", and realize the McKinley case is not a silver bullet one time proof of anything. Overall statistics say you're better off without gun access, as the chance of a family tragedy is far greater than having to deal with a burglar?
6. "shotgun costs less...security camera", again separate the specific McKinley case and consider OVERALL CRIME REDUCTION. Cameras work to catch/convict criminals.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
Comment removed
ViCe1986 1 month ago
That the gun is unlikely to be used for self defense is the whole point.Having a gun means that it is unlikely to be used. Is that not great? And "there is nothing in this house worth risking my life". Well, in my house I have a couple of things: kids and my dignity...
longbeachboy57 1 month ago
@longbeachboy57 Your dignity and $3.00 will get you a Latte. As for kids, even more reason to keep guns locked up.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Of course I keep my guns locked up, but I would still use them if there is a threat against my kids. You see, I can live with the idea of getting hurt in the process of defending myself, but I cannot live with the idea of being chased from my home or watching someone molest my kids. Do you have any dignity???
longbeachboy57 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams
Yes, and if you took your head out of the dirt you would know that 1) education is the key to preventing chidden from getting hurt from firearms (teach them early, teach them always) 2) they have biometric safes specifically designed to hold loaded handguns for that situation. There is no way in the safe without the fingerprint of the adult and it still allows quick and easy access to the weapon in time of need.
Your argument is still a utter failure, with no commonsense.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
Have security camera will only work if you advertise that you have video surveillance, even then a dedicated criminal will still try to break in. Yes you can flee, but what if you live in a two story house and get trap on the top floor? Or you live in an apartment?
TheMrRanz 1 month ago
@TheMrRanz Make noise. As long as you don't corner the burglar, he is likely to flee.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams
Like the noise of my 12 gauge shotgun pump action loading a buckshot shell into the chamber?
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams
Make noise??? Really so first you argue flee and then your next argument is to make noise??
Yes alert the intruder to you location while you have no means of defending yourself.
The only noise an intruder will hear in my house, is the pump action of a 12 gauge shotgun.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@TheMrRanz
Security Cameras, NEVER work. Homes with cameras still are robbed, all a camera tells a their is 1) wear a ski mask, 2) this dude has some expensive stuff in this house to be able to afford all those security cameras.
Unless the cameras are automated gun turrets that kill the intruder if he does not surrounded his weapon and lie on the ground till police arrive, they are only there to let the cops see how brutally the crook murdered your family.
ViCe1986 1 month ago
Install a security camera? Why? So the police can have visual evidence fo the lady begin raped and murdered and her child being murdered? The plain truth is that violent gun deaths are highest where gun ownership is the most restricted.
Why even have a gun if you don't keep ammunition where you can get to it. And if you "flee", that just leaves your guns for crimimals to find. You should sell them.
jtkirkfan2002 2 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002, you ask "camera?...So the police can have visual evidence of the lady[/child] being raped and murdered", in the rare extreme case yes, but in the many magnitudes more common cases, a simple burgery. All amounts to more captures and convictions.
You say "gun deaths are highest where gun ownrship is the most restricted", and which countries compare that way to America? None.
You ask "Why even have a gun", gun clubs, hunting...
"Criminals to find" but well hidden
ZangaroZen 2 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 Criminals commit crime to survive. They takes steps to avoid being caught. This includes not committing high profile crimes.
j0hnwi11iams 1 month ago
@j0hnwi11iams With all due respect, that is one of the more bizarre statements I have read.
longbeachboy57 1 month ago
Nugent/Doren 2016!
outsidemendham 2 months ago
Of course gun advocates will argue that crimes are prevented simply because intruders are concerned that you might have a gun, but6 of course unlike crimes of passion, or accidents that are measurable, possible crimes prevented are not, but that doesn't stop them from making that unsupported (by evidence) argument.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist, good point.
Funny how by country crime and gun ownership have an inverse relationship.
Another angle is that more guns promote more violent crimes not less. Society's criminal element, won't stop doing crimes because of more guns, they'll move onto easier targets and/or use more guns. In the end there are more criminals carrying more guns and everyone's more shoot first trigger happy.
ZangaroZen 2 months ago
@ZangaroZen
Not only that the US states per capita gun death rates correlate almost exactly with legal gun ownership rates. In other words more legal guns equals more deaths (violent, accidental, and suicides) not less. Interestingly enough those numbers also correlate with IQ (lowest average IQ states more legal guns/deaths, higher average IQ fewer guns/deaths.)
TheNakedAtheist 1 month ago
@TheNakedAtheist
So the real problem is education not the weapon, why ban a tool because the operator needs more education. Why not leave the tool alone , fix the real problem, which is the need for more education, and then things improve.
Of course though that would not give you a soap box to stand on, so I guess education is second to political agendas?
ViCe1986 1 month ago
@ViCe1986, you say "So the real problem is education not the weapon", hardly it's the WEAPON. A hammer is mostly a hammer, rarely a weapon, while a gun is always a weapon.
As for more education, you seem to be suggesting, comprehensive training and very