The fallacy of self defence by gun

Did you know, 65% of burglaries occur between 6am and 6pm, and most of those are between 10am and 3pm because most houses are empty during those times.

So tell me again, when your house is burgled and you're at work, how did your gun save you?


Burglaries in the United Kingdom.....

Wealthy retired couple tortured by burglars who forced wife to walk on broken glass in £20,000 raid


wealthy couple were tortured by "Swat team" burglars who forced the wife to walk on broken glass before breaking one of her toes with a sledgehammer while stealing £20,000 of gold and jewels.

Professional burglars John McCarthy, 35, and Richard Leslie, 37, were branded "every householder's worst nightmare" after playing leading roles in the gang that terrorised the vulnerable pensioners for four hours during a night-time raid.

--------

During their ordeal, the couple, aged in their 70s, were bound with tape, beaten, threatened and locked in a utility room.

The burglars hit the 77-year-old man with a chair and forced his 75-year-old wife to walk barefoot on glass, having discarded her slippers.

One of the burglars threatened to cut off the wife's fingers and ear with a pair of shears if gold, cash and Rolex watches were not produced.

She also needed extensive dental treatment because of the beating to her face. Her husband was stuck with pins "many times" to extort more valuables, the court heard.

During the attack, one of the armed intruders boasted: "This is what we do for a living."

They made off with Chinese ornaments in 24 carat gold, jewellery, silver commemorative coins featuring Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, gold bars, a custom-made Seiko watch as well as thousands of pounds and Hong Kong dollars in cash.
============

An Englishman's home is his dungeon

Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term.

Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.


These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

Waterboarded by a gang of robbers in her £7m home: Masked intruders torture grandmother, 73, for three hours to make her open a safe


That led to a terrifying three-hour ordeal in which the attackers used waterboarding – a form of torture in which the victim is made to feel they are about to be drowned.


The men took underwear from Mrs Jansen’s bedroom and forced it into her mouth before dragging her into the en-suite bathroom. They pulled her head back over the bath and covered her face with a towel they kept flooded with water from the shower head.
‘They did this to me three times but I just couldn’t open the safe,’ she said. ‘I kept telling them it was empty but they didn’t believe me.’
Mrs Jansen, who lives on a private estate in Weybridge, Surrey, told the Mail: ‘I was absolutely terrified, I thought they were going to kill me.


‘They asked me if I had any grandchildren, I told them I had ten and they said “We are going to kill you, do you think your grandchildren will miss you?”

‘I was consumed by fear. It was sheer hell and all I can remember is praying.’
Her six-bedroomed house had been broken into several weeks before the attack last Friday and Surrey Police believe the raiders had located the two safes at that point.


Read more: Waterboarded by a gang of robbers in her £7m home: Masked intruders torture grandmother, 73, for three hours to make her open a safe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Look...in the 1920s they said the same thing about the government calling for registration and confiscation of guns........the government isn't crazy, they just want to reduce crime and kbreep people safe....15 years later the socialists used the lists from the 20s to confiscate guns.....Germany had courts, the rule of law, modern political processes, universities, the sciences and philosophy..........and 15 years later they murdered 15 million people......

So sell that silliness about not using actual examples to defend this Right to biden voters......

You should know that I am neither a Biden supporter nor a supporter of gun control laws.

But I still don't like seeing Nazis brought into debates.

and for your information, German in the 1920s and 30s did NOT have what we would call "modern political processes". They were at best a sick and troubled country.
 
I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy

Sure, Caveman. And I can prove you a liar and a fool in 5 seconds by laying a loaded gun on the table besides you then coming at you and your family with a machete. You'd pick that gun up so fast without a second thought and shoot me in self-defense so fast to save yourself your head would spin. :laugh:
 
"how emotions can hijack rational-decision-making processes to the point of being the dominant influence on risk assessments. Research has shown that “perceived risk judgments”—estimates of the likelihood that something bad will happen—are especially hampered by emotion"

You're just an emotional wreck with your perceived possible hourly violence occurrences.
I don't imagine anything.

I don't have to because unlike you I know that violent crime exists and that every violent crime has a victim.

I violent crime in the US every 26 seconds.
 
Well at least today's shooter in Texas was able to defend himself against 14 little kids. And his grandmother.

I hope our local 2A Fetishists are busy with thotz-n-prayerz.
 
Well at least today's shooter in Texas was able to defend himself against 14 little kids. And his grandmother.

I hope our local 2A Fetishists are busy with thotz-n-prayerz.
Noone here was involved . . .

Ya know, alcohol is involved in a lot of deaths. What do ya say we ban that shyt and stop all the deaths? Noone needs a drink.
 
Well at least today's shooter in Texas was able to defend himself against 14 little kids. And his grandmother.

I hope our local 2A Fetishists are busy with thotz-n-prayerz.


When you can tell us how the owners of the other 600 million guns, the 20 million people who can legally carry guns in public for self defense, had anything to do with the shooter....then we can talk..
 
I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -


Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.
We won't mind if you don't carry.
 
When you can tell us how the owners of the other 600 million guns, the 20 million people who can legally carry guns in public for self defense, had anything to do with the shooter....then we can talk..
He is welcome to "not carry one"
We do not care.

Jo
 
The age of the studies are irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant when the numbers of legal defensive incidents is directly related to the degree that legal carry is recognized. Today there are tens of millions more people carrying then when those studies examined the incidents of defensive gun use.

Are the numbers reported for DGU's in the mid-'90's, (which those 'studies" of your OP were based on) representative of how many incidents there are of defensive gun uses TODAY?

How many murder victims in the very high murder rate mid-'90's, would have lived if they were able carry then and defend themselves?

Can you link any "study" that answers those two questions?


If you require more, check this link -


That link does not speak to or support the premise presented in your OP pertaining to the number of defensive gun uses.

You will find a wealth of studies outlining the negative effects of guns, "more than 30 years of public health research supports thinking of guns as statistically more of a personal hazard than a benefit".

Again, not the premise of thread or the evidence presented in the OP (that the reported numbers of defensive gun uses does not justify the desire of law abiding citizens to carry a gun for self defense).

Many studies, scientific based and peer reviewed, all draw the same conclusions, the Harvard ones being no different.

The Harvard studies are cultivated and published by a rabid anti-gunner.

Keep on reading and you find that gun nuts suffer from the cognitive biases and motivated reasoning problems.

And yet you don't see that the "studies" cited are not available to the gen-pop for review and the public (even governmental) data sources are interpreted rather than reported (e.g., NCVS).

You are the one who is accepting the opinion of a rabid anti-gunner and his self-serving (and self-referential) citations to papers he both authored and directed their composition and inclusion in various Harvard academic publications.

Sounds like an incestuous relationship that does not foster or encourage unbiased research or scholarship.
 
Last edited:
No. Let's say you're not out shopping and are at home when the home invader invades, and he forces his way in despite you being present.

What is your advice to the victim should they be confronted with such a situation?
Carrying on your theoretical, the victims dog scared the invader away :rolleyes:
 
Sure, Caveman. And I can prove you a liar and a fool in 5 seconds by laying a loaded gun on the table besides you then coming at you and your family with a machete. You'd pick that gun up so fast without a second thought and shoot me in self-defense so fast to save yourself your head would spin. :laugh:
55 years later, still waiting for the machete attack.

When did you get attacked by a machete?

(you guys are idiots)
 

Forum List

Back
Top